FAA signals limited federal support for small parallel runway at Battle Creek airport; city weighs redevelopment

At a March 11 meeting of the Battle Creek City Airport Advisory Board, airport staff reported that the Federal Aviation Administration, after an early review with the Michigan Department of Transportation Office of Aeronautics, does not expect to provide discretionary federal funding for the airport’s smaller parallel runway.

The report came from Phil, airport staff, who said the state and the FAA reviewed consultant findings and tenant interviews in an initial meeting that the airport and its consultant had not attended. “Based on the findings of all the data … the FAA informed MDOT … they don't see financial support being given to the smaller parallel runway,” Phil said.

The point matters because the runway occupies land that could be redeveloped and because federal funding determines which pavements the airport can afford to rehabilitate. Phil said the parallel runway is about 15 years old and in “pretty decent shape” after roughly $100,000 of crack sealing and repainting last year, but that long‑term reconstruction would be costly if federal discretionary dollars are not available. He said the airport’s recent annual operations have ranged roughly between 85,000 and 95,000 and summarized the FAA’s view that current operations and projections mean the agency is unlikely to fund that runway.

The airport has three paved runways: a primary 10,000‑foot runway, a roughly 5,000‑foot crosswind runway, and the smaller parallel runway (just over 4,000 feet). Phil said the FAA meeting was preliminary and that further internal FAA review remains pending. He described short‑term options for the next two to five years to keep the surface maintained and longer‑term options if federal funding is unavailable, including redevelopment for hangars, office complexes or production facilities.

Phil outlined potential development areas on both the east and west sides of the field and estimated nearly 100 acres of land that could be repurposed if the airport decided not to maintain the parallel runway. He said redevelopment would likely be faster and more cost effective on the east side because the ground is flatter and existing infrastructure—ramps and access—already exists there.

Board members asked clarifying questions about how the FAA decision would affect the main 10,000‑foot runway; Phil said that FAA staff had not yet discussed the larger runway in that initial meeting and the airport had no indication that the primary runway would be shortened or narrowed.

Phil said the airport will continue to engage with MDOT and the FAA and will update the advisory board as the FAA completes its internal review. No formal vote or policy change on the runway’s status occurred at the March 11 meeting.