ROARING FORK BROADCASTING COMPANY
The commissioners approved a resolution on first reading to amend a resolution that would allow a proposed Airport Layout Plan to be updated to reflect the runway position. A second reading and public hearing will be held on the proposal on May 1 at a time to be determined.
The commissioners’ primary reason to support the change is to preserve funding from the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA has informed Pitkin County it won’t provide funds after 2024 to maintain the existing runway because of ongoing problems with subsurface deterioration. In addition, the FAA said leaving the runway in place and moving the taxiway 80 east to gain the required separation between the runway and taxiway will require relocating the air traffic control tower. The relocation would cost in excess of $100 million, according to the FAA, and the feds won’t cover what they believe is an unnecessary expense.
Critics of the runway move have urged the commissioners to sever ties with the FAA to the greatest extent possible and fund improvements with local funds to retain autonomy. One faction in a divided community views the runway width as a key link on controlling growth in the community. They contend a wider runway will accommodate bigger commercial aircraft, triggering growth, and also allow larger private aircraft and associated problems.
The citizens’ organization Aspen Fly Right, headed by Amory Lovings, contends that the county can bankroll improvements itself with revenues generated at the airport and other funds in order to keep its autonomy.
But county staff, a consultant and members of the Airport Advisory Board argued against that approach in Wednesday’s two-hour meeting.
“There seems to be some confusion around the viability of a different alternative,” Brad Jacobsen, a consultant on airport issues, told the commissioners. “Unfortunately, the runway has to be reconstructed — it’s beyond useful life — so it has to be reconstructed. Because of that, there is no viable path forward to reconstruct the runway in its existing location and maintain the existing 95-foot wingspan restriction. There is no ambiguity about this.”
Commissioner chairman Greg Poschman said he wishes more members of the public were at the hearing to catch that point. “This is an important facet that I don’t think everybody understands clearly,” he said.
County Manager Jon Peacock stressed that even if Pitkin County declared fiscal independence from the FAA, it still couldn’t dictate the width of a rebuilt runway. The runway work would still have to be approved through an Airport Layout Plan. The current plan was approved in 2015 and calls for the runway to be moved. However, after a public process, the county decided it should amend the plan to reflect the thought of leaving the runway where it is and moving the taxiway. Now the county is switching back, essentially amending its contemplated amendment to the plan.
The Airport Advisory Board voted 6-1 last month to recommend moving the runway to the west. Jacobsen said moving the runway would save time in the FAA review process as well as potentially save money. If the taxiway had been moved east, it would have required funds for the relocation plus funds for reconstructing the runway where it is currently located. By leaving the taxiway, the only expense will be relocating the runway. That project will be covered in large part by the FAA.
“We feel this is the appropriate adjustment to make at this time given the feedback we got from the FAA, given the information we know now and the Airport Advisory Board agreed,” Jacobsen said.
Commissioner Patti Clapper said the threats of loss of funding are “real.” It’s not speculation on the part of county officials or consultants, it’s coming from FAA officials, she said.
“I wish we could say we don’t need the FAA, we don’t need their funding, we don’t need their oversight,” Clapper said. “Some things are just out of our control and out of our hands. The repercussions of trying to get out of those things could be even more traumatic for our community.”
Commissioner Kelly McNicholas Kury said the community would benefit from a broader discussion on whether or not the county could raise the funds needed to improve the airport on its terms.
“I think we need to answer the question as to what if we paid for it, if we wholly paid the $100 million cost to reconstruct the runway in place, what triggers our approval or disapproval from the FAA?” McNicholas Kury said. “If we got on the phone and said, ‘You know what, we’re going to do it ourselves.’ What are they going to do?”
Jacobsen reiterated that the county would still need an Airport Layout Plan approved by the FAA — and the FAA will require the runway to be widened to 150 feet regardless of where it is rebuilt.
“Or what?” McNicholas Kury said.
“You are breaking the law,” Jacobsen replied. “They have drawn a line in the sand. I don’t see a path forward.”
Commissioner Francie Jacober said funding beyond regular FAA grants is at stake. She feels the county would risk funds through the Inflation Reduction Act the Biden’s administration’s infrastructure bill if it flexed its independence. Both federal initiatives make funds available for airport improvements. “It’s hard for me to imagine we would walk away from that,” she said.
Commissioner Steve Child noted that he has always been in favor of moving the runway 80 west. He was on the losing end of a 4-1 vote when the commissioners voted in 2020 to keep the runway where it is.
“We have really valid reasons why we need to move the runway 80 feet to the west,” Child said. “Before we do anything (with improvements at the airport), that’s the first step, the sooner the better.”
He urged people to “look at the facts and not just the opinions.”
Poschman said the public input has been exhaustive and included views from “all corners of the community.” He said he welcomes the different views but feels the course is clear.
“We have two time bombs ticking,” Poschman said. “One of them is the runway. The runway is indeed in physical possibility of failure and we can’t ignore it. The second time bomb is federal funding. We aren’t so rich that we can afford to tell the FAA to stuff it and take their half a billion dollars and go somewhere else. We can’t afford that and it wouldn’t be fiscally imprudent on the part of the commissioners to even suggest it.”
McNicholas Kury said she would support approval of moving the runway at first reading to move it along but made no promise of second at second reading.