The FAA finally OK’s Aspen’s plan to fix deteriorating airport runway. Election Day could send it back to square one.

The future of the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport seemed to become more certain when the Federal Aviation Administration on Oct. 23 gave the county commissioners the initial go-ahead to renovate the airport and revamp its deteriorating runway, which airport officials say has been being “pieced together” since 1957. 

But that go-ahead could be meaningless if a citizen-initiated ballot measure to strip the Pitkin County commissioners of their power to make decisions about the runway passes on Election Day. 

The FAA’s green-lighting of the amended Airport Layout Plan, or ALP, is just the latest step in the county’s efforts to modernize the airport since the agency approved a master redevelopment plan in 2012. 

That process has been riddled with controversy centered largely on whether or not to widen the distance between the runway and taxiway, which would allow for larger planes to land at the mountain airport that sits at 7,815 feet. The plan the FAA reviewed includes the separation, which the agency says is necessary for the county to receive federal funding crucial for the runway’s reconstruction. 

The FAA made only slight tweaks to the plan submitted in May, Pitkin County Manager Jon Peacock wrote in a memo to the county commissioners Oct. 25. That paves the way for a reading of the amended ALP at the commissioners meeting Wednesday, the day after Election Day, and a public hearing Nov. 20. If all goes smoothly, and the board votes to sign the plan and send it back to the FAA for final approval, following an environmental assessment re-evaluation, the airport overhaul should begin as early as 2026 and take seven to 11 years to complete.

But the process could come to a screeching halt if ballot Question 200, which would strip the commissioners of their power to make decisions about the runway, beats ballot Question 1C, which would reaffirm the commissioners’ authority to approve and implement a runway layout, along with other airport decisions.  

At the heart of those votes is a fight over whether to widen the distance between the taxiway and runway. Opponents say doing so “only benefits bigger private planes” and opens the door for unwanted growth in the Roaring Fork Valley. Proponents say it will make landing and takeoff safer for more airlines wanting to fly in and out of the valley and usher in cleaner planes. 

But in a letter dated Oct. 17, the FAA said if Question 200 passes, it may be forced to withhold federal funding for the airport because the measure would “deprive” the county of “rights and powers” necessary to perform any or all terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement for airport funding. 

FAA spokesperson Brittany Trotter said the timing of the Oct. 17 letter “was not based on the mailing of ballots or timing of the election.” Pitkin County commissioner Greg Poschman said the FAA’s approval of the ALP on Oct. 23 “makes everyone think it was political,” even though “these are bureaucrats in D.C.” and “naturally, it being government, you know the pace of government progress, that’s how long it took.”  

All that’s left now is Election Day and tallying the votes. 

Matt Moseley, president of the Ignition Strategy Group and a spokesperson for Our Airport Our Vote, said if 1C passes and 200 doesn’t, “we tuck our tail, say people can disagree, and go forward.” 

Poschman said if 1C passes and 200 doesn’t, “it reaffirms our authority, which we had before the ballot measures came on, and still have, actually. Then we could go ahead and sign it, knowing the majority of our public are behind it.” 

But if 1C fails and 200 passes, he said, “I think all the commissioners will agree our job is to execute on the will of the majority of the people … and that’s going to require some deep thinking and some conversation among the board.”

The issue becomes more complicated if both 1C and 200 pass. 

Mark Grueskin, an elections attorney, said in that case, the county will have authority to do what it wants, “with the exception of the runway expansion or relocation, in which case the commissioners can propose whatever they want, but those proposed runway changes will be subject to voter approval.” 

But the commissioners say a clause in Pitkin County’s home rule charter would give them decision-making authority. That clause says “notwithstanding, any provision of the Home Rule Charter to the contrary, the Board of County Commissioners shall have the power and authority to approve and implement a physical layout.” 

Both parties have mentioned the possibility of litigation.  

If that happens, Grueskin said, “I wouldn’t want to be the person telling a court that fewer ‘yes’ votes prevail over a greater number of ‘yes’ votes between two competing measures.”

Link to original article