Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Airport Fees topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee tables proposed overnight ramp fee and corporate landing fee after brief debate

Airport Advisory Committee · June 2, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The advisory committee discussed a proposed $10/night overnight ramp fee (capped at 15 nights) and reviving a corporate/charter landing fee, heard concerns about administrative burden and fairness, and voted unanimously to table both discussions for further consideration.

The Airport Advisory Committee discussed two fee proposals at its June 2 meeting — a proposed overnight ramp fee intended to generate revenue from transient aircraft and a revival of a corporate/charter landing fee — and chose to table both items for further review.

Chair Chris Krohn outlined proposed terms for an overnight ramp fee of $10 per night, capped at 15 nights per calendar month (a $150 monthly maximum) to generate revenue without discouraging general‑aviation traffic. Ron Rosenfeld questioned whether the potential revenue would justify the administrative effort and warned the fee might deter visitors. Committee members noted that the Titan Atlas system can process credit cards but requires the manager to enter payments manually rather than a customer self‑swipe.

On a separate proposal to revive a past corporate/charter landing fee, Steve argued that some corporate flights drop off passengers without using local services and are therefore a logical revenue target. "Fees should be applied fairly across all users to avoid targeting specific operators," countered Chris Crone.

The committee moved to table the overnight ramp fee (motion by Carl; second by Skip) and separately tabled the operations‑for‑hire/corporate landing fee (motion by Victoria; second by Skip). Both motions were approved unanimously. No fee is in effect pending further study.