Longmont council advances landing-fees ordinance after hours of public comment; rates to be set later

Longmont City Council on Oct. 28 voted to advance an ordinance that would authorize the city to impose landing fees at Vance Brand Municipal Airport, a decision that followed more than three hours of public commentary and heated debate.

The council vote (5–4) advanced the ordinance from first to second reading, allowing staff to consult the Federal Aviation Administration, solicit proposals for fee administration, and return with a specific fee schedule and any proposed exemptions. The ordinance as advanced does not set dollar amounts. Mayor Joan Peck said the ordinance establishes the local authority to adopt fees later through the city’s rates-and-charges process and does not itself implement a fee schedule.

Why it matters: Staff says the airport’s operating pro forma covers routine maintenance and operations but lacks funding for capital work and required local matches for federal and state grants. Assistant City Manager Sandy Cedar told council that accepting state and federal airport grants often requires a local match and that without additional local revenue options the city could be unable to take advantage of grant opportunities to build hangars, improve fuel infrastructure and modernize facilities.

What supporters said: Dozens of Longmont residents urged council to adopt landing fees to make the airport self-sustaining and to generate local matching funds for infrastructure grants. "Users should pay for the airport that they use — it’s a user-fee model like parks and pools," said Emmy Friedman, a Longmont resident who spoke in favor of fees (timecode 5795). City staff outlined multiple fee-methodology options, including weight-based fees (per 1,000 pounds), flat fees per landing and hybrid approaches, and noted administrative services exist to identify aircraft and collect fees.

What opponents said: More than two dozen pilots, flight instructors, flight schools and community aviation volunteers urged the council to reject landing fees, saying they would drive away training flights, reduce fuel sales and threaten local aviation jobs. "Landing fees would add significantly to student debt and make training prohibitively expensive," said Chad Renick of EAA Chapter 648 (timecode 2495). Flight-school representatives warned that routine training requires many pattern landings, so per-landing fees could multiply into substantial cost increases for student pilots.

Council direction and next steps: Council directed staff to consult with the FAA about permissible exemptions and nondiscrimination requirements, to issue a procurement for landing-fees administration, and to return with proposed rates, a public-notice schedule and analysis of alternatives such as hangar development, fuel-flowage adjustments, tie-down and lease-rate changes. The city attorney and staff noted the FAA will review fee practices only if challenged under federal grant assurances; the FAA does not “approve” landing fees in advance but will assess legal consistency if a complaint is filed.

A note on process: The ordinance approved on first reading establishes the authority for landing fees; any effective fee schedule will be adopted later after required posting, Airport Advisory Board review, and another council vote. Council members who opposed advancing the ordinance said they wanted additional studies (economic impact, hangar development scenarios, comparisons to airports that adopted fees) before empowering staff to pursue a fee program.

Looking ahead: Staff said the council’s forthcoming choices include (a) whether to exempt based aircraft/hangar leases and/or student training flights; (b) whether to use a per-1,000-pound weight formula or a flat fee; and (c) how to administer and enforce fees. Council members requested examples from peer airports, data on likely traffic change if fees are imposed, and the outcomes of airport authorities and hangar-development options that might generate stable revenue without per-landing charges.

Ending: The landing-fees ordinance now goes to a formal rates-and-charges process and a second council reading, with public notice and further opportunities for comment. Staff estimated that, depending on the chosen model and whether the city requires full internal cost allocations, the airport would need on the order of $230,000–$420,000 annually in new revenue to cover full costs and capital-match expectations; council will consider those targets in setting a final fee schedule.