Commission agrees damage to airport runway in Greybull is nobody’s fault during October meeting

Speaking at the October 17 meeting of the Big Horn County Commission, Kip McIntosh of Cloud Peak Drags/KCT Racing and County Airport Manager Paul Thur agreed that the damage to the runway sealant at the Greybull airport was nobody’s fault.
Cloud Peak’s last race at the South Big Horn County Airport was in August. A test double coating had been put on the runway. The goal was to get more years out of the surface.
 McIntosh explained that he sealant apparently did not cure completely. It loosened up by the afternoon in the heat and was spinning the sediment until the original pavement was exposed. They cut the race short when they saw what was happening.
McIntosh said his biggest concern was that KCT didn’t want negative press. He emphasized they were a zero-profit who invests the proceeds they receive back into the community, and they would like to continue to hold the races at the airport. He estimates that they have brought around $200,000 into the local economy over the last five or six years.  
Thur said from his perspective and the airport board’s perspective, nothing negative happened. “We didn’t know this was going to happen,” Thur said, appearing via Zoom. “Lesson learned. It wasn’t anyone’s fault. The racers didn’t do anything differently than they had done in the past.”
McIntosh agreed with Thur’s assessment of what happened. He said there would be a December meeting of the racers. He believes that, if the runway is in the same condition as it was in August, they likely would not race on it. He is concerned that if the racing was limited to non-racing slicks and no burnouts, the number of drivers would drop significantly.
The damage was repaired. The county had not received an invoice as of the meeting. Thur estimated it would cost around $800. An agreement was made to split the cost between the county and KCT.
Thur told the commission that the airport board briefly touched on charging landing fees. “In a nutshell, if we were to adopt landing fees there is a way to exempt leaseholders there from paying landing and takeoff fees.”
He added a weight limit could be added, as well. The idea is that heavier, non-based aircrafts would be the one to pay the landing fees.
Commissioner Dave Neves asked Thur the difference between charging a fee to land and charging a fee to get into the fairgrounds. “We haven’t done that, and personally I’m not in favor of that until I find out more,” he said.
Thur responded, “The difference would be … it’s like paying a fuel tax for when you are driving your car on the road. So, you should be putting a little bit back into maintaining it. So, I guess the idea, where landing fees came from is, ‘Hey, your aircraft is using the runways, so you should be putting something in for maintaining those.’” He added it is a standard practice. He plans to do more research and noted that all commercial airports have landing fees, including Cody.
Commissioner Deb Craft noted that at the airport board discussion about the fees, the fees were excessive. Thur went on to say that it is a public airport so the public should be able to use it for free, but an aircraft coming in that is putting wear and tear on the runway should put back into the maintenance.
Neves explained that he understands this but that the county had lower fuel prices to get people to use the airport. He wasn’t aware that other airports charged such fees, but he is a bit cautious about doing so in this county.
Commission chairman Bruce Jolley said he is skeptical, too. “Based on the discussions that went on between the commissioners and the airport board about the cost of fuel, it should be lower to attract people,” he said. “I see this as one of those discussions. The airport board wanted to keep the fuel fees down to attract people, but then if you put a landing fee, isn’t that the same as charging for fuel almost?”
Thur said the landing fee targets the heavier aircraft. If a plane doesn’t exceed whatever weight is set for the fees, then they wouldn’t pay. He estimated that 99% of the traffic wouldn’t be impacted.
LAND PLANNING
Stephanie May told the commissioners the office was up to 40 septic tank applications for the year. In comparison, there were 64 applications in 2021. There are 14 simple subdivision applications so far this year. Five are in the works.
ROAD/BRIDGE/ENGINEERING
The county received a request to address traffic issues at the intersections of Road 10 with Lane 38, Lane 39 and possibly Lane 37. There are yield signs on Road 10. The lanes have the rights of way.
Resident Mike Riley said there are vehicles traveling at excessive speeds. There have been accidents there. There was some discussion about putting the yield signs on the lanes instead.
County Engineer Willie Bridges told the commission that, to make a difference at those intersections, four-way stops would be the best solution. He added that there have been enough accidents there to warrant something being done differently. Stop signs with flashing lights would work best, he said.
North End Road and Bridge Supervisor Eric Mann did something similar on that end of the county and it worked, he said.
Commissioner Dave Neves said he believes something needs to be changed. He added that coming from the north on Road 10, drivers can’t see from that intersection looking east. There is a yield sign at the intersection.
By consensus, the commissioners agreed with Bridges’ recommendation.
Bridges gave a G-P Road update. He said the work is going well and currently under budget. Jolley asked if the county had received any feedback from G-P.
An executive session was held for potential litigation.