Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Airport Infrastructure Grants topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

City staff seeks approval for aviation grants; FAA to fund airport apron preliminary engineering report

6149770 · April 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City staff presented an NMDOT maintenance-and-supply grant (up to $22,222) and an FAA-funded preliminary engineering report for the airport apron (funded up to $127,904.67).

City staff asked the commission to consider two airport funding items: an NMDOT aviation maintenance and supply grant to cover consumable items over two years and an FAA-funded preliminary engineering report (PER) for the north apron.

A staff presenter described the NMDOT grant as a two-year aviation maintenance and supply award for up to $22,222, explaining the city typically spends less than the maximum and that the grant reimburses costs with a 10% match structure. "They call it the aviation maintenance or air air maintenance and supply grant now. It's a 2 year grant now for a total of up to $22,222," the presenter said.

On the airport apron, staff said the FAA has notified the city it will release formal funding and the plan is to perform a PER for the apron on the north side of the building. Staff said the PER task order is funded up to $127,904.67 by FAA and that the city would use the PER to move toward construction in a later funding cycle. "This gets the engineer started on this PER, and then we can go ahead and proceed into construction on our next funding cycle," the presenter said. Staff also explained that the PER typically includes a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) plan and civil-rights (Title VI) documentation and that no local match was expected for the PER as presented.

The transcript records staff requests for approval and answered commissioners' questions about matches and scope; the record does not contain a detailed roll-call vote on either item. Staff indicated they would proceed pending commission direction.