To: Board of Supervisors
Department or Agency Name(s): Sonoma County Public Infrastructure
Staff Name and Phone Number: Johannes J. Hoevertsz, 707-565-2550
Vote Requirement: Majority
Supervisorial District(s): Countywide
Title:
Title
Approval of Professional Consulting Services Agreement for the implementation of the Fly Quiet Program and New Flight Procedures Review and Design Services at Charles M. Schulz - Sonoma County Airport.
End
Recommended Action:
Recommended action
A) Approve and authorize the Director of Sonoma County Public Infrastructure to execute a professional services agreement with Cignus Consulting, LLC, for implementation of all elements of the Airport Fly Quiet Program, in an amount not to exceed $90,000, including $82,000 in professional fees and up to $8,000 in separately tracked travel reimbursements.
B) Approve and authorize the Director of Sonoma County Public Infrastructure to execute a professional services agreement with Cignus Consulting, LLC, for Phase III - Airspace and Instrument Flight Procedure Concept Review and Development, including up to eight arrival and departure concepts, in an amount not to exceed $270,000, including $255,000 in professional fees and $15,000 in travel and reimbursable expenses.
end
Executive Summary:
Sonoma County Public Infrastructure, Airport Division, requests approval of two professional service agreements totaling $360,000 with Cignus Consulting, LLC (Cignus), to advance the Airport’s work to address aircraft noise concerns. The $90,000 Fly Quiet agreement would implement the complete program developed through the Approach Feasibility Study. The $270,000 Phase III agreement would evaluate new stand-alone arrival and departure concepts beyond the existing flight paths identified and updated as part of the approach feasibility study, developing eight concepts for FAA submission over approximately 12-15 months.
After considering the Aviation Commission’s recommendations, staff recommend approval of both agreements at their full scope and fee, with all costs paid by the Airport. The Commission recommended four of the seven Fly Quiet elements, requested consideration of an equal Airport and County funding split, and fully supported the new procedure scope and fee. Staff’s recommendation would retain all elements of the Fly Quiet program including the operating guidance for commercial and general aviation aircraft, measurement of results, and continuing community participation.
The requested work would proceed alongside FAA review of the changes in procedures developed through the existing runway approach feasibility study. FAA submission does not establish approval or a date when a procedure will become available for use.
Discussion:
Background and Approach Feasibility Study
The Airport initiated the Approach Feasibility Study in response to concerns about existing arrival paths and opportunities to improve how aircraft approach and depart the Airport. Following a competitive selection, the Board approved the Phase I agreement with Cignus on August 9, 2022, for $278,500. Phase I examined published procedures, actual flight tracks, community noise reports, terrain and operational constraints, and identify potential opportunities for improvements (this effort was not designated to create new standalone procedures but rather improve existing procedures to enhance FAA approvability). Public meetings and Commission discussions helped identify concerns to be considered in the technical analysis.
The study initially emphasized arrival procedures, including opportunities for more continuous descents that reduce repeated changes in engine power. During the study, the FAA implemented the RREHD departure procedure. The resulting concentration of departures over West County became a significant additional concern, and the Airport’s work expanded to consider changes to that procedure. The Airport and Commission did not develop the FAA’s RREHD procedure.
The Board approved Phase II on July 8, 2025, for $275,000, bringing the approved cost of the two study phases to $553,500. Phase II included refining procedure recommendations, supporting FAA submissions and review, additional outreach, and preparing the Fly Quiet Program framework. Task C specifically addressed development of a Fly Quiet Program to encourage quieter operating practices. The implementation agreement proposed in this request would put that framework into operation.
The study’s practical focus was on improvements that could fit within existing procedures and the Northern California airspace system. It did not provide a comprehensive design effort for independent procedures outside that framework. Commission and community discussions identified the need to evaluate that additional opportunity. The second proposed agreement responds to that recommendation while allowing the existing submissions and recommendations to continue through FAA review.
Commission review continued through 2026. In February, staff reported ongoing coordination with County representatives regarding requests for federal action. In April, Cignus presented updated flight-track analysis and incremental procedure options; Commissioners requested route overlays, climb profiles, and clearer outreach materials. In June, staff explained the limits of the existing scope and the option of separately studying a stand-alone departure. The Commission expressed consensus, without a formal motion, to submit Cignus’s proposed procedures through the FAA Gateway prior to conducting public outreach meetings, with the understanding that the procedures could be amended based on feedback received.
Noise concerns and the Airport response
The August 27, 2026 noise snapshot records 46,131 aircraft concerns for January through July 2026, compared with 10,755 during the same months in 2025, an increase of approximately 329 percent. Within 2026, reports declined from 8,768 in May to 8,154 in June and 5,388 in July. The reporting households shown for those months were 212, 206, and 189, respectively. Maps and district summaries continue to show a substantial concentration of concerns in West County. The July decrease in complaints is largely driven by the FAA using the CHRLY procedures during the Bohemian Grove event, and it appears the FAA is still using the CHRLY procedures on a regular basis.
Federal authority and the County’s role
The County owns and operates Charles M. Schulz - Sonoma County Airport (STS), but ownership does not confer control over the airspace above surrounding communities. Under federal preemption, federal law overrides local regulation in areas reserved to federal authority. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) controls airspace use, air traffic control, aviation safety, and aircraft noise certification. Consequently, the County cannot independently prescribe flight paths, minimum flight altitudes, or air traffic control instructions over specific neighborhoods. It can develop and advocate for changes, but operational procedures remain subject to FAA authority.
The County retains important responsibilities as Airport proprietor: operating and improving Airport facilities, pursuing compatible land uses within its jurisdiction, evaluating noise mitigation, and supporting community engagement. Its limited authority to restrict Airport use remains subject to federal law. In addition to constitutional and statutory limitations on local agency’s ability to regulate air traffic, mandatory contract provisions attached to federal funding obligate airport sponsors to maintain public access to airport facilities, and as a matter of contract prevent airports from taking actions that prevent full utilization of airport infrastructure. Among other restrictions, Grant Assurance 22 requires airports to provide reasonable access on fair terms to similarly situated users and potentially users of airport facilities, and Grant Assurance 5 disallows airports from allowing or taking any action that limits the airport’s ability to provide such access or otherwise comply with Grant Assurances. Ground-management measures must comply with applicable safety and federal obligations; County ownership does not create unrestricted power to regulate aircraft operations.
ANCA and Mandatory Noise Restrictions
As a general matter, federal law is considered the highest law of the land, and through a legal doctrine called preemption, in any area in which federal law addresses an issue, state and local law is prevented from being operative. This is true both where federal law expressly preempts state or local law in a particular area, and where federal law is extensive enough to be considered to “occupy the field” of law at issue, thereby preventing state or local control of that matter by implication. One of the prime sources of express preemption of local control over airports is the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA), the core legislation passed to limit local agency’s role in limiting air traffic, particularly aimed at limiting the extent to which noise limitations could be used to regulate or limit air traffic. ANCA, implemented through 14 CFR Part 161, expressly preempts any local laws aimed at limited aircraft noise or operations not already in effect as of the 1991 cutoff of application of the law. FAA is charged with authority to determine questions of whether a local agency’s noise ordinance or similar local legislation meet the criteria for predating ANCA such that it may remain in force notwithstanding the passage of ANCA.
Notably for Sonoma County, the FAA has made a determination that the noise limitations passed by Sonoma County do not properly predate ANCA and are therefore preempted. In 1992 and 1993, the FAA questioned the County’s Noise Control Ordinance under ANCA, identified federal funding implications, and discussed non-enforcement and a voluntary program as possible paths forward. At the time, the County agreed voluntarily not to enforce the ordinance based on FAA’s determination. In 2011, the County petitioned the FAA to recognize the ordinance as grandfathered under ANCA. The FAA rejected that petition in 2013, determining that the ordinance was federally preempted and unenforceable.
In addition to preempting most local legislation around aircraft noise and air traffic, ANCA establishes requirements for potential approval of airport noise and access restrictions. A new restriction affecting modern aircraft (referred to as “Stage 3” aircraft) may be allowed under ANCA where the airport owner reaches agreement with all affected aircraft operators under a specific process set forth by FAA, or by FAA approval of the restriction. FAA’s review process for approving a restriction requires airport owners to submit evidence addressing reasonableness and nondiscrimination, burdens on commerce and the national aviation system, safe and efficient airspace use, consistency with federal law, and opportunity for public comment.
Although by its terms ANCA reserves the possibility that a local agency airport operator may be able to impose limits on aircraft operations in two different ways, as a practical matter, the path to success is extremely narrow. In the 35+ years since the passage of ANCA, the FAA has never approved a restriction under either pathway. As to voluntary agreements between airport users, because of publication and circulations requirements and the fact that any potential user of the airport can object to the proposed regulations and defeat unanimity, as a practical matter this has not led to any U.S. airport successfully limiting operations under these provisions. Similarly, with respect to the potentiality of introducing new limits on aircraft on FAA approval, FAA has never given its approval for such restrictions. This is true even for programs based in part on pre-ANCA limitations, and in some cases where public agencies engaged in highly detailed analysis of over the course of multi-year, multimillion dollar efforts seeking FFA approval. Thus, while the path exists in law to successfully create new, opportunities to create binding limits on aircraft operations are very limited.
Voluntary Measures and Procedure Changes
Despite the limited options available for enforceable noise limits, the County has pursued noise reduction through local planning efforts, voluntary noise-abatement measures, pilot outreach, and requests for FAA action. Efforts have included encouraging alternative approaches, coordinating with airlines, improving flight tracking and complaint analysis, and seeking FAA procedure changes.
Why the proposed Fly Quiet Program is voluntary
The proposed Fly Quiet Program uses education, operator coordination, monitoring, public reporting, and recognition to encourage quieter operations within existing authority. Its quiet hours would be requests for cooperation, not an enforceable curfew. Program participation and performance scores would not determine access to the Airport or trigger fines, punitive fees, or denial of service. Leases and operating agreements should not convert voluntary measures into unapproved access restrictions. Mandatory restrictions would require separate legal analysis, Board consideration, and the applicable federal process.
Noise-abatement recommendations must remain subordinate to FAA requirements, air traffic control instructions, weather, aircraft capabilities, and the pilot’s safety responsibilities. Program criteria should account for operations beyond an operator’s control and appropriate emergencies and public-service exceptions. Public reporting and operator follow-up support accountability but cannot guarantee adherence to preferred routes or quiet hours.
How existing or new procedures move through FAA review
The feasibility study identified changes to existing procedures; the new agreement would evaluate new standalone concepts. The County and Cignus can compare alternatives, document community effects, and prepare submissions. Both existing procedure changes and new concepts require FAA review. Submission does not guarantee approval of a new route or establish an implementation date.
Request and initial feasibility. A proposal is submitted through the appropriate FAA process. The FAA evaluates feasibility and identifies needed information; changes can affect neighboring communities, other airports, and the wider air traffic system.
Technical development and coordination. Candidate procedures must satisfy applicable design criteria and address terrain, obstacles, navigation requirements, aircraft performance, and integration with air traffic operations. Additional surveys or design changes may be needed.
Environmental review and public involvement. The FAA determines the applicable environmental-review requirements, including review under the National Environmental Policy Act. Required consultation and public-comment opportunities depend on the proposed action and review process. County outreach should inform alternative development and communicate potential benefits and changes in noise exposure among communities. It does not replace FAA-required review.
Approval and implementation. Before use, procedures must complete applicable FAA approval, validation, flight-inspection, and publication steps. FAA priorities and resources affect scheduling. Once available, actual use depends on operational conditions, aircraft capability, pilot training and air traffic control clearances.
Relationship to the requested Board action
Approval of the Cignus agreements would fund voluntary program implementation and the evaluation and preparation of procedure recommendations through FAA submission. It would not approve a mandatory curfew, impose an access restriction, or authorize a new flight path. The County would review findings and public feedback; the FAA would retain procedure-approval authority. Part 161 review of access restrictions and FAA review of flight procedures are distinct processes.
Status of procedure submissions and FAA coordination
The proposed RREHD II departure and Runway 2 arrival procedure have been submitted to the FAA for review. RREHD II seeks improvements to the existing departure, including defined turning points for departures from Runways 14 and 32 and higher crossing altitudes. The objective is to reduce noise associated with the existing routing while maintaining a procedure that can operate within the regional airspace system. The Runway 2 arrival submission advances a separate recommendation from the feasibility study to better integrate with the changes in the RRHED II design.
The other arrival procedures identified in the Approach Feasibility Study have also been submitted to the FAA for review which includes Aera Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) runway 02, RNAV (GPS) runway 14 and RNAV (GPS) 32. In addition, three new arrival procedures have been filed to help reduce the noise exposure on our residents using NextGen technologies by promoting more efficient use of our airspace through continuous descent approaches that utilize reduced/optimal power settings including amended RNAV (GPS) runway 02, amended RNAV (GPS) runway 14 and amended RNAV (GPS) runway 32.
The Airport has also continued to raise concerns with the FAA about the assignment of RREHD and the availability of the legacy CHRLY departures. The FAA controls which procedure is used, airspace use, and air traffic clearances. Airport requests and consultant recommendations must be evaluated within that federal process, including safety, operational compatibility, and applicable environmental review. The County cannot commit or guarantee FAA approval or a particular operating outcome.
A West County resident has separately submitted a request to the FAA for review of an alternative departure concept. Its FAA review is separate from the County’s Cignus submissions and the two agreements presented in this item.
Fly Quiet implementation and Commission review
The initial Fly Quiet concepts were outlined to the Commission in December 2025. Cignus provided additional detail at the June 18, 2026 Commission meeting, and the Commission requested a later action item with more detail on the costs. At the August 20, 2026 meeting, the Commission reviewed the elements and their costs and recommended that the Board approve Elements 1, 4, 5, and 6. It did not recommend implementation of Elements 2, 3, and 7. The Commission also asked the Board to consider funding the program with 50 percent Airport funds and 50 percent General Fund or other County funds.
The Commission modified the proposed Fly Quiet Program elements through its action described above. After reviewing the Commission’s recommendations, staff recommend implementation of all elements summarized below, including the full first-year virtual noise-monitoring component.
|
Original element |
Purpose and expected implementation work |
Commission recommendation |
|
1 Voluntary quiet hours |
Develop and communicate voluntary nighttime operating guidance. The earlier concept identified 10 p.m.-7 a.m., with heightened efforts during 11 p.m.-6 a.m., subject to safety and operational needs. |
Approve |
|
2 Good Neighbor Flying |
Develop operator agreements and arrival/departure guidance. Evaluate eligible use of the existing western GPS/RNAV arrival during trial scoring. New routes or altitudes require FAA coordination. |
Do not implement |
|
3 General aviation operations |
Coordinate voluntary guidance for traffic patterns, engine run-ups, flight training, and practice areas with general aviation operators and flight schools. |
Do not implement |
|
4 Carrier scoring and recognition |
Develop a quarterly scorecard, test results before public release, and complete airline review. Apply eligibility rules and exceptions; no penalties or individual crew targeting. |
Approve |
|
5 Community roundtable |
Conduct a charter workshop addressing balanced membership, geographic representation, public input, and data review. Include community, County, airline and general aviation participation. |
Approve |
|
6 Flight tracking and complaint management |
Use the Airport’s noise management system - Casper for baseline flight-track and complaint analysis, dashboard reporting, and follow-up. Include virtual noise monitoring and its first-year subscription in with the full scope. This will be under a separate contract ($25,000). |
Approve |
|
7 Daytime operations |
Develop voluntary daytime guidance addressing general aviation training, commercial operations, and rotorcraft activity, coordinated with the affected operators. |
Do not implement |
Fly Quiet would remain voluntary and subject to safety, aircraft operating requirements, weather, and air traffic control instructions. Emergency and other qualifying operations would be addressed in the exceptions. It would not establish a mandatory curfew or flight-access restrictions. Scoring would account for runway use, weather, aircraft capability, FAA instructions, and other eligibility conditions. Complaints would provide context rather than a direct scoring penalty. Virtual noise information would be generated and labeled as modeled data, not measurements from installed microphones.
The Department recommends the complete program because the operating guidance in Elements 2, 3, and 7 provides the practices that education, scoring, and public reporting are intended to support and has shown to be successful at other airports. Retaining those elements also addresses general aviation and daytime activity, in addition to commercial flights and nighttime concerns. Staff would work with Cignus and operators to make the guidance practical, avoid duplication among the elements, and evaluate participation and results before recommending later adjustments.
The Fly Quiet not-to-exceed amount presented to the Commission was $145,000 for the tasks supporting all seven program elements which included the virtual noise modeling costs. Travel reimbursements are included within the total costs are as estimated at $8,000, payable based on actual receipts.
The proposed Fly Quite Program agreement includes all elements at a total cost not to exceed $90,000, including travel reimbursements. Removing elements 2, 3 and 7, as recommended by the Commission, would reduce the cost by $30,000, resulting in a new agreement totaling $60,000. After reviewing the Commission’s recommendation, the Department and County Executive’s Office recommend approval of the full scope and fee at $90,000, funded entirely by the Airport. In addition to this amount a separate contract for the virtual noise modeling to be added to the noise management system is estimated to be $25,000 per year (to be executed separately through purchasing as a software license). Both elements are needed for the Fly Quite Program resulting in a total implementation cost of $115,000. For the new agreement, the tasks presented to the Commission have been slightly refined and are aligned with the work product and not specific elements of actions in a Fly Quiet Program proposed now in six (6) contract tasks as outlined below:
|
Task |
Work and principal deliverables |
Fee |
|
1 |
Program governance and Community Roundtable establishment. 1. Community Roundtable charter and recommended composition 2. Meeting cadence, operating procedures and initial meeting materials. |
$12,500 |
|
2 |
Voluntary Quiet Hours framework. 1. Voluntary Quiet Hours framework and operator guidance 2. Categories of operations exempt from the program |
$10,000 |
|
3 |
Carrier scoring methodology and public recognition program. 1. Carrier scoring methodology and recognition framework 2. Shadow-scoring validation results |
$12,500 |
|
4 |
Flight tracking, virtual noise monitoring and complaint management. 1. Virtual noise-monitoring and complaint-management configuration 2. Public reporting dashboard and scoring data feed The virtual noise-monitoring software subscription will be procured separately and is estimated at $25,000 per year. |
$20,000 |
|
5 |
Community engagement, outreach and pilot education. 1. Pilot education and community outreach materials 2. Engagement summary |
$15,000 |
|
6 |
Program launch and reporting. 1. Launch support and first public scorecard 2. Annual program review and Board report |
$12,000 |
|
|
Professional fees |
$77,000 |
|
|
Travel and reimbursable expenses (actual receipts) |
$8,000 |
|
|
Total not-to-exceed amount |
$90,000 |
Estimated recurring program costs
After implementation, Cignus estimates approximately $98,000 annually in direct costs for continuing consultant support and software, including virtual noise-monitoring subscriptions, with 3-5 percent annual escalation. This is a planning estimate for Years 2-5, and if the Fly Quiet Program agreement is approved, this would be included in budget planning as part of the budget process.
New stand-alone procedure review and design
At its August meeting, the Commission recommended approval of the integrated Phase III scope for both arrivals and departures. The Department and County Executive’s Office concur. Cignus’s scope provides for up to 16 candidate concepts and advancement of eight selected concepts to FAA-submission maturity: one arrival and one departure for each runway end, 2, 20, 14, and 32. The $270,000 includes an estimated $15,000 for travel and reimbursables.
Phase III proposes to examine new route geometry, continuous climb and descent options, navigation requirements, terrain and obstacles, and integration with Northern California traffic. It would compare effects on individual communities, identifying both potential benefits and added exposure. The County would establish its noise-distribution objective through a Concept of Operations, rather than assume that dispersing or concentrating traffic is preferable in every case. The work also examines climb requirements, aircraft payload, fuel use, and operating efficiency. An assessed area for radar-vector departures would be screened as a possible alternative or complement to new published procedures.
|
Task |
Work and principal deliverables |
Fee |
|
1 |
Update airspace and modeled-noise baselines; assess obstacle-data adequacy and environmental review needs; establish the Concept of Operations and evaluation criteria. |
$42,000 |
|
2 |
Explore up to 16 arrival/departure candidates; screen routing, navigation, obstacles, aircraft performance, and feasibility. |
$52,000 |
|
3 |
Compare noise exposure by community and concept; assess operating trade-offs; recommend a balanced set of eight concepts. |
$40,000 |
|
4 |
Coordinate with Northern California approach control, Oakland Center, and the STS tower; document constraints and refine concepts. |
$32,000 |
|
5 |
Provide technical materials and presentations for up to four County-led outreach sessions; document public and stakeholder feedback. |
$23,000 |
|
6 |
Develop the selected concepts and screen flyability, navigation coding, and obstacles; deliver concept files in the FAA’s usable TARGETS format. |
$38,000 |
|
7 |
Prepare eight submission packages, coordinate FAA submission, and provide submission records and a close-out and handover summary. |
$28,000 |
|
|
Professional fees |
$255,000 |
|
|
Travel and reimbursable expenses (actual receipts) |
$15,000 |
|
|
Total Phase III not-to-exceed amount |
$270,000 |
Two County decision points control advancement. Following Task 1, the County must approve the objectives and evaluation criteria, including the noise-distribution objective and whether public or special procedures are being pursued. Following Task 3, the County must concur in the selected concepts and acknowledge their anticipated environmental-review requirements before submission-oriented work proceeds. Cignus must recommend stopping or changing the scope if its analysis does not support a materially better outcome. Any budget change requires a written amendment; the scope contains no separate management reserve.
Cignus would deliver technically developed concepts, supporting analyses, and FAA submissions. The FAA retains responsibility for the official procedure design, approval, publication, and operational use and may modify, defer, or decline any concept. Phase III ends at submission. Its comparative noise analysis supports selection among alternatives and does not replace any formal environmental analysis the FAA may require. Work already funded under Phase II would continue separately.
Estimated schedule and future public participation
The proposed Fly Quiet implementation period is 12 months. Phase III concept development would take approximately 12-15 months from notice to proceed through FAA submission, including up to six weeks for County review at each decision point. If work begins in December 2026, Fly Quiet’s initial program review would be expected around December 2027, and Phase III submissions around December 2027-March 2028. These are planning dates dependent on the actual notice to proceed, data availability, and FAA coordination.
|
Work period |
Expected milestone |
|
Fly Quiet months 1-3 |
Prepare governance and operating guidance, coordinate with operators, establish the data approach, and develop outreach materials. |
|
Fly Quiet months 4-7 |
Begin the initial rollout and community discussions, test public reporting, and validate scoring before publication. |
|
Fly Quiet months 8-12 |
Publish validated program results, complete the first program review, and report progress and recommended adjustments to the Board. |
|
Phase III months 1-15 |
Establish objectives and baseline conditions, evaluate alternatives, conduct public outreach, obtain County concurrence, refine eight concepts, and submit to the FAA. |
|
FAA review after Phase III |
Cignus estimates another 24-36 months for FAA review, official design, flight inspection, and charting. This period is outside Phase III and could be extended by FAA workload or environmental review. |
Airline partners discussed Fly Quiet at the August 5, 2026 Airport Affairs meeting, expressed general support, and asked to participate in final program development. Fly Quiet implementation would begin with a charter workshop involving community representatives, the Commission, County staff, airlines, general aviation operators, and other affected users. The proposal contemplated 10-12 voting roundtable members, with FAA participation in a non-voting advisory role. Membership, geographic representation, appointments, and public-comment and data-review protocols would be refined through the workshop and County Counsel review.
Phase III includes technical support for up to four County-led outreach sessions during concept development. Cignus would explain alternatives and community-specific noise trade-offs and prepare a feedback summary. Commission meetings and the Fly Quiet roundtable would provide additional continuing opportunities for public input. Staff would use these discussions to inform the County’s objectives and concept selection and would identify any material policy or funding decisions requiring further Board action.
Updates will distinguish concepts under development, requests submitted to the FAA, and procedures approved for use. Materials and meeting notices will be made available through the Airport’s public information channels, including STS Good Neighbor website. FAA public-comment opportunities will also be identified when available. Public notices, opportunities for input, and staff responses would support continuing discussion. Staff can evaluate later feedback with Cignus and determine whether FAA amendments should be requested. The number and timing of consultant-supported meetings will be aligned with the approved scopes.
Strategic Plan:
This item directly supports the County’s Five-year Strategic Plan and is aligned with the following pillar, goal, and objective.
Pillar: Resilient Infrastructure
Goal: Goal 2: Establish equitable and data-driven distribution of services
Objective: Objective 3: Establish expectations and performance measures for customer service for all County departments.
Racial Equity:
Was this item identified as an opportunity to apply the Racial Equity Toolkit?
No
Prior Board Actions:
July 8, 2025 - Approved the Phase II Approach Feasibility Study agreement with Cignus for an amount not to exceed $275,000. File 2025-0522, Item 32.
August 9, 2022 - Approved the Phase I Approach Feasibility Study agreement with Cignus for an amount not to exceed $278,500. File 2022-0742, Item 22.
Fiscal Summary
|
Expenditures |
FY26-27 Adopted |
FY27-28 Projected |
FY28-29 Projected |
|
Budgeted Expenses |
$178,500 |
$181,500 |
|
|
Additional Appropriation Requested |
|
|
|
|
Total Expenditures |
$178,500 |
$181,500 |
$0 |
|
Funding Sources |
|
|
|
|
General Fund/WA GF |
|
|
|
|
State/Federal |
|
|
|
|
Fees/Other |
$178,500 |
$181,500 |
|
|
Use of Fund Balance |
|
|
|
|
General Fund Contingencies |
|
|
|
|
Total Sources |
$178,500 |
$181,500 |
$0 |
Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts:
Appropriations for this agreement are currently available in the FY 2026-27 Airport Operations Final Budget (41301 / 34030101). Appropriations for the balance of the contracts will be included in the Airport Operations Recommended Budget for FY 2027/28. Funding for Airport Operations are derived from fees and charges for Airport facilities and services.
Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):
No position changes are requested. Airport staff will manage the task orders, FAA coordination, public outreach, and program administration. Future staffing needs would be addressed through the budget process if necessary.
Attachments:
Professional Services Agreement - Cignus Fly Quiet Program
Professional Services Agreement - Cignus Phase III Flight Procedures
Board Presentation
Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:
None.