The Federal Aviation Administration has approved the Airport Layout Plan that Pitkin County submitted to the federal agency in May, setting up a post-election second look at the document.
County Manager Jon Peacock sent a memo on Oct. 25 to the Pitkin Board of County Commissioners, informing them of the approval. FAA changes to the document were minor, like adding a new signature box or revising how data is included in certain tables.
An ALP is a facilities planning document required by the FAA for airports. It’s a crucial document for the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport to receive federal funds, particularly Bipartisan Infrastructure Act and Inflation Reduction Act money.
The amended ALP includes a runway shift 80 feet to the west, a decision approved by the Airport Advisory Board and the commissioners in the spring. The shift prevents the need to relocate the airport traffic control tower — which would have resulted in a 100-foot tower on the north side of Highway 82, costing more than $100 million of the county’s own money.
“The FAA approves an ALP when it has met all applicable requirements as set forth in the appropriate FAA documents,” Peacock wrote in the memo. “The (FAA’s Airport District Office) is responsible for formulating and issuing the official determination.”
The board is scheduled to discuss the ALP again on Nov. 6 for a first reading vote and second reading on Nov. 20 with public comment. The board committed to another reading for the ALP back in May.
“It really was the board’s continued commitment for the public to see and comment on these plans,” Peacock said. “If the board were to change its mind, we would have to amend the proposed ALP and bring it back to the FAA and see if those changes are acceptable.”
The reading is dependent upon the outcome of two airport-related Pitkin County ballot questions. If 1C — the county’s measure that seeks to reaffirm commissioners’ authority at the airport — passes, the first reading will happen as scheduled.
The next step in finalizing the ALP would be sitting down with the FAA to review the environmental assessment scope, Peacock said.
“We’re hoping to go through a shorter process so we can get qualified for federal infrastructure grants,” he said.
If citizen-sponsored ballot question 200 passes — it seeks to give voters the ultimate say over any commissioner-approved runway reconfigurations — Peacock said the county will likely pull the reading from the meeting agenda.
Peacock said the legal opinion received by the county is that 1C will supersede 200 if they both pass. Question 200 proponents have indicated that they will pursue a legal challenge in that outcome.
AAB member Valerie Braun, who has been volunteering with Our Airport Our Vote, the issue committee supporting question 200, said she’s waiting for the election results.
“It’s in the hands of the voters now,” she said. “We’ll know what the answer is by the time (the BOCC) has their Nov. 6 meeting.”
The Airport Advisory Board voted 6-1 in April to recommend approval of the amended ALP to the BOCC. According to May 2024 meeting minutes, AAB member Bruce Gordon said he wanted to change his vote to a nay.
Braun, the original sole negative vote, moved to change his vote to a “no” and the board passed the motion.
In May, commissioners voted 4-1 to advance the ALP to the FAA. Commissioner Kelly McNicholas Kury cast the sole dissenting vote, saying that she wanted the vote to reflect the community debate over the matter.