Council adopts new airport landing and parking fees amid dispute over secondary runway and fee collection

The Salem City Council on Tuesday adopted Resolution 2025-3 to modify landing and aircraft parking fees at Salem Willamette Valley Airport, after more than two hours of public comment that ranged from safety concerns about the secondary runway (Runway 16/34) to objections about using an outside vendor to collect the new fees.

Councilor Nishioka moved the resolution; Councilor Varney seconded. The roll-call vote was recorded as aye by all members present and the resolution passed.

Public commenters representing pilots, airport advisory bodies and local aviation businesses urged council to seek additional analysis before accepting consultant findings that the secondary runway (identified in the record as Runway 16/34) is ineligible for federal rehabilitation funding and might be shortened or closed. Speakers said the runway is favored by light general aviation aircraft for wind and crosswind considerations and that closing it could increase safety risks for single-engine aircraft.

Multiple members of the Airport Advisory Commission and the master plan advisory group told council they had sought additional cost estimates and an outside verification of the consultant’s data; Brent DeHart and Doug Brenizer said advisory-group recommendations and a January 2024 letter raising concerns were not shared with council for 13 months.

Pilots who testified described operational and safety reasons for keeping 16/34 available or for considering shortening — not eliminating — it. Hannah McLaughlin said that for many light aircraft the crosswind limit is much lower than the heaviest aircraft the consultant used as a reference and that “70% of traffic at Salem prefers to use 1634.” Brendan O’Meara and John (JP) McLaughlin urged a second opinion and expressed skepticism about the consultant Mead & Hunt’s cost estimates.

Several witnesses stressed the airport’s regional emergency role. Neil White outlined FEMA/Office of Emergency Management planning that expects large military cargo aircraft to deliver supplies into Salem in a major Cascadia event, then rely on general aviation to distribute supplies locally if bridges and roads are damaged.

Speakers also criticized the plan to use Vector, a private company, to track aircraft and collect fees. Concerns raised included the impact on a locally owned fixed-base operator (FBO), the use of ADS-B tracking data for fee collection, and Vector’s revenue share (staff described an expected vendor share in the low 20s percent depending on aircraft class). Airport Manager John Pascale said the airport advisory commission had seen a presentation from the vendor and that staff had discussed Vector with the AAC; Director Brian Martin said a Vector contract had not been signed and that implementation would take time.

Staff and council said the fee adjustments were intended to generate revenue for airport operations; staff estimated $50,000–$100,000 in additional annual revenue from the change. Council asked staff to return with options for (a) fee waivers or carve-outs for public-benefit flights such as Angel Flight West and (b) alternative collection methods that could rely on a local FBO rather than an out-of-area vendor. City Attorney and staff cautioned that fee-waiver policies should be developed carefully to avoid open-ended requests.

The resolution as adopted sets the amended fees in the city’s 2025 schedule; staff said actual collections would depend on executing a collection arrangement and implementing the program (staff did not anticipate immediate collection on March 13 because contracts and setup remain to be completed). The Airport Advisory Commission also recommended a threshold change for which aircraft classes would be charged; staff noted the code includes a provision that exempts certain emergency-service flights.

Clarifying details: staff reported estimated revenue of roughly $50,000–$100,000 per year; the vendor share was described as roughly 22–23% depending on program structure; staff said the vendor contract being considered would include an initial firm period (memory in the meeting indicated 3 years firm followed by year-to-year options) and that equipment installed would be vendor-owned. The AAC had previously recommended hiring an independent aviation planning consultant to verify Mead & Hunt’s data and funding options and passed a related recommendation in January 2024, which some witnesses said was not timely presented to council.

The council adopted Resolution 2025-3 by roll call; staff will return with additional recommendations on waivers and alternative collection methods.