Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves engineering work for airport runway reconstruction
Summary
York City Council approved an Air‑port Improvement Program agreement with Olsson Engineering to complete design and testing for a proposed runway reconstruction, weighing three construction options and noting a 5% city match on the $300,900 engineering estimate.
York — The York City Council voted May 21 to authorize engineering work with Olsson Engineering under the FAA Airport Improvement Program to advance design for a planned reconstruction of Runway 17/35 at the municipal airport.
City staff presented an engineering agreement with an approximate total of $300,900. Staff said federal funding would cover the majority of the project but requires a 5% local match; council was told the city currently has $45,000 budgeted that can be applied to the match. The contract would cover design, a falling‑weight deflectometer test to evaluate the existing pavement and subgrade, and engineering alternatives analysis.
Curtis Christensen of Olsson told council the study will compare three options: rubblization of the existing pavement with a new concrete overlay (shorter construction time and lower immediate cost), full reconstruction with removal and replacement of base and pavement, and a third variant to be determined by test results. Olsson and staff said the final design choice will be made using a 20‑year life‑cycle cost analysis to determine the most cost‑effective solution.
Christensen reviewed Federal Aviation Administration design criteria discussed in the master plan and airport layout plan, noting York’s current primary runway classification (C2) and that the approved design aircraft for planning was a B2 (for example, King Air B200). He explained the agency’s threshold requirements and how displacement of runway thresholds and approach profiles affect design, obstruction zones and possible future changes in airport reference codes. He said some upgrades may allow a reduced paved width on reconstruction (proposal discussed was 5,600 ft long by 75 ft wide with displaced thresholds) and described phasing options intended to keep the crosswind runway open during construction.
Council members asked about the city match, timeline, how long the airport would be closed during construction and whether the airport’s current operations justify a higher FAA design classification. Staff said the city uses subscription traffic‑count software and that current C2 aircraft operations are below thresholds the FAA typically requires for a permanent reclassification; staff noted the process can be lengthy and may require further ALP updates if the design classification changes.
The motion to approve the AIP engineering agreement with Olsson carried by roll‑call vote.
