[{"_1":2,"_95":-5,"_96":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,85],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6568351,"mediaKeyId","3200379-98fa8949589a06ff8bc7c1c22b125489","parentId",3200379,"title","Director reports one skydiving fatality, declines in fuel sales and ongoing passenger reporting","audioSeconds",433,"startMs",100000,"endMs",533000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3200379-98fa8949589a06ff8bc7c1c22b125489&start=100&end=533","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6568351/Utah/Director-reports-one-skydiving-fatality-declines-in-fuel-sales-and-ongoing-passenger-reporting","mediaUrl","author","Grand County Airport Board","date","2025-05-05T16:00:00Z","article","The board unanimously approved the April 7 meeting minutes and then heard the airport operations report, which covered skydiving incidents, flight delays, monthly enplanements and fuel sales.

Minutes approval: A motion to approve the April 7 minutes was made and seconded; the board voted “Aye” and the motion passed unanimously.

Incidents: Staff reported three skydiving incidents during the month under review. That count was clarified during the meeting: one of the incidents resulted in a fatality, one person was “injured pretty badly,” and a third declined ambulance transport and self‑transported to a hospital. Staff praised the response of airport personnel, saying crews and a member named Lance “did an amazing job.”

Delays and cancellations: The operations report noted 13 delayed flights and two canceled flights in the period. Staff said most delays and cancellations were due to weather in Denver and that they would clarify future reports to indicate when delays stem from weather (and not from Contour or other carriers) so board members and the public are not confused.

Passengers and flights: Staff presented 2024 monthly figures and partial 2025 data on the county website. The board was shown emplanement charts for 2024 and early 2025; staff said January 2024 combined enplanements from SkyWest and Redtail totaled 396 for the month and that the full‑year total for all operations last year was reported as 14,541 enplanements. For March 2025, staff reported 715 enplanements from Contour; April numbers were still pending at the time of the meeting.

Fuel sales: For Jet A fuel, staff reported 17,912 gallons sold in March (figure given in the meeting). The interim director and board members discussed that Contour and other carriers often purchase fuel elsewhere because local prices can be higher; staff said pilots’ purchasing decisions are cost based and that the airport has been encouraging carriers to refuel locally. One board member said April Jet A sales attributed to Contour were about 2,300 gallons compared with roughly 6,700 gallons the previous year, indicating a noticeable drop.

Other operational notes: Staff said the county’s Vertiport/flight‑tracking display (referred to as “Vertower” in the meeting) and monthly statistics are available on the county website; staff will improve how charts are presented so the board can more easily see line comparisons (for example, Phoenix flights vs. Denver flights). Staff also reported that taxiway Bravo and the crosswind runway are open and operable; a remaining punch list includes minor items and one closure night scheduled for upcoming light installations.

Ending

The board did not take further action on operations items but directed staff to improve reporting clarity (separating weather‑caused delays from other causes), to post updated April numbers when available and to continue documenting incidents and fuel‑purchase behavior.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","Grand County Airport Board Regular Meeting - audio1581198576","oneSentenceSummary","Staff reported one fatality and two additional skydiving incidents, lower Jet A fuel sales and monthly passenger (emplanement) figures; board asked staff to clarify delay/cancellation causes and publish monthly stats more clearly on the county website.","taxTitle","Grand County Airport Board, Grand County Boards and Commissions, Grand County, Utah","taxId",75039,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6568356,"Airport board reviews multi‑million dollar apron and taxiway bids as FAA grants begin to issue",2535,827000,3362000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3200379-98fa8949589a06ff8bc7c1c22b125489&start=827&end=3362","/articles/6568356/Utah/Airport-board-reviews-multimillion-dollar-apron-and-taxiway-bids-as-FAA-grants-begin-to-issue","The Grand County Airport Board reviewed bid results and discussed funding options for several capital projects, including a large apron expansion, a loop taxi lane to connect park operations to a new apron, and phased reconstruction of existing aprons.

Staff reported the engineer’s total estimate for the combined project set at about $3.18 million. The low total bid received for the federally funded schedule was $2.698 million and the high was $4.181 million. For the federally funded portion (schedule 1), the engineer estimate was roughly $2.635 million; the lowest responsive bid was approximately $2.032 million (TSJ Construction). Several locally funded components (for example, taxiway foxtrot and pavement in front of county hangars) were bid as part of the overall package; the board was told FAA will only award based on the federal component and that some locally funded pieces came in over estimates.

Board members discussed next steps if FAA grant awards arrive. Staff said the FAA had begun issuing grants nationally and that the airport’s projects—apron expansion or the loop taxiway—are likely candidates to be funded first. The board discussed using local funds as match money and asked staff to check whether funds that had been held by the county general fund and earmarked to return to the airport could be used as local matching funds; staff said they would obtain a legal/auditor opinion.

The board also discussed pursuing funding from the state Community Impact Board (CIB). Staff said adding local match or demonstrating previous airport fund commitments improves an application’s competitiveness. Tourism‑related funding (TRCCA) was noted by a board member as an eligible source in past cases.

On procurement details, staff reported multiple responsive bids for different schedules. For the apron reconstruction schedule the engineer estimate was about $3.18 million; the low bid reported for that schedule was $1.994 million. The board asked staff to put the full bid documents and a detailed funding plan on the next agenda so members could review mobilization, federal/local splits and contingencies before recommending any contract award to the county commission.

Ending

No contract awards were made at the meeting. The board directed staff to place full bid packages and funding scenarios on a future meeting agenda and to continue coordinating with FAA, the county attorney and potential funding sources.","Board members reviewed bids for apron expansion, taxiway foxtrot and reconstruction work, discussed possible local matches and grant timing, and directed staff to place bid documents on a future agenda for formal review.",{"_33":86,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":87,"_41":88,"_43":89,"_45":90,"_47":91,"_49":50,"_51":92,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":93,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":94,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6568359,"Board debates whether to formalize landing area for backcountry aircraft amid safety and liability concerns",1903,962000,2865000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3200379-98fa8949589a06ff8bc7c1c22b125489&start=962&end=2865","/articles/6568359/Utah/Board-debates-whether-to-formalize-landing-area-for-backcountry-aircraft-amid-safety-and-liability-concerns","Board members, airport staff and several local pilots spent more than two hours debating whether to permit short‑takeoff‑and‑landing (STOL) and backcountry aircraft to land in paved‑adjacent safety areas at Grand County Airport or to create a designated softer surface for them.

The discussion began during the public-comment portion when a pilot, identified in the transcript as Dave, said limiting off‑pavement landings could be a safety concern for “tailwheel airplanes” and other backcountry types that are sometimes safer on dirt when winds are strong. Gary Kelly, another caller, told the board he supported adding “more usable runways” for the same reasons.

Airport staff and several board members described a different side of the issue: repeated damage to lights and ruts created by heavy, wide‑tired aircraft that drive up maintenance time and cost. An interim airport staff member said the airport sometimes must dispatch equipment at roughly $100 per hour plus equipment costs to repair rutting, and that staff has replaced lights damaged by operations off paved surfaces. The staff member also said the airport’s underdrain system and drainage patterns make some off‑runway surfaces soft or marshy in parts of the field, and that improving any one location could change drainage and require engineering.

Board members and staff outlined three core concerns they said must be addressed before changing policy: safety (especially the risk of a gravel or dark rotor‑veil surface being visually confused with pavement in certain light conditions), liability if the airport designates an off‑runway landing area, and maintenance costs. An airport official noted FAA guidance discouraging rotor‑mill or black asphalt surfaces adjacent to runways because they can be mistaken for pavement in low‑light conditions.

Several practical options surfaced during the discussion: (1) keeping the current rule that allows off‑runway landings but holds pilots financially responsible for damage, (2) designating and improving a single short strip near the taxiway with compacted fill or a different surface intended for STOL operations, (3) installing cameras and increased enforcement so damage can be attributed and billed, or (4) changing the written minimum standards to formally allow a designated surface with appropriate signage and requirements. Participants also suggested looking for a low‑cost treatment (a 2–3 inch compacted fill or other non‑asphalt surfacing) that might reduce rutting without creating an FAA‑style paved runway.

Multiple board members urged caution. One board member said any formal designation could be interpreted as the airport approving those operations and thereby increasing owner liability; another stressed visibility along the runway (slope and sightlines) could make a parallel surface less safe because pilots and other users may not see off‑runway traffic in time.

Staff said the airport has used a trail camera to document off‑pavement operations and will continue to do so. The interim director recommended deferring any rule changes until a new full‑time director is hired so that person could weigh in on an implementation plan. Several board members supported exploring pilot‑friendly solutions — for example, a single maintained strip that accepts STOL traffic — while preserving safeguards against damage to lighting, drainage and runway safety areas.

The board did not adopt any policy change at the meeting. The discussion closed with a direction to study site‑specific options (surface type, drainage impacts, costs), continue using trail cameras and to bring possible technical solutions back for future consideration.

Ending

Board members agreed the issue touches a statewide and national conversation about backcountry aircraft at small airports; they asked staff to return with engineering input, cost estimates and FAA guidance if available before making any formal rule change.","Citizens and board members debated whether to allow short-field and tailwheel aircraft to continue landing in the runway safety area, weighing pilot convenience and local aviation culture against FAA guidance, liability and repeated maintenance costs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Director reports one skydiving fatality, declines in fuel sales and ongoing passenger reporting

Airport board reviews multi‑million dollar apron and taxiway bids as FAA grants begin to issue

Board debates whether to formalize landing area for backcountry aircraft amid safety and liability concerns