Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves taxiway work, rejects private hangar bids after FAA denial; airport grant and hangar costs questioned in public comment
Summary
City approved an engineering amendment for a taxiway project and formally rejected bids for a private hangar expansion after the FAA denied a grant for private hangars. At open forum, an aviation operator and a resident questioned upfront costs and grant overages for airport projects.
The City Council approved an amendment for engineering services tied to the airport's partial parallel Taxiway C and Taxiway B and formally rejected all bids for the private hangar expansion after the Federal Aviation Administration declined the city's grant application for private hangars.
City Engineer Justin Peterson described the Helms & Associates amendment as the next step in the taxiway project, adding $512,000 for bidding, construction administration and resident engineering and increasing the contract to $697,000. Peterson said the taxiway work will be funded primarily through FAA grants (approximately 90%), with state and local shares making up the balance.
On the private hangar area expansion, Peterson said bids had been accepted pending an FAA grant; the city was later notified it did not receive that grant, and council moved to reject all bids. Peterson told the council the FAA considered private hangars ineligible for that funding stream because private hangars are revenue‑generating and therefore not an eligible use for the grant.
During open forum, Dan Sire, owner of Buffalo Ridge Air Spray, described a separate airport concern: he said the city requires a pro rata share payment for water and sewer infrastructure that runs under an adjacent street, which he said would amount to about $108,000 per lot for the private hangar parcels. "I'm just coming to you guys to try to figure out a way that we can incorporate that into my lease somehow," Sire said. He told the council that the up‑front cost is impeding his hangar project and asked whether the city could defer or restructure the charge within a lease.
Resident Zach Thompson raised questions about airport project budgets at open forum, citing an AI review of the budget book he conducted. Thompson said the total Airport Improvement Program (AIP) project budget shown in the city's materials was about $8.3 million, with grants of about $7.03 million, and asked why the project was roughly $1.3 million over that grant amount compared with similar projects in other cities. Thompson asked whether the city had explained the variance.
Peterson and other staff said some airport work is grant‑funded while other elements require local matching funds; he also explained the city coordinates design, bidding and grant applications in stages and that some grant eligibility rules exclude private revenue projects. Council approved the Helms & Associates amendment by voice vote and then voted to reject all bids for the private hangar expansion after staff explained the FAA decision.
The council did not adopt any new financial commitments Monday beyond the approved engineering amendment. City staff indicated they can reapply for grants where eligible; Peterson said some projects are likely to proceed once funding is aligned.
The public comments and council discussion underscored two ongoing issues for the airport: (1) how to pay for infrastructure required for private hangar development, and (2) how grant eligibility rules and project scope affect the city's ability to use federal AIP funding.
