Airport advisory groups say critical information on runway withheld from council 

Members of two airport advisory groups said Monday that city councilors were missing critical information when they decided to move forward with closing a secondary runway during a work session on the matter in February.

The city’s Airport Advisory Commission in a letter suggested the costs of rehabilitating and maintaining the runway were overstated in a consultant report, while city officials failed to explore alternative funding sources that could help cover costs.

The result, the group said, is that the information presented to councilors left the impression that closing the runway was the only viable option to avoid spending tens of millions of dollars.  

Members of the groups testified at a Monday city council meeting after saying a letter voicing their concerns was not delivered to the mayor and council ahead of a Feb. 18 work session to consider the airport’s future.

Brent DeHart, the CEO of Salem Aviation Fueling who serves on the Airport Master Plan Advisory Committee, said the committee met one time two years ago and the main topic of discussion was keeping the secondary runway open. 

He told city councilors that information from both the committee and the commission were withheld from them. 

“Input from both of these advisory groups has been hidden from you,” he told councilors Monday. “We are the citizen input body for the master plan and yet you’ve received a master plan update two years after we had a single meeting without any input from us whatsoever.” 

The master plan process was halted after the airport reintroduced commercial flights in 2023, DeHart said.

“I don’t know any topic that could possibly be more the purview of a master plan than how much infrastructure do we have, where does it go and how does it get paid for,” DeHart said. “So, it feels to us like it’s a purposeful tactic from the consultant and the airport manager to bring forward an agenda, provide a one sided presentation, without any public input.” 

The subject of the secondary runway came up during the February work session where Salem city councilors were told fixing the runway would cost the city between $10 million and $12 million while leaving the city responsible for ongoing maintenance costs of about $25,000 per year. 

Councilors were told rebuilding the runway completely would cost $24 million.

The figures are based on reports provided by Portland-based Mead & Hunt, Inc., an architectural, engineering, planning and construction firm advising the city on the matter. 

Councilors, weary of incurring even more expenses as the city faces a nearly $14 million deficit, indicated their support to remove the runway altogether.

The secondary runway is popular among pilots landing smaller aircraft at Salem’s airport and pilots told city councilors Monday its removal would make general aviation less safe. 

The advisory commission’s letter, written in March 2024, expressed misgivings about Mead & Hunt’s cost estimates for the options presented to counselors. Doug Brenizer, vice chairman of the commission said concerns arose after Mead & Hunt vastly overestimated the cost rehab necessary on the aviation terminal to support commercial aviation. They put the project cost at $10 million and $12 million and said it would take 18 to 24 months to complete, Brenizer said. The project cost less than $1.5 million and was completed in six months. 

“We assumed that they might have some problems with this new report and we wanted to make sure that information was accurate,” Brenizer told the council. 

Ron Peters, general manager at Salem Aviation Fueling, echoed the sentiment that alternative funding sources were absent from the conversation concerning the fate of the secondary runway. He said despite the absence, there are other ways to secure county, state and federal funding worth exploring.

“No one in aviation or in this aviation community would expect a runway rehab to be paid for by the general fund and its dollars,” Peters told councilors. “And yet they clearly left you with that impression.” 

Public Works Director Brian Martin said in a staff report leading up to Monday’s meeting that the city’s public works department will conduct an independent review of the Mead & Hunt cost estimates and explore potential alternative funding sources. 

“Our goal is to ensure that all relevant facts and considerations are available to support a well-informed decision later this summer,” Martin said. 

There were also safety concerns associated with the runway’s removal brought up at Monday’s council meeting. 

Hannah McLaughlin, a local pilot, told city councilors Monday that closing the runway makes it more difficult for small planes to land safely at the airport under certain weather conditions. 

“It’s concerning to me that while general aviation makes up a large number of operations at the airport the consultants are throwing general aviation safety into the inconsequential pile,” McLaughlin said. “My safety, and the safety of my aircraft and my pilot friends is not inconsequential.”

Contact reporter Joe Siess: [email protected] or 503-335-7790.

A MOMENT MORE, PLEASE – If you found this story useful, consider subscribing to Salem Reporter if you don’t already. Work such as this, done by local professionals, depends on community support from subscribers. Please take a moment and sign up now – easy and secure: SUBSCRIBE.