Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Airport Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board debates fees for firefighting aircraft; discussion paused for consultation

3442155 · April 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Board members discussed a proposed $250-per-day usage fee for firefighting aircraft staged at the airport, compared Madison County precedents, and opted to table the matter pending consultation with state firefighting officials and additional staff analysis.

The Park County Airport Board considered whether to charge a usage fee for aircraft and crews staging at the field during wildfire operations. Chair Steve moved to implement a $250-a-day usage fee for firefighting aircraft; board members then discussed whether a lump-sum usage rate, landing fees or fuel flowage fees were most appropriate for the county’s circumstances.

Montana Aeronautics staff member Lance Bouser told the board that FAA grant conditions generally prohibit charging for government-owned aircraft, but noted a complicating detail: “most forest service, BLM, etcetera, are not actually government aircraft. They actually lease the majority of those aircraft,” Bouser said, meaning many firefighting aircraft are privately owned and may be treated differently for charging purposes. Bouser also pointed the board to existing local precedents: Twin Bridges charged $250 a day, while Ennis had a tiered structure that began at $350 a day for up to two helicopters and one fixed-wing aircraft and rose to $450 for additional aircraft.

Several airport users and local operators urged caution and practical solutions. Ryan Rose, the field’s fixed-base operator, said tracking fuel flow and pumpage could allow flowage fees when contractors bring their own fuel. Other users described damage and cleaning costs that occurred while crews were staged, and board members said a usage fee could help cover wear-and-tear and cleaning.

After extended discussion and a request by local firefighting officials to confer, the board did not adopt the proposed rate at the meeting. The chair withdrew the immediate motion and the board agreed to table the fee proposal until its next meeting so staff can consult with the appropriate state firefighting official and produce recommended wording and a rate structure. No final fee was adopted at this meeting.