Wasilla council reviews $6.7 million in airport capital requests, seeks $1.5M for runway-protection property acquisitions

Wasilla City Council members and city staff on May 5 reviewed a suite of airport capital projects that together total roughly $6.675 million in proposed airport spending and include a $1.5 million city CIP request to complete runway protection-zone (RPZ) property and avigation-easement acquisitions.

The projects discussed included ongoing property acquisitions around the airport RPZ, a proposed $13.1 million taxiway K project that would combine roughly $9.0 million in anticipated FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds with a $4.1 million local match, development of additional hangar lease lots, infrastructure to support future lease lots (utilities and roads), a business aviation center conceptual/design request, and incremental runway-extension work.

Why it matters: City staff said the acquisitions are intended to secure runway protection and avigation easements and limit future incompatible development near the airfield. Several projects are tied to federal grant timing: staff described the FAA as willing to fund a large portion of taxiway K, subject to the FAA’s final paperwork and award schedule, and said the FAA Reauthorization Act expanded eligibility for some economic-development and workforce-development airport investments.

Staff overview and funding snapshot - Property acquisitions: staff walked the council through a color-coded parcel map and spreadsheet of parcels by status (purchased, in negotiations, estimated). Staff said purchased parcels in the RPZ “add up to about $1,400,000” and another group of parcels in negotiation totals about $762,000; estimates for remaining parcels push the program over $6 million if all appraisals and offers hold. (Staff presentation excerpts in the meeting materials.) - Dedicated balances: staff said a state capital allocation supplied $5 million, of which $1.4 million was set aside for these property acquisitions. As of the May 5 presentation, that acquisition account had just under $550,000 remaining. Another land-acquisition line had been increased by transfers from $200,000 up to $900,000, leaving about $818,000 available after planned Gardner-property purchases. - CIP request: staff recommended a $1.5 million CIP appropriation to finish avigation easement and RPZ acquisitions after the currently available balances are applied.

FAA grant and taxiway K City staff described a pending FAA-backed taxiway K project that staff said could be a $13.1 million construction program with the FAA covering about 74% of eligible costs. City staff said the airport’s portion would be roughly $4.1 million and that the FAA would not fund development of lease lots, only airfield and access infrastructure. Staff estimated the completed lease lots could produce about $18,500 in annual rent at current market assumptions; Eric (Public Works staff) summarized that figure as “about 18,500 per year in lease revenue.”

State and other grant notes Crystal (city staff) told the council that a previously anticipated $3 million that was targeted for a runway extension “did not” come through: “the $3,000,000 that we were, anticipating getting signed did not,” she said. Staff also discussed prior ordinance transfers (Ordinance 24-33 was cited as moving remaining balances out of a fund) and noted that closing, appraisal and closing costs add uncertainty to the acquisition totals.

Airport fund balance and fiscal capacity When asked where the city would find the local match, Cassie (city staff) and other staff pointed to the airport construction fund’s unassigned/net position. Staff said the airport fund’s net position is sufficient to cover the current package: “the airport fund net position is sitting roughly at $8,900,000 right now” and an unassigned portion of about $8.4 million would cover the $6,675,000 currently requested for airport CIP projects.

Other project details discussed - Business aviation center/city hangar: staff described a conceptual facility that could include workforce-training space and/or an FBO-like presence. Council members asked for a clearer program plan and lists of potential partner organizations before adding planning dollars; some council members proposed keeping the 2026 line at $25,000 (rather than a larger design ask) and asked staff to return with a short summary of partners and uses. - Runway extension: staff described “front-loading” earth-moving and material relocation work now so the city can present progress to the FAA when the formal runway-extension project is submitted for federal funding. - Utilities and apron work: several line items for water, sewer, electrical extension to lease lots, apron tie-downs, gate-control upgrades and camera/fiber work were discussed; staff said FAA eligibility differs by element and they were keeping items separate so grant reporting and asset accounting remain clear.

Council questions and concerns Council members pressed staff about: how prior ordinances and transfers affected current balances (Ordinance 24-33 was cited as moving funds); the status of grant paperwork and whether the FAA would require the city to show local commitment before processing awards; the expected ongoing operating costs for new lease lots (plowing, gates, lighting and gate maintenance); and whether marketing and implementation studies were better placed in enterprise operating budgets or in CIP as near-term implementation studies.

Outcomes and next steps - No appropriations were adopted at the meeting. The ordinance adopting the budget (Ordinance serial number 2525) was postponed to the council’s next meeting on May 6 for further deliberation and potential amendments. - Staff will provide the council with additional details on the airport projects requested during the meeting, including partner lists for the business aviation center concept and clarification of grant timelines and fund balances.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke during the airport capital projects discussion and are listed in the speakers section below. All direct quotes in this text are taken from the transcript excerpts provided at the May 5 meeting.