Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Airport staff outline Foxtrot apron plan and funding approach; contractor start late August
Summary
Airport staff told the board a contractor kickoff has occurred and reconstruction work for taxiway/apron pads is scheduled to start Aug. 25; staff described a borrowing plan to be repaid by per-linear-foot assessments to hangar leaseholders.
Airport staff told the board the contractor held a kickoff meeting and that reconstruction work on a taxiway/apron segment is scheduled to begin officially on Aug. 25.
Staff described the funding approach for constructing new apron and taxiway pads (references to design packages E, G, J and optionally F): the airport anticipates borrowing to cover upfront costs and then recovering the loan via a per-linear-foot charge assessed to property owners or leaseholders who build hangars adjacent to the new pavement. Staff said they would divide total project cost by the number of linear feet to compute an individual assessment for each leaseholder. The board asked whether the borrowing partner was identified; staff said negotiations were ongoing and a nongovernmental partner was being pursued but not finalized.
Staff also told the board they were still awaiting discretionary federal funding for a larger apron project, with a September 30 deadline on a grant track and a possibility of a very fast turnaround. Staff warned that if the FAA issues a letter with a short acceptance deadline (the board discussed an example in which a grant must be signed and returned by Sept. 14 after a Sept. 20 mailing), the airport could face rebid risk. Staff noted contractors had held bid prices for 90 days but that many bids were now past that window (one contractor was noted to be about 16 months past the original price lock), which could affect project cost if rebid.
Design choices were described as affecting sequencing: one option builds pads E, G and J; the other adds F, which affects dirt-moving sequencing (contractors prefer to avoid reworking newly placed fills). Staff said they were roughly 85–90% confident they would proceed with the Foxtrot element but needed final confirmation to instruct the contractor. No formal board vote was recorded on financing or contract award at this meeting.
Board members asked for confirmation of deadlines and for staff to report back once financing terms and grant decisions were confirmed.
