The Capital Improvement Committee heard a detailed update on airport capital needs Thursday, with airport staff saying runway and taxiway rehabilitation are now urgent and that some projects must wait on a navigation-easement process and federal approvals.
The airport manager, John (airport manager), told the committee the pavement on Runways 5 and 23 has deteriorated and that “we were incredibly concerned that we were gonna have to shut that runway down this winter.” He said the FAA recently cleared the city to bid rehabilitation work, and bid openings for the crosswind runway and lighting were scheduled the day of the meeting.
The discussion centered on three related constraints: the life cycle of existing pavements, timing of FAA and state Bureau of Aeronautics (BOA) funding, and a requirement to clear approach obstructions through a navigation easement before major runway projects can proceed. Carl Kemper of Becker Hoppe, the airport engineering firm, told the committee that BOA/FAA policy now often requires the airport sponsor to fund initial design at a 50/50 or 80/20 split and that those sponsor shares are later largely reimbursed. “We’ve accounted for a 50/50 as kind of a worst-case scenario for design,” Kemper said.
To bridge delays caused by the easement process, airport staff proposed participating in a state seal-coat program to extend pavement life while trees and other obstructions are removed or easements are obtained. John said the airport had planned pavement projects for 2026–27 but that the navigation-easement requirement will likely push some runway rehabilitation later.
Other projects discussed included phased east hangar development (Phase 2 would extend the taxiway and add private hangars), perimeter road construction outside the airport fence to improve crash/rescue access, runway and taxiway lighting replacement and pavement maintenance, and painting and maintenance of city-owned T-hangar buildings (the only project listed as 100% locally funded). John said most capital projects have historically been funded primarily by FAA and BOA grants—often 95/5 or 80/20 splits—and that airports rely on those reimbursements to keep local costs low.
Committee members asked for budget clarifications. Ald. Rasmussen asked whether the navigation-easement and interim slurry-seal request for 2026 amounted to roughly $700,000 in total and confirmed the city’s rankable/design share was only a small fraction of that amount. Staff confirmed a $40,000 design line for a future runway project but noted that is design-phase funding only and construction is planned for later years.
The airport manager and engineering consultant emphasized that without the navigation easement, the runway rehabilitation cannot move forward. The committee did not take formal action on any of the airport items; the meeting was a presentation and fact-finding step in the city’s five‑year capital process.