Pitkin County outlines $520 million Aspen airport modernization plan; asks commissioners to approve program management staff

Pitkin County officials on May 22 detailed a modernization plan for Aspen/Pitkin County Airport that they estimate will cost about $520 million and asked county commissioners to approve program management staff and budget authority to carry the project forward.

Brad Jacobson, a member of the project’s program management team, said the plan covers three major work streams: a complete runway demolition and reconstruction, a new terminal and associated apron and parking, and a west‑side taxiway and general aviation apron. “The total cost of the three elements that we have been discussing is right around $520,000,000,” Jacobson said during the work session.

The airport modernization matters because it will reshape key county infrastructure and require new financing, construction logistics and public engagement as officials seek FAA environmental approval and federal funding. Commissioners were asked for direction to convert staff proposals into a formal supplemental budget request to hire program management staff and internal controls to oversee the work.

Most important facts

- Scope and schedule: Jacobson described three project groups: an airfield project that includes demolishing and rebuilding the existing runway 80 feet to the west to a full length of about 8,000 feet and 150 feet wide; a new 90,000‑square‑foot terminal with apron, parking and rental car facilities; and a west‑side taxiway and general aviation apron relocated from the east side. Jacobson said the runway work is targeted for spring–fall 2027 with enabling work in 2026.

- Cost: The program management team presented a planning‑level cost estimate near $520 million and said about $40 million would be spent on design over the next several years. Jacobson called the estimates “planning level” but said they include contingencies and have been informed by recent project data.

- Delivery method and policy choices: Staff said they are contemplating a construction manager at risk delivery and planning to seek a CMR during the 30–60 percent design window. To complete the runway in a single 2027 season, staff said the board will need to authorize construction in two shifts and seven days per week and consider variances on nighttime, weekend and holiday work. The board was warned that if those variances are not granted, the runway closure length could increase by several quarters.

- Funding and financing: Staff said they are working with Recondo & Associates on financial modeling and are issuing an RFP for a municipal (financial) advisor to design bond structures and timing. They said the FAA is expected to participate heavily on the airfield portion and that the airport will pursue other federal grants and revenue streams; staff also noted an estimated minimum $105 million in fixed based operator (FBO) capital commitments that factor into overall financing.

- Program management and county staffing: County leaders proposed a program management office that would combine contracted program managers and a set of county FTEs to provide internal controls and oversight. Staff described an initial need for about 7–10 full‑time project staff (executive director, airfield and terminal project leads, controls and document management, communications) and additional finance and audit positions in county finance and community development. Specific new staff positions discussed included an internal auditor, a grant accountant, a budget analyst to support project accounting, and a public information officer to lead community engagement.

- Community engagement and design: Staff said community engagement will be intensive through the conceptual and 30 percent design phases (the team estimated heavy public input during roughly the first six months of design) and that the Airport Advisory Board (AAB) and project task forces will shepherd the common‑ground design recommendations into the terminal design.

- Construction logistics and other issues: The team discussed staging, worker housing or “man‑camp” options, possible temporary construction trailers on site, transit/staging for travelers during closure and wildlife concerns (elk migration and fence crossings). Staff said FAA environmental review is underway and expected to complete around year‑end.

Quotations and attributions

“Demolishing the existing runway and reconstructing it 80 foot to the west, full length, 8,000 feet long, 150 foot wide,” Brad Jacobson said when describing the runway project and work required. Meg Haines, the Airport Advisory Board liaison who participated on the design selection committee, said, “We are finally here to talk about the terminal after… however many years it’s been, and I’m just pleased to do that.”

Decisions requested and next steps

Staff asked the board for direction to prepare a budget supplemental request to authorize the program management staffing and related county positions. Staff also said they will issue a municipal‑advisor RFP and return with financing scenarios and more detailed procurement and contract scopes during the next several months. Key policy choices the board will face include whether to authorize extended shifts and weekend/nightwork variances to enable single‑season runway reconstruction and when to place bond questions or ballot language for voter consideration.

Context and implications

County managers and consultants framed the program as technically complex and unprecedented for the county, with staff noting the project’s size relative to the county budget. Staff emphasized it remains at the beginning of design and financing steps despite years of planning and the ALP (Airport Layout Plan) activity. They said the FAA appears supportive and that the airfield is likely to attract the largest federal participation, while the terminal will rely more on local revenue streams and other grants.

What was not decided

The board did not adopt any final contracts, specific bond measures or a construction variance at the meeting. Commissioners asked for more detail on procurement capacity, departmental workload and how county funds and airport‑fund costs would be allocated among proposed positions. Officials said staff will return with a formal supplemental budget request and additional detail from the municipal advisor and design teams.