Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Aviation Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Granite County board says FAA field visit found Riddick Field runway “failed,” weighs lighting and funding options
Summary
After a field visit from an FAA representative who described ‘alligator cracking’ and called the runway “failed,” the Granite County Airport Board debated pilot‑controlled lighting, liability and whether to accept FAA funding. The board agreed to await a written FAA report before advising county commissioners.
The Granite County Airport Board on June 17 said an FAA representative who toured Riddick Field described extensive “alligator cracking” and used the phrase “runway is failed,” prompting a wide-ranging discussion about how to repair the runway and whether to accept federal aviation funding.
Board members who attended the FAA visit said the meeting was a field visit rather than a formal inspection and that the FAA official (identified in the meeting as Kevin) will provide a written report. Jim (the chair) and others said they would wait for that formal report before making final recommendations to the county commissioners.
Why it matters: The runway condition affects whether the county can safely operate Riddick Field, whether it must pay for repairs entirely from local funds, and whether accepting FAA or state grant money would trigger operational requirements (such as night‑lighting obligations) the community opposes. Board members repeatedly emphasized they are advisory to the commissioners and must present options, not make the final decision.
Board discussion centered on four broad options: keep the status quo (daytime with emergency beacon); adopt daytime‑only operations with pilot‑controlled lighting (PCL) for the beacon and runway lights; daytime‑only with no lights; or remove pavement and convert the surface (for example, to a grass strip) or rebuild as asphalt. Proponents of PCL argued it would limit the beacon’s nightly operation to short, pilot‑activated intervals; opponents raised two concerns: (1) whether accepting federal funding would legally require continuous lighting or other FAA conditions, and (2) county liability if a pilot turned on lights and an electrical or equipment failure contributed to an accident.
Several board members said the FAA regional office may take a different view than the local ADO and that the county needs a written FAA position before moving forward. The board also discussed practical matters: runway lights are decades old, the beacon and lighting could be expensive to replace, and the community has expressed clear opposition to a 24‑hour beacon.
“Until we have the information, it’s premature,” one board member said, urging the board to draft costed options to present to the commissioners. Public commenters reiterated safety concerns about night landings in the surrounding mountains and urged the board to honor community sentiment.
The board did not take a final policy vote on the runway or lighting; instead, members agreed to wait for the FAA’s written findings and to assemble a set of funding and operational scenarios (including cost estimates and liability considerations) to present to the county commissioners.
Next steps: The board asked the member who attended the FAA visit to share the written FAA response when it arrives; the board will prepare options with estimated costs and legal/operational implications for the commissioners to consider.
