Budget concerns could alter airport’s flight plan for runway extension

Matt Crane contributed to this report.

Budget tightening could force the Dubois County Airport Authority to choose the least expensive option for a 500-foot runway extension.

Nick Isenberg, with Indianapolis-based Woolpert, the firm guiding the airport through the extension process, told the authority he had good news and bad news to report from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) at Monday’s meeting.

INDOT and the FAA will provide about 95 percent of the funding for this project; 90 percent from the FAA and 5 percent from INDOT with the airport covering the remainder.

Isenberg said the good news was the forward momentum on the project but added the process had become a complicated mess caught up in funding issues.

“I’ve been confronted by INDOT. They’re looking at budgeting for the entire state right now, and they’re getting ready to meet with the FAA trying to look at cutting costs,” he explained. “It’s not just you. They’re calling us on every airport we’re working with.”

Isenberg explained that in trying to minimize costs, some airports wanting to reconstruct runways were being asked to simply complete a 2-inch mill and overlay; a short term but less costly solution to deteriorating surfaces.

Isenberg said Mike Buening, INDOT’s new chief airport engineer, was being leaned on by the FAA to make sure the federal funding is spent wisely across the state.

In regards to the Dubois County Airport Authority, Buening is pushing for them to move forward with the least expensive of three options for extending the runway 500 feet. The three options labeled Alternates A, B and C are each a variation of the addition of a tunnel on County Road 200W at the end of the runway extension.

Alternates A and C each are estimated to cost over $7 million to construct while Alternate B comes in around $5 million.

The airport authority had been leaning towards Alternative C due to safety factors for pilots and ease of maintenance in regards to the tunnel. The tunnel in that option would be built to run completely under the runway and taxiway whereas the other options offer to break up the tunnel or even shorten it to only be under the runway area.

Isenberg told the authority that INDOT and the FAA would need justification for going with the more costly alternative.

“To ultimately get to Alternate C, I need help with the justification. I need help justifying why the FAA and INDOT need to spend that money from your perspective,” he said. “Because, safety-wise, and what they’re doing with other airports, it is more in line with Alternative B.”

If they are unable to convince the FAA and INDOT of the need for the more costly option, the airport could still go that route and cover the difference between it and the less costly option. Or, they can go with Alternative B.

Also in the meeting, Airport Manager Travis McQueen told the board about the potential construction of a 345-kilovolt power line between Duff and a Coleman substation in Hancock County, Kentucky, just east of the Hancock County Airport. The new line is being commissioned by Midcontinent Independent System Operator, a group that operates and maintains the power grids in parts of Canada and 15 states.

This new line would be a mile west of the Huntingburg Airport, which would affect the altitude for west approaches to the airport on Runway 09.

“A 100-foot tall power line, a mile west from us, is not a good thing,” McQueen said.

A factor that could impact the process was the request by Best Home Furnishings for the airport to lower the approach to Runway 09. The request was made so the approach would match that of Runway 27.

During Monday’s meeting, the authority approved lowering the approach from the west which if approved would push their airspace further west past County Road 400W towards County Road 500W. If the FAA approves the move by the authority, construction would be prohibited within the airspace.

Also, McQueen reported there is a waiting list for T-hangar space now and that Jim Kulbeth is the first party on the list.

Kulbeth, who was in attendance, asked about progress on getting a new T-hangar built since the demand for rental space remains high.

Board President Michael Cummings told him that the authority is continuing to discuss how they can get funding for another hangar and that one of the options might include financing the project instead of seeking funding from the county. This approach might be necessary since the county continues to seek remedies for the loss of annual revenue.

Kulbeth says the board should take a “build it, and they will come” approach to T-hangars.