Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Runway Rehabilitation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates runway-strengthening and widening options after outside consultant outlines costs, trade‑offs
Summary
Consultant Toby Baker told the board strengthening and widening the runway to 100 feet could cost $10–$25 million depending on subgrade work; the board discussed funding, FAA participation, construction impacts and alternative projects such as taxi lanes and drainage work and asked cities to weigh in before committing.
The Regional Airport Board held an extended discussion — but took no formal action — on a possible project to widen Runway 16/34 to 100 feet and strengthen the pavement to support larger business jets.
Toby Baker of Park Hill, participating remotely, told the board the project could be a multi‑phase undertaking requiring geotechnical investigation, nondestructive testing and possibly a falling-weight deflectometer test to determine subgrade strength. Depending on whether a bonded overlay would suffice or a full reconstruction with base stabilization would be required, Baker estimated a very wide cost range: roughly $10 million to $25 million.
Baker outlined potential federal and state funding scenarios. If a project is selected for FY 2026 community project funds as currently proposed in congressional language, Baker said the FAA contribution could be 95 percent and the Oklahoma Aeronautics Division (ODAA) might pick up half of the local share, leaving an estimated airport net share of about 2.5 percent. If the project slips to a later fiscal year (for example FY 2027), Baker said FAA participation would likely revert to 90 percent and the airport’s net share could rise to roughly 5 percent after state participation — increasing the local cost by an order of magnitude.
Board members pressed Baker and staff on operational questions: what aircraft would be the ‘‘critical aircraft’’ for design, what pavement thickness would be needed (Baker said 10–12 inches of concrete would likely be required for Gulfstream‑class aircraft), and how long the runway would be unavailable (Baker estimated full construction could keep the runway closed for months to roughly a year, though a temporary, limited-width runway on the parallel taxiway might accommodate small aircraft and daytime VFR operations during construction).
Board members and staff also discussed alternatives that are smaller in scale and more directly aligned with the airport’s master plan, including building taxi lanes, detention (stormwater) ponds, and additional apron/tie-down areas to attract based aircraft. Several board members recommended seeking city finance offices’ views before pursuing an expensive runway-strengthening application, noting the deadline for community project funding forms is imminent (staff stated the deadline as next Thursday). Board members emphasized the city councils’ ability and willingness to commit matching funds would determine whether to pursue an earmarked runway-strengthening request.
Why it matters Strengthening and widening the runway would be the largest capital project discussed at the meeting and could change the types of aircraft the airport could reliably serve; it would also carry significant construction impacts, possible long runway closures, and substantial local matching obligations depending on timing and congressional appropriations.
What’s next The board did not authorize staff to submit a specific project. Members suggested asking Guthrie and Edmond city councils for timely guidance on financial capacity and priorities; if cities want to pursue a funding request, staff said immediate work would include geotechnical testing and preliminary cost estimates to meet the community project funding deadline.
