Opinion pieces, analyses and letters are intended to provide a diverse range of views from our community. They are not intended to represent the views of Maui Now.

OPINION: Big Dollars and Dubious Info at Runway Meeting

January 24th, 2012 · 2 Comments · Opinion and Analysis
Share |

crowd dot info meet

A standing-room-only crowd listened to a presentation on improvements to the Kahului Airport runways. Susan Halas photo.

By Susan Halas

It was standing room-only last night for an informational meeting on proposed improvements to the Kahului Airport runways. An estimated crowd of 400 Mauians jammed the Pomaikai Elementary School cafeteria in Kahului to hear Hawaii Department of Transportation spokesperson Dan Meisenzahl present three options for runway upgrades.

Options 1 and 2 had estimated costs ranging from $34 to $84 million. They both involved closing the airport to wide-bodied aircraft traffic from three to ten weeks while improvements were made.

There was no aircraft landing restriction on Option 3 which had a price tag estimated at $110 to $134 million.

It was not surprising that the room was packed with residents, state officials, and local politicos – the airport has always stirred local passions.

But it was interesting to note that this crowd seemed well-rehearsed and their mood was more like a game rally or campaign event. When the floor was opened to questions and comments participants including employees, union officials, hospitality organizations and business groups waved signs and delivered prepared speeches.

As for information, they didn’t seem to need much, by a show of hands those present were overwhelmingly in favor of Option 3.

signs for option 3

The crowd didn't need information, they had their minds made up. Susan Halas photo.

Maybe it was a good thing that they already had their minds made up, because for an “informational” meeting there was surprisingly little real information actually available.

The program consisted entirely of a power point presentation and remarks by Meisenzahl and his DOT bosses.

There was nothing in writing. There was no agenda. There was no hand-out with a summary of costs. There was not so much as a post-it note left behind to indicate what was coming next, or where the actual data to back up these big ticket options might be obtained.

Spokesperson Meisenzahl did say his  slides would go up on the DOT website today. He also indicated the meeting was the first of many to “discuss” the project.

Tossed casually into the mix of big numbers and scanty details was an additional proposal for relocating and upgrading the airport’s car rental facility. This construction was slated to occur prior to runway improvements in scenarios 2 and 3. The consolidated car rental facility (CONRAC) had a price tag estimated at an additional $220-$250 million by DOT Deputy Director Ford Fuchigami.

It was also indicative of things to come that Meisenzahl, who pegged the project costs in $30-$60 million range as recently as mid-December was now, just a month later, presenting ball-park figures that looked closer to $300 million.

How those numbers had floated upward so dramatically in such a short time was not explained.

Discussion of how it would all be paid for was equally thin, other than to say that in the past the FAA has paid 75% of the costs (pending availability of funds) and the state transportation funds have contributed the remaining 25%.

Sign Up To Our Weekly Newsletter

Related Stories:

Tags: ·····


Editor's Note:Maui Now is an open forum and we welcome any views. However, please apply your sense of aloha when posting comments - remarks that are unnecessarily offensive will be blocked.

 
By publishing a comment, you are acknowledging that you are personally responsible for its contents.

  • Daniel Meisenzahl

    I have to disagree with Ms. Halas on some of the points made in her editorial. First of all, when word of the project first came out in the media right here on the Maui Today website, the Department of Transportation (DOT) was in the process of setting up stakeholder meetings and finalizing the information. Ms. Halas did not have all the facts and her source on the story did not have the correct information. I did confirm that an option could cost $30 million to $60 million which is only one of the three construction options. I told her and the editor of Maui Today that I would not release any information until it was finalized, so for Ms. Halas to state, “It was also indicative of things to come that Meisenzahl, who pegged the project costs in $30-$60 million range as recently as mid-December was now, just a month later, presenting ball-park figures that looked closer to $300 million,” is an example of cherry-picking certain facts in order to serve her point of view. Ms. Halas also failed to mention something I went to great lengths to explain at the public meeting. This type of public involvement so early in the process is unprecedented. Normally, in a case like this, a government agency makes a decision with no public input and then begins the environmental process. It is during that process that public input is sought and different options are examined. The DOT decided very early on in this process that the airport stakeholders and public would be included in the interest of transparency and in the hope that issues and concerns that DOT officials may have overlooked could be addressed. I do agree with Ms. Halas regarding the tone of the meeting. Leaders from Maui unions, travel industry and business organizations did rally the troops and the majority in attendance favored the third option. Although many residents with legitimate concerns may have felt discouraged to voice them, forms were provided to submit written comments. Fortunately, we already have a dialog with many of those residents and we are working to address their concerns. As promised during the meeting, the entire presentation has been posted on the DOT and Airports Division websites at hawaii.gov/dot and public input can still be e-mailed to dotpao@hawaii.gov and public input can still be e-mailed to dotpao@hawaii.gov. Lastly, I wish Ms. Halas had taken to time to approach me after the meeting to discuss some of these concerns and get all of the information before writing her editorial.

  • Richard Langseth

    Hawaii DOT comments below are not consistent with FAA policy which requires a statewide planning process which encourages public participation. Noise mitigation also requires public participation before the fact.  The Airport Master Plan process also involves public participation. These items are all pre-environmental impact. The FAA also encourages the development of a stakeholders group long before the EIS kicks in.  The consolidated car rental facility presents a big financial risk for the airport.  Currently your airport is generating about $17 million per year in car rental revenues for airport operations — an item that keeps the airport in the black.  When the consolidated rental facility is built for $300 million it will be called a special facility and must be self-sustaining. There are no federal funds available to build this facility.  About $30 million in debt service will be incurred per year for 30 years plus $2 to $4 million to operate this facility.  Depreciation must be considered too. That would run to about $10 million per year in reserve build up that goes against the airport’s theoretical bottom line. 

    I have been following a similar car rental issue in Rhode Island.  It was a totally unnecessary facility for us that cost almost $300 million.  Two years into operations our Airport Corporation (a state agency) is refusing to release its accountings for this special facility.  The original bond underwriting documents show this facility going deep into the red on July 1, 2012 when bond maturities and federal TIFIA loan principle repayments create the threat of the airport’s bond rating to drop below investment grade.  There are very few airports that fall into the junk bond status.  Everyone in Maui should demand that this consolidated car rental idea be scrapped!