Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marshfield council restores runway extension to five‑year CIP after airport presentations
Summary
After airport officials and residents described operational and safety limits tied to the city’s 4,999‑foot runway, the Common Council voted to add a $2.2 million Runway 16–34 extension and partial parallel taxiway back into the 2026–2030 capital improvement plan, with the city’s share shown as $117,000.
The Common Council on Tuesday voted to add the Runway 16–34 extension and a partial parallel taxiway back into the city’s 2026–2030 capital improvement plan.
Council member Scott Koran said the city’s share for the project is modest relative to its lifetime: “The cost of the project is a $117,000 split over next year and the following year,” he said, noting the runway built in 1991 has served the community for 33 years.
Why it matters: airport advocates and staff told the council the shorter runway limits arrivals during wet conditions, affects organ‑donor flights and business access, and could put the city in conflict with federal grant assurances if the runway is rebuilt to modern standards without meeting current length guidelines. Airport users and committee members also offered new revenue steps they say will offset the city share, including raising hangar rents and an increased land lease.
Airport committee member Jeff Geier described operational consequences: “Let me explain why we have to have the extension. The extension is needed when it rains,” he said, adding that wet or “contaminated” runways increase required stopping distance and can cancel time‑sensitive donor flights.
Committee members and staff described local demand and peer comparisons. Koran said the project, estimated at about $2.2 million, would likely last 30 years; he noted peer airports such as Stevens Point and Wisconsin Rapids have longer runways, and that Marshfield’s runway is among the shortest of similar communities.
Finance and process: staff told the council the CIP previously showed the city funding the uncovered portion by long‑term debt. Speakers proposed offsetting some debt with increased airport revenues (a $5,000 annual land‑lease floor and higher hangar rates). Finance staff said the CIP can be revised before final adoption to reflect any additional revenue identified.
Council action and next steps: a motion to add Project 415‑3825 (Runway 16–34 extension and partial parallel taxiway) back into the CIP passed. Staff said the finalized CIP and debt plan will come back to council in the next two to four weeks, at which point funding sources and any revenue offsets will be shown.
The council also heard from residents and airport users during the public comment period in support of continued airport investment; the runway matter spurred extended debate over priorities and whether nearby businesses should be asked to contribute.
