Firstly, let me remind you: if you do not live within the city limits of Longmont, your voice still matters. Please read up, write to the council, and call the TC line on this matter and explain why it matters to you. They are listening.

As for the City Council (CC) and AAB meetings: If you are outside the city limits, you may speak at both meetings. You get 3 minutes at CC and 5 minutes at AAB. Some CC meetings allow "Longmont City Residents only" to speak at the top of the agenda, but this is not the case for every CC meeting. (Last week's CC meeting exemplified this, and we had great representation.)

This group has received significant press coverage, including op-eds, regarding the airport issue over the past year.   For those who want to know the issues and how to address them, here is a bundle of information for your reading and activist pleasure. 

Check out the Op-eds below.

Below are some links and light commentary to notable past CC meetings. In case you want to track this issue across the past year.

The Airport Manager's presentation starts at 3:48 followed by City Council questions and discussion.

There were a few omissions and mis-representations in this presentation. For a while it looked like Landing Fees went out the window. But the community intervened, and rest assured: they will be voted on Nov. 3. 

The Airport Fund Budget Summary was presented to City Council. The presentation begins around 2:58 of the video. "For those who say the airport isn't fully paying it's way, that is technically true" - Sandi Seader

by Jerry Colonna

Imagine arguing against traffic signals because some drivers might run red lights. That’s essentially what the Colorado Pilots Association (CPA) suggests when it claims pilots will turn off their ADS-B tracking equipment if airports impose landing fees.

ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast) is the FAA-mandated system that reduces mid-air collision risk and improves situational awareness. Turning it off to dodge a $5 or $10 fee isn’t just illegal—it’s reckless. Using that as an argument is like opposing seatbelt laws because a few drivers won’t buckle up.

Most pilots are responsible neighbors who know safety comes first. The issue isn’t them—it’s the handful of pilots, instructors, and flight schools who put their pocketbooks above safety.

The Problem: Overuse and Congestion

General aviation airports like Longmont’s Vance Brand face mounting pressures. Colorado’s favorable weather and airspace have attracted more flight schools. Rocky Mountain Metro Airport’s former director even bragged about recruiting more training flights to the area. The result: congested runways, crowded skies, and more noise and pollution for surrounding communities.

Taxpayers already subsidize general aviation heavily through state and federal grants. But those subsidies don’t cover growing the needs for maintenance, staffing, or safety improvements. The FAA’s grant assurance program, which often narrow the gaps in airport budgets, expects airports to be fiscally self-sustaining.

Landing fees—a small charge per landing—improve both fairness and safety. More than 300 grant-obligated, public-use airports in the U.S. already use them. In Colorado, Durango, Eagle, Loveland, Buena Vista, and Telluride have fees scaled by aircraft size—modest, legal, and effective.

Separating Neighbors from Abusers

Opponents claim fees unfairly punish “all pilots.” That isn’t true. Fees can be scaled by aircraft weight or frequency, and waived for medical flights and community services.

Heavy users—for-profit  flight schools or transient aircraft making hundreds of takeoffs and landings monthly—should contribute their fair share. Right now, taxpayers bear these costs.

It’s important to make this distinction: responsible local pilots aren’t the problem. It’s irresponsible operators who threaten to turn off safety equipment rather than support the facilities they use.

Opponents also argue fees are “illegal” or “too difficult to collect.” Neither is true:

• Legality: The FAA requires airports to be as self-sustaining as possible and explicitly allows reasonable fees.
• Collection: Systems like Vector Airport Systems automate billing with nearly perfect accuracy.
  
  

The CPA’s most reckless argument—that pilots will endanger themselves and others by shutting off ADS-B—only proves the need for accountability. If someone is willing to compromise safety over $10, they shouldn’t dictate community policy or enjoy unfettered access to community-owned facilities. Perhaps they should instead lose the privilege of flying.

Landing fees aren’t about excluding aviation. They’re about fairness: pilots paying for runway use just as golfers pay greens fees or drivers pay tolls. They’re about sustainability: keeping airports viable without overburdening taxpayers. And most of all, they’re about safety: ensuring our runways and skies aren’t overwhelmed by those who treat them as free, unlimited resources.

Responsible pilots have nothing to fear from modest, transparent landing fees. The loudest objections come from those most likely exploiting the system for profit.

Landing fees are among the simplest, fairest, and most effective tools to keep airports safe, sustainable, and accountable. They protect responsible pilots, support communities, and ensure shared resources are well maintained..The choice is clear: safety and fairness—or letting a few irresponsible actors dictate the rules for everyone else.

See original article here.

At the June 3rd City Council meeting, we learned that Longmont’s airport (LMO) is in a dire financial condition. Flight schools from other airports dominate the use of LMO infrastructure for profit-making operations, at no cost to them. Council asked City staff for the airport’s financial information to determine whether landing fees should be charged to airplane owners using our infrastructure, and what the budget impact would be.

Airport Director Levi Brown told the Council the airport is projected to run an operating budget deficit of $60,650 every year for the next 10 years. He also mentioned the budget deficit “does not include full reimbursement of administrative costs in [the] general fund.” What that cryptic statement means is taxpayers are paying 50% of Director Brown’s salary every year through the administrative transfer fee, which comes
from the general fund, due to the lack of revenue coming into the airport. City staff later stated that 50% of the administrative transfer fee in 2025 was $86,877, and the annual deficit could increase to $165,000 per year if the salary subsidy was removed.

The City Manager also stated the budget deficit “does not include the capital needs of the airport.” He admitted the airport does not even generate enough revenue to cover the 5% matching funds for an FAA grant to pave the dirt road around the west side of the airport. Vehicles traveling on that dirt road bring debris onto taxiways, which creates a safety issue, but they can’t afford to fix it. As he put it: “the reason why we have only
one person at the airport is because we don’t have enough funding.”

Any responsible airport director, when faced with this stark financial underperformance, would aggressively seek all options for increased revenues to bring the budget into the black, including reserves for capital improvements. What the Council got instead was suggestions to do nothing. Director Brown, who is a former flight instructor for one of the foreign flight schools that dominates LMO infrastructure, suggested the Council could consider a landing fee ordinance that exempts planes weighing less than 12,500 pounds, like some other cities have done. Of the 58,991 landings in 2024, 58,593 were by planes weighing less than 12,500 pounds. Flight schools use planes almost exclusively in that category. So, according to Director Brown, Council should enact a landing fee ordinance that exempts 99.3% of all landings! What airport director would suggest such a non-sensical plan to address the financial shortfalls of the airport? Only one who is loyal to the flight schools.

Director Brown also claimed the main nationwide landing fee vendor, Vector Airport Systems, “[is] moving away from charging fees on lower weight aircraft” (meaning flight school aircraft). When asked in an open records request for the contact information of the person at Vector who made the statement, Director Brown refused to provide that information, and referred to the Vector website. A list of Vector’s 97 PLANEPASS ™
clients, with links to every airport’s website showing their landing fees, is readily available for Council to compare options. Most are general aviation airports similar to LMO, and many charge landing fees for all planes, usually based on weight categories at graduated rates. The Vector website says it collects $55 million a year in aircraft fees and boasts a 99.6% collection rate. This is obviously another misleading attempt at dissuading the Council from charging landing fees to flight schools.

The FAA requires grant recipient airports to be as self-sustaining as possible. This airport is losing money year-after-year, and relies on taxpayer subsidies and FAA grants that come with onerous conditions to fill the gap. That needs to stop and landing fees are a reasonable step to achieve a self-sustaining airport. In January, I joined a group of concerned citizens in presenting a landing fee proposal showing an average weight-
based landing fee of $7-10 per landing could generate enough annual revenue to fix the budget deficit and help wean the airport off the burdensome FAA grant subsidies. The City should follow that course, and remind the Airport Director who he works for.

Dan Leftwich is an attorney living in Longmont.