Pitkin County commissioners heard Nov. 6 that a planned runway pavement maintenance project—unreimbursed by federal sources—remains the primary factor driving proposed increases in airline and general aviation rates and charges for fiscal 2026.

Diane Jackson, the county's airport director, introduced outside consultants from Recondo and said the airport faces an outlay the consultants characterized as “a big influencer” in the FY26 rate calculation. "That situation has not gone away," Jackson said during the presentation.

Recondo vice president Brian Elliott and director Jason Apt laid out the compensatory methodology that the airport uses to allocate direct and indirect costs to the airfield and terminal. The firm said it used actual activity through August 2025, published airline schedules and a modest growth assumption to project passengers and landed weight for the year beginning Jan. 1, 2026. "This is, again, very informal. So if you have questions, please interrupt me, and we'll be happy to field questions as needed," Elliott told the board.

The consultants presented two ways to handle the $6.8 million runway expense. Scenario 1 would place the full amount into airfield operating expenses for FY26 and recover it entirely through rates and charges. Recondo estimated that approach at roughly $15.37 per 1,000 pounds signatory landing fee for airlines (up from the current $7.75). Scenario 2 would use $3.4 million from the airport enterprise fund balance and load the remaining $3.4 million into rates; Recondo's estimate for that approach is roughly $12.05 per 1,000 pounds. General aviation aircraft (>12,500 lb) were estimated at about $17.08 (Scenario 1) and $13.76 (Scenario 2).

Commissioners and staff discussed the options' near‑term and multi‑year implications. Commissioners pressed consultants on whether the increases would flow to ticket prices and on future debt service if the county finances capital projects. Jason Apt said the relationship between airport fees and ticket prices is not “black and white,” and that airport fees historically comprise a modest share of an airline’s total operating costs.

Several commissioners said they preferred Scenario 2 as a measured, “step” approach that shares some cost with the airport fund rather than passing the entire FY26 expense to users in a single year. Staff said they would present both scenarios to airline representatives and planned a formal public hearing and adoption process in December (first reading Nov. 19; second reading Dec. 3). The board also heard the consultants' summary of terminal allocation practices, the airport's capital program (about $76.4 million in design and improvement work including federal grants and local funds) and budgeted nonairline revenues.

What's next: staff will present the FY26 calculated rates and charges to the board for formal adoption and will notify airline representatives of the work‑session discussion. Commissioners indicated a preference for the scenario that spreads the FY26 runway cost between fund balance and users rather than adopting the full pass‑through in a single year.