Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Graham council briefed on failing culvert under Runway 21; repair options could cost $2M–$6M
Summary
City and airport board members presented findings on a collapsing culvert under Runway 21 at Graham Municipal Airport, discussing engineering options, estimated construction costs between $2 million and $6 million, possible funding matches and a proposal to borrow city funds for the local share.
City of Graham officials and the airport board detailed structural failure in a culvert beneath Runway 21 on Thursday, presenting repair options whose construction estimates range from about $2 million to $6 million and saying the city may need to supply a local match to secure outside funding.
The presentation, led by airport representatives and discussed with city staff, said the culvert — roughly 36 feet deep and about 450 feet long — has suffered subsidence along much of its length. Airport board president Steve Pierce said the damage has compromised the runway and forced the airport to move the landing threshold back about 800 feet for safety.
The board will hold a special meeting April 2 to evaluate construction methods and recommend a preferred approach to the city engineer. Council members and staff emphasized the need to balance short-term cost with long-term durability; staff said a midrange scenario of about $4 million would likely require a city match on the order of 10 percent (about $400,000) though some funding sources and formulas discussed could change that amount.
In the meeting, staff described several funding paths under consideration. TxDOT has moved the project high on its priority list and the airport’s nonprimary entitlement funds (often referred to in the meeting as IJA funds) could be applied to the project; however, staff cautioned the meeting that TxDOT typically requires a local match. City staff said they are prepared to explore issuing a certificate of obligation or otherwise borrowing to provide the local share and to repay the debt from airport revenues, principally jet fuel sales. City staff and airport volunteers noted that larger jet arrivals generate substantially higher fuel revenue than routine Avgas sales.
Officials also discussed ancillary work needed at both ends of the culvert and improved access for inspections. Staff said the project scope could include reconstructing concrete headwalls and addressing erosion where trees have grown through failing concrete structures. The city plans to run camera inspections on other airport culverts after this discovery to look for similar problems.
Airport board members stressed economic and safety trade-offs. Staff noted a 2018 TxDOT economic impact study (cited in the discussion) that attributed roughly $2 million annually in local economic activity to the airport; they said permanently shortening the runway could reduce jet traffic and related economic benefits.
The airport board will evaluate construction alternatives and scoring matrices at its April 2 special meeting and present a recommendation to council. Council members asked staff to return with a clearer funding plan and the council indicated it would consider borrowing options to provide any necessary local match.
Ending: The airport board and city staff left the council without a final decision but with a timeline: the board will choose a recommended construction method on April 2, after which staff will present cost, funding and borrowing recommendations to council for formal action.
