Longmont KLMO Colorado Warning

murphey

murphey

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
11,965
Location
Colorado
Display Name
Display name:
murphey
Entire article is from Bill Ward on Facebook:

The City of Longmont seems like they will consider implementing landing fees at Vance Brand Airport (KLMO). At the 12/17/2024 city council meeting, the mayor made a motion to direct staff to come up with a landing fee schedule to “defray airport, construction, and maintenance costs.”
I do not believe that the reason the mayor gave for the landing fees is truthful. I believe that the landing fees are being considered to illegally get rid of flight schools, pattern work, and people practicing instrunment approaches. Why do I believe this- because last year there was an uptick in people coming to the city council meeting begging the board to implement the landing fees to stop flight schools pattern work. The only reasonable conclusion as to why the city would even be looking into landing fees is in response to the increased noise complaints front he people that live right next to the airport.

If anybody wants to learn more about the legal things airport sponsors can and can not do, a lawyer did a presentation at the 11/19/2024 city council meeting. I highly recommend listening to his presentation as it is very informative.
Here is the link to that meeting- https://www.youtube.com/live/Ob2Y5U3jA5Q?si=tsKrGhMIkA7Sbx1Q
His presentation starts at timestamp 1:48:01
 
Each airport can choose how they implement the fees.
If they want to protect the flight schools, they can waive the fees for their planes or only charge one fee per day.
 
MountainDude said:
Each airport can choose how they implement the fees.
If they want to protect the flight schools, they can waive the fees for their planes or only charge one fee per day.
Click to expand...
You miss the point. This is another example where the residents are complaining about the noise and flight patterns. Longmont, Superior and Broomfield are the 3 towns that are leading the charge to shut down Jeffco (now known as Rocky Mtn Metro) and now Longmont. Altho Longmont's been in their sights for a number of years.
 
murphey said:
… The only reasonable conclusion as to why the city would even be looking into landing fees is in response to the increased noise complaints front he people that live right next to the airport…
Click to expand...
There’s other reasonable conclusions to be had.

My old base implemented user fees because they’re an entirely private operation open to the public. For the services and improvements users wanted, the owners had to raise money to do that and a logical way was to implement landing fees.

Residents and tenants are waived one landing fee per day per aircraft. The flight school never was a big user of the airport for T&Gs prior to landing fee implementation for various reasons. Not sure how the flight school is treated for landing fees today.

I’m not a fan of user fees, but in some cases they are the best tool for certain uses.
 
Love rage-listening to these NIMBY meetings, makes for great podcast on my wretched drive back and forth to my work release duty location. Thank you for the link. A former squadronmate of mine lives in said town and I think bases his Epsilon there. Big $-bag Widget Captain now, father's a retired CA also based there and share a big hangar. I'll ask him and see what's the sentiment among tenants.
 
"Pattern Saturation" That's the buzz word from Florida Airport Managers. See we need landing fees to deter pattern saturation that can cause airplane collisions. It's a safety thing just like water availability in fire hydrants. See where I'm going. With Vector billing and collecting landing fees it's almost painless to implement. Also if said neighboring airport Institute landing fees and we don't then all the training aircraft will use our airport.
 
Would be cool if there was a rich benefactor who would leave an endowment to pay for landing fees, with a bonus payment to the top 3 students each quarter who make the most T&Gs. The city would be happy for the income.
 
Teterboro in NJ did this years ago and moved all the flight schools out. It became essentially a jet only airport. Not sure if it was driven by neighbors complaining. But TEB required a landing fee even if based.
 
Rgbeard said:
Vector will even bill you for a low approach. It happens. Beware.

If you don’t want the hassle of fighting an undeserved bill, best to stay > 5nm away.
Click to expand...
They should be told to place said bill somewhere anatomically difficult…
 
danhagan said:
Guess you could switch your ADS-B to anonymous prior to that low approach ... just saying ...
Click to expand...
No anonymous on 1090, and it's awfully hard to change your N number in flight (the system uses cameras too).

There's no (legal) way around it other than going to different airports.
 
Hopefully like the red light cameras they will see that the cost outweighs the benefit when they start losing revenue with GA avoiding to go there.
 
Ventucky Red said:
Hopefully like the red light cameras they will see that the cost outweighs the benefit when they start losing revenue with GA avoiding to go there.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t seem to be a sincere concern in this instance.
 
Rgbeard said:
Vector will even bill you for a low approach. It happens. Beware.
Click to expand...
I've heard stories of people getting billed for practice approaches, etc. But when you ask for the specifics and to see the invoice, the story suddenly changes.

And if it is really cold out, they may not be adjusting your ADS-B altitude correctly and they may think you landed. But they usually do not just use ADS-B, so just tell them to show you pictures of your plane on the runway or on the ramp. End of story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top