Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses funding, sequencing and utilities for Taxiway Foxtrot and apron expansion
Summary
Airport staff and board members discussed construction sequencing for Taxiway Foxtrot, the related apron expansion and reconstruction projects, required FAA grant funding, and utility and stormwater planning including possible local funding options and alternatives to federal standards.
Airport staff told the Grand County Airport Board that most construction activity for the Taxiway Foxtrot project will be staged south of the existing hangars and that operational impacts should be limited while work is underway.
Board discussion focused on sequencing: staff said taxi lanes must be completed before portions of the apron can be opened and that the apron expansion (Alpha 1) and apron reconstruction are tied to the same discretionary FAA grant. Several board members and staff stressed that grant timing, not construction feasibility, will determine whether work can be completed this year.
Staff identified LeGrande Johnson as the contractor under contract for apron expansion once grant funding is secured and said TSA (the apron contractor) is budgeted in the project for apron reconstruction. Contractors already on other airport projects may be asked to add this work later if funding arrives. GeoStratus trailers providing QA services will remain on-site for the duration of the project, staff said.
Board members discussed utilities and drainage. Staff said the FAA will typically fund only improvements directly impacted by the federal project; the airport is installing duct banks, electrical sleeves and storm drains where required, and will put in sleeves to enable future sewer, water, power and telecommunications extensions. The group discussed commissioning a utilities master plan to avoid ad hoc extensions as hangars are built out.
Several funding options were discussed: (1) waiting for the FAA discretionary grant, (2) local funding or county-fronted construction using state/local standards (which could reduce costs by avoiding some federal requirements), (3) using frontage fees or linear-foot assessments on hangar leases to repay local investment, or (4) private developer financing where a developer fronts infrastructure and is repaid over time. Board members also noted the option of awarding the taxiway construction to the current apron contractor later if grant money arrives after the base contract is active.
Board members asked for a clearer accounting of available local funds; staff said they will coordinate with the clerk-auditor to nail down the county funding number and distribute it to the board by email.
No formal action or vote on the Taxiway Foxtrot project was taken at the meeting. Staff was directed to continue coordinating grant timing, contractor sequencing, and to pursue follow-up work on a utilities master plan and clearer local funding figures.
