Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Terminal Expansion topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board reviews updated Abilene terminal design; staff to issue CMAR RFQ and refine canopy, hold-room and service features

5577982 · August 13, 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

Architects and airport staff presented updated terminal expansion plans, covering hold-room capacity, phased baggage handling, canopy coverage, elevators, sprinklers and possible amenity space. The board asked staff to explore extended curbside canopy and noted the project will use a Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) procurement strategy.

The Abilene Airport Development Board reviewed updated designs for the airport terminal expansion and approved staff moving forward with a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to hire a Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) to participate in remaining design and constructability planning.

Colin (lead architect, Park Hill) walked the board through the updated footprint, describing a push toward increased hold-room capacity, reconfigured ticketing and baggage circulation and an expanded secure concourse. "Everything comes back to the hold room and needing more space there," Colin said, explaining the plan shifts arrivals and circulation north to increase hold-room seating and operational flexibility.

Design features discussed included:

- Hold-room expansion with a target seating capacity for about 200 people (described as roughly "2 planes plus"). - Phased baggage-handling: management and the architect said a full baggage-handling system is intended but likely to be installed in a later construction phase to avoid duplicate work and expense. - Curbside canopy coverage: the current plan covers a single curbside drop-off lane (one vehicle width), but several board members asked staff to explore extending canopy east and west to better protect passengers from rain and Texas heat. Management said the canopy as shown would fully cover the curbside drop-off lane and agreed to return pricing alternatives as a possible construction alternate. - Vertical circulation changes: escalators will be removed and replaced with elevators and ramps; two elevator locations were discussed to provide redundancy and accessibility, with stairs retained for egress. - Building systems: the design calls for replacement of aging mechanical systems (boilers and chillers) and required fire suppression. Management warned the hold-room expansion triggers building-code sprinkler requirements for the whole facility, which will add project cost and design coordination. - Amenities: a dedicated business/VIP lounge and vending areas are planned. Board members discussed but did not commit to a full-service restaurant, noting service demand historically has not supported a full kitchen. Designers showed concepts for sheltered outdoor balconies overlooking the apron and said the design includes two family restrooms (management suggested one may be sufficient and proposes possibly reallocating space to enlarge the VIP lounge). - Resilience features: staff proposed adding showers on the lower level for diverted passengers and staff during prolonged events and said the project will address access control, HVAC and communications room relocations.

Don (airport management) said staff will issue an RFQ for a CMAR from which a contractor will be selected to participate in the final design and to help plan phasing. "This is a new process for the FAA...bringing a CMAR on," he said, adding that a CMAR can aid constructability though it is not necessarily cheaper.

Board members provided feedback focused on practicality: several urged management to evaluate extending the drop-off canopy to reduce passenger exposure to inclement weather and West Texas heat; others recommended preserving seating capacity over decorative features if budget cuts are later required.

Why it matters: The terminal redesign is the central capital project for the airport in coming years. Its phasing, contractor selection method and scope (including required sprinklers and upgraded HVAC) will shape project cost and timing and are tied to FAA grant funding the board recommended earlier in the meeting.

Next steps: Staff will prepare the CMAR RFQ, pursue cost options for canopy extensions and finalize design phasing with Park Hill and the selected CMAR; the board will review contract and procurement decisions in future meetings.