Consultants present Rio Vista airport master plan; recommend FAA‑fundable 3,700‑ft runway rehab at roughly $4 million

Kimley‑Horn consultants on Thursday presented a draft Airport Layout Plan (ALP) update and a 20‑year recommended development plan (RDP) for Rio Vista Airport, telling the Airport Advisory Commission that federal funding would likely cover a narrower runway rehabilitation while the extra pavement length would require local funding.

"We think this is a great candidate for more economically friendly, more ecological friendly method of paving called full depth reclamation," said Connor Ivanski, an engineer with Kimley‑Horn, describing a rehabilitation design of roughly 3 inches of new asphalt over about 12 inches of asphalt‑treated base. "For the FAA‑eligible scenario we’re just over $4,000,000 for this project." (Connor Ivanski, Kimley‑Horn.)

The consultants said the ALP exhibit and inventory/forecast work are nearly complete and that the FAA already accepted parts of the ALP earlier this year. Drew Latouche of Kimley‑Horn said the team had secured FAA concurrence on the updated ALP exhibit in May, which allowed the consultants to proceed with facility requirements and alternatives.

Why it matters: the FAA will typically fund pavement rehabilitation only to meet the airport’s design needs based on a critical‑aircraft determination. Kimley‑Horn told the commission the airport’s current critical aircraft is classified as an A1 (Cessna 210 Centurion), which drives a recommended runway length of about 3,700 feet and a 60‑foot width. That configuration is more likely to be fully eligible for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding; keeping the current 75‑foot width or full 4,200‑foot length would create a local funding share.

"The FAA came out with some guidance a few years ago that said crosswind runways would no longer be able to get maintenance funding unless they meet certain criteria," Latouche said. For Rio Vista the FAA responded that the airport would be a good candidate for a legacy crosswind runway designation and therefore remain eligible for AIP funding if it meets the criteria. (Drew Latouche, Kimley‑Horn.)

Consultants also presented pavement condition mapping and testing results. Connor Ivanski said much of the airside pavement falls into PCI categories where rehabilitation or deeper repair is advisable. He described non‑destructive testing and coring that informed design choices and recommended considering full‑depth reclamation (FDR) to reuse treated existing material.

Two cost scenarios were presented: the FAA‑eligible option — a 3,700‑by‑60‑foot rehabilitation using FDR — was estimated just over $4,000,000; extending the project to the full 4,200‑foot runway would add roughly $500,000 in non‑FAA (local) funding for the extra length, the consultants said. The consultants noted earlier rough estimates for full reconstruction had been higher (several million more) and that recycling techniques reduce costs and help competitiveness for grants.

Public commenters and several commissioners urged caution about planning only to the FAA‑funded minimum. "Right now, our runway can sustain aircraft, like the Pilatus... but if you go down to 3,700 feet, you are going to limit any charter companies that want to come in here," said resident Sue Clark, who warned reduced runway length could limit Part 135 operators and future investment. (Sue Clark, Rio Vista resident.)

Commissioners asked consultants to return with additional analysis on the maximum aircraft that could operate from various configurations and the long‑term implications for hangar development and future operations tracking. The consultants advised that flight operations are not currently tracked with ADS‑B at the airport, limiting the precision of the critical‑aircraft determination, and said ADS‑B data could change the forecast and future design needs.

Next steps: Kimley‑Horn said it will finalize the ALP drawing set and draft final report, submit the exhibit set to the FAA for review (consultants quoted typical FAA review of 45–60 business days), and refine cost and implementation phasing for inclusion in the airport’s ACIP/ASIP. The commission directed staff and consultants to obtain more detail on operational thresholds and future aircraft mix before finalizing a preferred configuration.