While I have no comment regarding the funding of this project, according to the FAA there are good reasons why a replacement airport is needed:

“Friedman Memorial Airport does not comply with a number of FAA airport design standards. Although the airport and the FAA ensure the safe operation of the airport, this is an impact to the airport and community in its ability to meet the current and future demands due to its limits on capacity and efficiency.

For example:

The horizontal distance between the airport parallel taxiway and the runway is at 250 ft. rather than the required 400 ft. per FAA design standard. In order to meet FAA design standards for the type of commercial and general aviation aircraft that routinely use the airport, aircraft taxi movements are constrained when aircraft such as the Horizon Airlines Dash 8-400 flies into Friedman Memorial.

The FAA required Runway Safety Area and Runway Object Free Areas do not meet standards because of the close proximity of the runway to State Highway 75. Because of the Runway Safety Area length deficiency a portion of the north end of the runway is not available for use for aircraft takeoffs and landings as it has been designated as part of the Runway Safety Area. This would not be the case if Friedman Memorial Airport had the required 1,000 ft. long by 500 foot wide safety area that is required beyond the end of the runway. A limitation on available runway length detracts from the airport’s ability to serve the needs of the future forecast demand. For example, if an airline currently serves the airport with 30 seat turbo-prop aircraft and decides to operate an all regional jet fleet, this may result in the loss of service by this airline.

Terrain issues associated with the airport negatively affect the ability of an airline or general aviation operator to access the airport in poor weather. Although technology is helpful, it cannot fully mitigate terrain issues. Mountainous terrain on the east, west, and north sides of the airport precludes instrument approach procedures such as exist at most commercial airports. Therefore, based on historic data approximately 25 percent of scheduled airline flights during winter months are either cancelled or diverted to another airport.

Alternatives to conform to FAA design standards have been evaluated. These options include relocating the runway and parallel taxiway to the west to provide for the object free area and to meet the 400-foot runway to taxiway separation requirements. This option requires the demolition and replacement of all of the airport hangars, the airport terminal, the Fixed Base Operator and airport support facilities, access and parking. Additionally, as these facilities would have to be shifted to the west of their current location, a number of businesses located west of the airport would have to be purchased and relocated to accommodate airport expansion. The second option for meeting requirements at the current airport site would require the relocating State Route 75 to the east, acquisition of approximately 80 residences and the relocation of the airport runway east of its current location to provide for the 400 feet of runway to taxiway separation. Additionally, even with the implementation of one of these options to meet design standards, the airport would still need to extend the existing runway to provide adequate length for operations by regional jets which would require additional land acquisition and expansion beyond current airport boundaries. Further, neither option for meeting design standards, nor the extension of the airport runway would address the frequent airport closures and flight diversion issue. The airport would remain subject to frequent closures during inclement weather and periods of reduced visibility due to the surrounding mountainous terrain.”

Here’s a novel idea…if 25% of the flights into Hailey get cancelled due to weather why put more money into an already bad location for an airport.

Do whatever needs to be done to the twinfalls airport, which would be next to nothing and get on with life.
Let all the rich folks land and take off from twin and offer bus/limo service from Twin Falls to Hailey. Or..have a fleet of cars for rent.

Pouring all this cash into a subsidy for the obscenely rich people to be able to land at Hailey boggles my mind.

EDITOR NOTE–While the rich will obviously benefit, I think their motive is to attract more scheduled carriers from bigger cities into the Wood River Valley. One thing that was discussed in the past was a joint Twin/Hailey facility near Shoshone. We think voters might just suggest a small airport like they have with continued safety improvements.