Consultants outline Rio Vista Airport layout plan, warn FAA funding may not cover full runway width

Consultants leading an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) update for Rio Vista told commissioners on a special meeting that the study will position the airport to apply for FAA funding while clarifying which work the FAA will and will not pay for.

Erin Sheeland, the project manager for the ALP update, said the ALP is “one sheet of a drawing set” that, together with a supporting narrative and forecast, forms the package the FAA reviews and signs off on. Sheeland said the ALP and a separate pavement-management plan are being completed in tandem to make the airport competitive for expiring grant funds and to prepare design work for future rehabilitation projects.

The draft plan identifies Runway 7/25 as a top priority for structural testing and rehabilitation. Connor Ivanski, an engineer on the team, noted the pavement-management work is an FAA expectation: “This really is an FAA requirement that, this data needs to be updated usually every 5 years,” he said, adding the inspections and coring will support future design and funding applications.

A key funding issue highlighted in the presentation is runway width. Presenters reported the paved width of Runway 7/25 is about 75 feet while FAA design standards would fund 60 feet, leaving a roughly 15‑foot differential that the city might have to cover. “There’s a surplus of about 15 feet there,” the team said, and they outlined scenarios including accepting only the FAA‑funded 60 feet while keeping the extra pavement as a shoulder or programming the added footage into local capital plans.

The consultants also said that the runway protection zone (RPZ) at one end of Runway 25 lies outside airport property, which complicates mitigation and FAA funding for projects that depend on control of RPZ land. That constraint informed the team’s recommendation to model scenarios that show both FAA‑funded and locally funded options so the city can respond to FAA questions during environmental review.

On operational data and forecasts, Drew Latouche, a project planner on the team, described the forecast methodology and sources the consultants used—tenant interviews, FAA terminal area forecasts and OPSNET—and told the commission they submitted a 2024 base‑year forecast that the FAA ultimately approved. “We sent it, I believe, in February of this year… and they did approve the forecast,” Latouche said, noting smaller general‑aviation fields often lack complete tracking and therefore require defensible, multi‑source forecasts.

Safety items reviewed in the ALP include taxiway geometry (nonstandard intersection angles, wide pavement expanses and taxiways that cross the runway center third), which the team said create runway‑incursion risk and could be addressed during future pavement reconstruction phases. Consultants recommended treating these as lower‑priority, condition‑driven projects unless incidents or funding opportunities accelerate them.

On facilities and services, the team reported Rio Vista lacks a fixed‑base operator (FBO) even though the terminal building’s size appears adequate. The airport currently stores 100‑low‑lead avgas in two 8,000‑gallon tanks (16,000 gallons total); consultants said options for adding Jet‑A fueling include switching one tank, using mobile tanker service, or encouraging an FBO—each approach has cost and demand tradeoffs. The consultants also said they programmed aircraft storage for 53 based aircraft to reflect current leases and local inventory.

Regarding schedule and next steps, Sheeland said the consultants are working through alternatives and expect to deliver a recommended development plan and implementation/phasing strategy. The team estimated submitting the ALP to the FAA within roughly six months and noted FAA review timelines vary (minimum 45 days requested by FAA, but longer reviews are common).

Commissioners asked about instrument approaches, certified weather reporting (AWOS) and whether larger wind turbines could affect protected airspace; the consultants said they catalogued airspace surfaces, will investigate certified weather reporting and will track wind‑energy impacts as part of environmental considerations.

The presentation closed with the consultants asking for feedback, noting public outreach already conducted, and promising a final package to support FAA submittal and subsequent city council updates.

The commission took no formal action on airport projects at the meeting beyond accepting the minutes from a prior session.