He told the committee that new hangar will not interfere with the airport’s terminal, which currently has seven vacant gates. He added that expansion of the current terminal would not be needed until the airport reaches approximately 6 to 7 million passengers per year. Currently, the airport sees approximately 1.6 million passengers per year.
I'd say there's no need to worry about the need to grow the terminal for the foreseeable future.
The slides at the bottom of the article have some interesting graphics about the impact of the coronavirus.
Basically the airport is down 70% from normal and anticipates this staying the same through Q3. They're hoping that vaccinations allow for a recovery starting in Q4.
Overall they seem to have taken a "conservative" approach (i.e. opposite of the one political conservatives favored) and it seems to have been the correct approach.
They cut spending hard, and are keeping their heads above water due to federal grants.
The only thing I would have liked is some overview of the fiscal impact of the new cargo hangar relative to the airport's long term debt picture.
I doubt it is going to change the fortunes of the airport, but still, it'd be nice to see it in context.