Burley Municipal (KBYI), Idaho: Airport Fails Standards, Could Lose Federal Aviation Administration Funding

BURLEY • The Burley J.R. “Jack” Simplot Airport is not making the grade and might lose its FAA funding. If it does, the airport could close.

Federal Aviation Administration officials say a new study, to look at relocation sites and see if the current airport could ever meet federal standards, will be the last study they fund.

“I think it would be very problematic to the commerce of our area if the airport closed,” said pilot Kim Hansen, owner of Kim Hansen Chevrolet. “I’m very concerned as a businessman. We cannot lose our airport.”

Many people are unaware of how much commerce happens at the airport, with package deliveries and chartered flights for business people who need to be in Denver that afternoon, said Hansen, who uses the airport for recreational and business flights.

To lose that would devastate the Mini-Cassia economy, he said.

“If it comes down to an either-or situation, I’d say pick a site and support it if you want to have continued air service,” said Jan Rogers, executive director of the Southern Idaho Economic Development Organization (SIEDO). “Because losing it would certainly have an economic impact to the area.”

For major corporations, the airport is neither a “deal-maker nor -breaker,” Rogers said. Large businesses are satisfied with an airport 25 minutes away. “But I would sure hate to see Burley lose its airport completely.”

Smaller businesses that regularly use the airport don’t have other options nearby.

Despite land-use disagreements and jurisdictional squabbles that have stymied city attempts to find a new airport site, the City Council approved a $520,000 FFA grant application July 1, to conduct another study for two relocation sites and to survey what it would take to bring the current facility up to standards. The grant requires a $37,556 match from the city and a $20,222 state match.

Burley began studying sites for a new airport nearly 20 years ago, in 1995.

Two previous attempts to move the facility were thwarted by land-use disagreements, many over agricultural land. This time, two sites were selected farther out, on poor farm ground near the I-84 and I-86 interchange and a parcel mainly owned by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

But not everyone condones a new airport at either site.

The Burley Airport Users Association, formed by local pilots, can’t support either site, as both are remote and lack services, said association President Jack Hunsaker, a local business owner.

“If they put the airport at either of the sites, I’ll just start going to Twin Falls because the airport will be so difficult to access,” Hunsaker said.

Pilots would have trouble landing at the interstates interchange site because of crosswinds off Cottrell Ridge, he said.

The current airport has east-west and north-south runways. The new airport would have only one runway to accommodate the prevailing wind.

Hunsaker said many pilots would also have a problem putting a $200,000 airplane at an airport that has no security.

The FAA doesn’t require security at general aviation airports. If the airport is moved to one of the rural sites, the FAA would review the need for fences, especially to keep wildlife off the runways, said Steve Engelbrech, a civil engineer and project manager for the agency.. He said the FAA would also participate in costs for gates that need a code to control theft, vandalism and people joyriding on the runways.

Hansen said the I-84-86 site also is the least favorable because it does not have ready interstate access. Nearby on-ramps don’t exist.

“If you have to drive 30 minutes to put someone on a Life Flight plane, that doesn’t make sense,” he said.

Cassia Regional Medical Center has a helipad, said Administrator Rod Barton. “Sometimes we do take patients to the airport. And depending on where the helicopter’s been, sometimes they do refuel there. So the airport is very important to us.”

The FAA already has spent $624,082 to study airport sites, said Engelbrech.

It won’t fund any more studies, and it will pull the plug in the middle of this one if there is not community cooperation and participation, he said.

This study will take about a year to gather and analyze information and educate community residents.

“The FAA has funded all of these studies because they think we need to move the airport,” said City Councilman Casey Andersen.

By law, the FAA can only fund projects that meet standards, Engelbrech said.

If the city loses FAA funding, it would have to pay for the upkeep — or close the airport.

But the city doesn’t have money for that maintenance, Andersen said. “I think we are in danger of losing our airport.”

Engelbrech visited the airport in March to evaluate its compliance with safety standards.

Both runways fail to meet standards because the runways’ ends don’t have object-free zones, and they have insufficient graded safety areas for planes to use during an emergency.

While runway length is not a safety requirement, the FAA has recommended lengths, and both Burley runways fall short, he said.

The published length of the runways is longer than the actual usable lengths, Engelbrech said. They were measured from end to end. Work is underway to revise the published lengths, which would provide the needed safety zones but would not resolve the lack of object-free zones.

And the remaining runway length would accommodate only small aircraft, Engelbrech said, so the community would have to decide if such an airport is adequate.

“It would effectively ruin our airport,” Hansen said, because many corporate planes’ insurers prohibit them from using a 2,500-foot runway.

The FAA also would have to review how much money it wants to sink into an airport used only by local pilots, Engelbrech said.

The 1930 airport now is surrounded by a growing city, the Snake River and a federal highway.

In order to lengthen the runways to 6,000 feet, the north-south runway would extend past 16th Street into the 18th Way neighborhood, and the east-west runway would take out part of the fairgrounds, City Administrator Mark Mitton said during the July 1 council meeting.

So railroad tracks, a state highway and city streets all would have to be moved, at a cost of about $100 million, Mitton said.

While no detailed cost studies have been done, Engelbrech said the estimate is probably not far off the mark.

Although the FAA does help pay to bring an airport up to standards, it likely won’t cover moving a chunk of the town, he said.

The FAA will pay 90 percent of eligible costs to move a general aviation airport, though, Engelbrech said.

That includes money for land acquisition, runway construction and lighting.

Money also is available for a pilots’ lounge or small building.

The city would be responsible for making the current hangar owners whole, he said.

Andersen said the city would have the hangars appraised and offer the owners fair market value.

The airport has received minimal repairs over the past 22 years, such as pavement crack seal and seal coat.

But over the next 10 years, every piece of pavement will need to be torn out and redone, Engelbrech said.

The city can’t afford to spend a couple of million dollars for the airport’s needed improvements, Andersen said.

“We want to keep the airport,” Hunsaker said. “But if we lose FAA funding, it will really go into disrepair.”

Andersen said he doesn’t really like the two chosen sites either. But if the airport isn’t moved, the city will have to decide whether it wants to accept responsibility for an airport that doesn’t meet FAA standards.

People have to look down the road 30 years, when there will be even fewer available sites, he said.

“If the airport doesn’t meet FAA standards, how in good conscience can we keep it open?”


At a Glance

The Burley airport is on the city’s northeast edge and was dedicated in 1930. In 2002, it was rededicated as the Burley J.R. “Jack” Simplot Airport.

Airport issues:
• The airport does not meet Federal Aviation Administration standards. Both runways, slightly longer than 4,000 feet, lack safety zones, graded emergency areas and obstacle-free zones. Obstacles at the runway ends include fences, railroad tracks, a highway, lighted bridge, grain elevator, cheese factory, streetlights, trees and the Snake River. The obstacles pose safety risks for pilots, citizens and property. Nearby waterfowl also create a potential hazard for pilots.

• Airport expansion is constrained by the Snake River, U.S. 30 and Hiland Avenue. Attempts to build a new airport in 1997 and 2008 were halted by land-use issues at the selected sites.

• In November 2011, an airport advisory committee was convened to select viable sites but was met with near-unanimous opposition by landowners of and near the four potential sites chosen. Officials surveyed other sites, and two are now on the table.

What’s next:

Burley officials are pursuing an FAA grant to study what it would take to bring the airport up to standards and to further vet the proposed sites.

The sites:

The primary site is next to West Baseline Road and 950 West, sitting 11 miles northwest of Burley’s city center. Putting an airport on this site would cost an estimated. $15.1 million. Five parcels would be affected. About 90 percent of the land is owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and federal government. No homes are affected. Ten percent of the land is used for agriculture.

The secondary site is next to the interchanges of Interstates 84 and 86 and is 16 miles from Burley’s city center. Costs for an airport here would be $20.613 million. Eight parcels are affected, with 15 percent of the land owned by the Idaho Highway Department. No homes are affected. About 15 percent of the parcels are agricultural.

Story and Photos:  http://magicvalley.com