Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landing Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory board stops short of a landing-fee recommendation after debate
Summary
Board members discussed a tiered landing-fee proposal tied to maximum gross landing weight, revenue estimates and exemptions but deferred a recommendation pending further analysis and options to present to commissioners.
Members of the Bonner County Airport Advisory Board debated several landing-fee structures for Sandpoint Airport but did not adopt a formal recommendation at the meeting.
Airport staff presented a tiered proposal the manager outlined as $7 per thousand pounds for aircraft 12,500 pounds and above, $5 per thousand for 9,000–12,500 pounds, and $4 per thousand for 5,000–9,000 pounds, with aircraft under 5,000 pounds exempt. Board members suggested alternatives, including exempting aircraft below 9,000 pounds or charging a lower per‑thousand rate (for example, $3 per thousand pounds for aircraft 9,000 and above). Staff ran a sample scenario and said exempting aircraft under 9,000 reduced the projected net revenue compared with charging a larger set of aircraft; a sample $3-per-thousand structure for 9,000 and above produced an estimated net of about $23,000 per year in the manager’s spreadsheet.
Discussion covered which operators to exempt. Board members noted that county-owned hangar tenants (for example, the Kodiak tenant and Life Flight) already pay substantial rents and maintenance contributions; the board discussed exempting such tenants to avoid “double-dipping.” Members also considered standard exemptions used elsewhere — federal, state and firefighting aircraft were noted as commonly exempt — and whether to exempt locally based aircraft. The board discussed using maintenance-fee or defense-agreement mechanisms as alternatives for some based operators rather than landing fees.
Members raised compliance and collection issues: the group discussed third‑party ADS-B–based fee collection systems that assemble operation data and remit fees to airports but take a vendor share (discussed at about 22% in the meeting). The board flagged that the aircraft-operator advocacy group AOPA has been challenging fee‑collection arrangements in some jurisdictions and cautioned about legal and political pushback. Several members said a clearly worded purpose (for example, a “taxiway improvement” or “pavement maintenance” fee) and transparent earmarking of landing-fee revenue for capital projects would help secure commissioner and public support.
Because of these policy and political trade-offs, the board agreed to defer a landing-fee recommendation and asked staff to prepare three or four alternative proposals with revenue projections, a comparison of regional airports, and potential exemptions for the next meeting.
