02-02-2023 Airport Authority Board Meeting
April 10, 2026complete
TL;DR
The airport board approved the January minutes, heard updates on snow removal, the Union Pacific lease, and ongoing capital projects, and introduced a new county appointee. The main issue was the WWII-era airport tower: the university wants it removed over liability concerns, while board members and supporters want to explore preservation, and the board agreed to inspect the tower and revisit the issue next meeting.
Meeting Summary
- The board approved the January meeting minutes and moved quickly into updates because of a time crunch for ethics training.
- Airport operations updates focused on ongoing snow removal challenges, with staff noting they are “plugging through” the season and expect to bring forward ideas for next year soon.
- The Union Pacific lease issue was discussed, with staff reporting that payments are being made under the old lease terms while a new lease is still being negotiated.
- Capital improvement and master plan work was reported as ongoing, along with progress on the fuel farm development and meetings with the FAA and Armstrong on the taxiway/signage and Taxiway India projects.
- A guest with airport construction and city management experience was introduced as the board’s new county appointee, and he shared background from a prior airport runway/taxiway project at Roosevelt.
- The major discussion centered on the historic World War II-era airport tower, which the university wants removed due to liability concerns, while airport supporters argued it should be preserved as a museum, observatory, or historical landmark.
- Members discussed the tower’s ownership and lease history, its structural condition, liability risks, and possible restoration costs, including window replacement and other repairs; several members said they had not yet personally inspected the interior.
- The board considered whether to create a historical committee or exploratory group, whether the tower could be accepted by the airport authority or another entity, and whether the master plan should incorporate a future use for the structure.
- It was noted that the tower is not currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places, though there is a prior registration case number dating back to 1997, which could support preservation efforts.
- The board agreed to arrange a visit/inspection of the tower soon and revisit the issue at the next meeting, while acknowledging that outside funding or grants would likely be needed if preservation moves forward.