Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airfield Infrastructure Navigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses precision approach, VOR relocation and taxiway timing; FAA funding window years away
Summary
Board members and consultants discussed options to add a precision instrument approach, whether taxiway work would require relocating a VOR navigation aid, and the multiyear funding and scheduling implications tied to FAA AIP funding.
Board members and airport consultants discussed whether to pursue a precision instrument approach, how a taxiway expansion might trigger relocation of the site VOR (VHF omnidirectional range) and the fiscal and scheduling constraints tied to federal funding.
A consultant described the VOR as inside the standard 1,000-foot obstacle circle for the airport and said some past exemptions have been granted in similar cases. The consultant said moving or getting an exemption for the VOR could require shifting it roughly 150 feet to accommodate taxiway construction or, if an exemption is not approved, relocating the VOR several hundred feet (likely east/southeast in planning scenarios). The transcript records the consultant saying, "If we can't get an exemption, then the VOR will have to be moved a 150 feet." The consultant also noted the VOR is slated for a digital upgrade before 2028 in broader state planning, but no public schedule was available to the board.
Board members reviewed how precision approaches are currently produced and maintained. The discussion noted the FAA is increasingly relying on third‑party vendors to develop precision approaches; vendors design the approach, charge an initial development fee and an annual maintenance or subscription fee. The meeting referenced two vendors by name in the discussion: "Capital" (a smaller firm) and "Hughes" (described in the record as a large Texas firm active in approach development). The consultant said the FAA may pay initial costs of redeveloping an approach when approach work is tied to required airport layout changes, but annual maintenance remains a recurring airport cost.
Timing and funding questions were prominent. Staff noted the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding for relevant navigation or taxiway projects was estimated in the 2032–2034 window and cited an estimated figure referenced in the discussion (about $31,000,000) but said the board would not see any appropriation until that funding cycle and would need to start preliminary work years earlier. The consultant told the board they would need to begin preparatory work by about 2028 to be positioned for a roughly 2032 federal funding window. Members discussed alternatives such as moving a taxiway alignment to avoid the well or siting the taxiway where it would minimize relocation costs, and noted that relocating a water well would be a constraint and possible additional cost.
No formal action was taken; the board directed staff to continue feasibility work, coordinate with the airport planner (Judd) and provide timing, cost estimates and a feasibility approach for a future meeting.
