Bonner County approves FAA grant amendment after debate over engineer estimates; county match rises

Bonner County commissioners voted to approve an amendment to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement Program grant that raises the grant by $202,276 to a total of $432,749 and increases the county match to $21,637.

The amendment, for AIP 3-16-0033-024-2025, funds clearing and slope‑stabilization work tied to tree removal and construction of an access road at the county airport. Airport staff said the higher cost reflects a larger-than-anticipated number of trees and the need to build a road the project team had not counted on; the FAA has concurred with the increased costs.

County airport director Director Shuck told commissioners the additional costs are primarily the result of two issues identified during design and bid phases: an access route into the work area that proved unavailable and a much larger number of trees that must be removed and either ground or grubbed out. “The FAA does concur with these cost increases,” Director Shuck said. He said engineers’ early planning‑level estimates can vary from final bids and that this project’s final bids were significantly higher than the initial estimate.

Why it matters: the work is tied to FAA safety standards for runway approaches and, if not completed, could leave the airport out of compliance with federal obstruction requirements. The change obligates the county to cover a larger local match; commissioners pressed staff for options to recover some of that local cost if the engineers’ materials or scope created the discrepancy.

Board deliberations focused on accountability and timing. Several commissioners asked whether the county should rebid the work or seek to hold the engineering consultant financially responsible for errors or omissions in the planning estimate. County legal counsel Bill Wilson cautioned that it was not immediately clear the engineers were at fault, saying, in part, “On its face, the fact that the...bids came in much higher does indicate that an error was made, but it's not clear that it was actually the fault of the engineering firm.” Wilson recommended investigating the change in scope between the planning estimate and the final bid documents before assigning blame.

Public commenters urged the county both to preserve the grant and to press consultants for accountability. Dan Welling, a resident, suggested the county could construct the access road with county forces to reduce contractor costs: “Is there a way through Bonner County auspices...that Bonner County build the road as opposed to having the engineering company bring in their people and they build the road?” Wayne Martin, another resident, urged the county to pursue any available recovery from the consultant if the discrepancy proves to be an error.

Director Shuck said the project drew seven bids (two nonresponsive), and that the contractor now being considered was the second-lowest responsive bidder; the lowest responsive bid had been judged nonresponsive. He told the board that the engineering firm’s early estimate was derived as a planning‑level figure and that the bid‑level work required more detailed field accounting of trees and access than had been included earlier. Director Shuck said the work is time‑sensitive because the FAA requires the amendment be submitted by June 3.

Motion and conditions: a commissioner moved to approve the $202,276 amendment (for a total grant of $432,749), to have the chair sign administratively, and to direct the airport director to pursue an explanation of the variance and recovery of any appropriate local share from the consultant should an error or omission be found. The motion passed on roll call with two votes in favor and one abstention; the board instructed staff to report back at the next meeting with the results of the consultant conversations and any recovery efforts.

The board emphasized that, absent a feasible way to reduce the federal scope (the FAA had indicated the work meets its safety standards), rebidding would likely not lower the cost because the bids showed the market price for the defined scope. Commissioners said they wanted to protect the grant funding while investigating whether the consultant should absorb part of the increased local obligation.

What happens next: airport staff will (1) submit the amendment to the FAA, (2) follow up with the engineering consultant to clarify how the planning estimate differed from the final bid documents and to seek recovery if appropriate, and (3) report an update to the board at a subsequent meeting.

Members of the public and commissioners asked staff to explore whether county forces could perform some work, such as the access road, to reduce cost, but staff said the project’s federal scope and contractor requirements limit options to change the scope without jeopardizing FAA concurrence.

Ending: With the FAA’s concurrence and the board’s approval, the county will proceed while pursuing greater clarity on the estimate‑to‑bid gap. The airport director and county legal staff were directed to return with findings and any recovery outcomes at a follow-up meeting.