Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Security Badges topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables airport badging fee proposal for further staff clarification on contractor carve-outs
Summary
Staff proposed new fees for airport security badges to recover part of the airport’s costs; commissioners asked for clarification on contractor exemptions and pass-throughs and ultimately chose to delay action so staff can return with refined language.
Flagstaff airport staff proposed instituting fees for airfield (AOA) and sterile-area badges at the May 8 commission meeting to recover part of the airport’s annual badging-related costs. Commissioners requested additional language clarifying contractor carve-outs and whether badge costs would be reimbursed or passed through, and the item was tabled for further staff work.
Brian (airport operations lead) and Adam Yelli presented current badging activity and costs. Staff said the airport issues roughly 35 AOA badges and about 90 sterile/sterile-area badges annually and currently does not charge for badges; total annual badging-related costs to the airport are about $20,000 when including staff time, fingerprinting enrollment and materials. Staff briefly explained federal processes — fingerprints are sent to a TSA-managed database and an enrollment system notifies the airport of disqualifying items — and noted that Badge initial versus renewal costs differ because initial issuance involves more staff time and background checks.
Staff proposed an initial AOA charge of $40 and a renewal of $20 (rising modestly in a phased schedule through 2027), and sterile-area initial $75 with a $50 renewal; recommended lost-badge fees were tiered ($50 first loss, $75 second, $100 third). Commissioners raised several concerns: who would be considered a contractor eligible for a carve-out, whether contractors would simply pass costs back to the airport, how many badges are for hangar tenants versus contractors, and whether the airport’s recordkeeping can easily separate initial versus renewal workload. Commissioner Robbie Hanovich specifically asked about contractor treatment; staff replied they had not proposed a contractor carve-out but were open to it.
After discussion Commissioner Hanovich moved to proceed but later withdrew his motion and commissioners agreed to table the item so staff could draft clearer language, including a definition of which contractors (for example, contractors under direct city contract or reimbursed by the city) would be exempt or treated differently. Staff committed to return with refined language and proposed fee text for further commission consideration and told the commission they would consult finance staff to craft the wording.
No final fee was adopted. Staff emphasized that any new fee would require City Council review and likely the normal public-notice process.
