The Logan-Cache Airport Authority on Thursday heard multiple private proposals to finance and build hangars along Taxiway Lima but declined to approve a development agreement, instead tabling the item and asking county legal and a small committee to refine the contract.

Developers from three teams — including Kyle Fisher’s group, Forge Contractors and Scratch Development — described plans to fund taxi-lane construction and build hangar buildings that would be sold or leased to pilots on the airport’s waiting list. Board members repeatedly said they wanted to protect consistency with the recently approved airport master plan and preserve a fair public process before awarding long-term rights or rights to construct fuel infrastructure.

“[W]hat we're proposing is full taxi lane build out for Taxiway Lima,” the developer representing one group told the board, saying the developer would “bond, obviously, for completion” and finance utilities, stormwater and taxi-lane construction. Lochner, the airport planner, and staff told the board the master plan and airport layout plan identify locations intended for corporate-scale hangars and that approvals must align with FAA and UDOT Aeronautics requirements.

Board members pressed developers on several points: how proposed hangar sizes would match the master plan; whether smaller “condo” or T-hangar units should be permitted on a taxi lane the master plan shows for corporate hangars; and whether the authority should solicit competing offers through a request for proposals (RFP). Developers said their plans are meant to respond to demand on the airport’s waiting list and to achieve economies of scale by building multiple units in a single structure and passing cost savings to buyers.

Developers described different proposals and timelines: one plan described four larger double-loaded corporate hangars fronting the taxi lane (with the developer proposing phased buildout); another proposal from Scratch Development and Forge Contractors said it would deliver 16 hangars totaling about 92,500 square feet and estimated a roughly 15‑month construction schedule, with some units available 8–10 months after groundbreak. Board members and developers repeatedly referenced a waiting list of about 18 names maintained by airport staff as evidence of existing demand.

Several board members said the development agreement draft needs substantial legal review and clearer allocations of long-term maintenance and liability. One board member asked that language referencing a private “fuel farm” be removed or subjected to a separate RFP and budgeting process, noting that long-term maintenance and operational responsibility must be explicit in any lease or ground-lease arrangement. Lochner staff told the board taxi-lane construction must meet FAA standards and that completed taxiways typically become airport property once built to standard.

After extended discussion, a motion to continue the matter and direct a small committee to work with county legal on edits passed. The board recorded a motion to continue the discussion pending legal review and further refining of the proposed agreement; the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor. The board directed a committee of staff and board representatives to meet with the developers, county counsel and Logan City representatives and bring a revised agreement back to the board for formal consideration.

What happened next: staff and the designated committee will work with county legal counsel, Logan City representatives and the developer teams to reconcile the draft development agreement with the master plan, to clarify phase-by-phase approvals and to identify whether an RFP or a negotiated development agreement is the appropriate path. The board said it expects to revisit a revised draft at a future meeting and directed staff to solicit public comment before final action.

Who spoke (selected): John Kerr, Board member; Bob (airport manager); Kyle Fisher, Developer (applicant); Judd (Lochner airport planner); Brett Hughey (developer/participant); Greg (Forge Contractors); Johnny Arbuckle (Scratch Development); Holland Wilbanks (Forge Contractors); Corey Getchi and Andy Checketts (local developer team). Direct quotes in this story are drawn from the public transcript and are attributed to speakers who appear in the meeting record.

Next steps: the board tabled the item and asked county legal to review the draft development agreement; a smaller committee will meet with developers and city/county counsel to produce a cleaned draft for board consideration and for a public comment period before final approval.