01/22/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Keller asked whether passage of this' ordi'nance would detract from the idea : of the County's sponsoring the Airport. Mr. Cobb thought not. He sai d the Air- 'port should ultimately become a County operation, or at least a County responsi-: lbility i~ co-opera~ion ~ith the. City. The proposed fee, he said, beyond funding; the requ~red secur~ ty w~ll prov~de necessary funds for needed fire protection : improvements , and generally sustain the airport operation. " . Councilman Hershner asked how the $2.00 figure was arrived at and whether there is chance that Congress will again enact legislation which would make adoption of this ordinance illegal. Mr. Shelby said the $2.00 was calculated to be the proper amount from studies of similar fees at other airports, taking into account costs projected by the Master Plan, interest charges, inflationary trends, etc. Mayor Anderson said he thinks the situation so far as Congress is concerned would be much the same as will apply in the human resources area. Local govern- I ments will take lOC>re of the responsibility for resolving these problems. He asked ,~hat percentage of Lane County residents use the terminal facilities, suggesting the possibility of additional fee for non-Eugene residents to give Eugene people a break for their support of the Airport. Mr. Shelby said the last origin and destination study showed 85% of those using the terminal are from Lane County. There was no breakdown between Lane County users and those from the ci ty of Eugene. Mr. Cobb added that the idea of a non-resident fee was not discussed, the main concern at this time being to provide funds for airport security and development. ; Assistant Manager said very informal discussion revealed the County does have the , abili ty to levy the same type of boarding fee, therefore adoption of this ordinance: : would seem to provide a vehicle to facilitate the County's taking over financial ' : responsibility for the Airport. . Further discussion centered on mechanics of collecting the fee so that duplicate charges are not made, and on provisions included in the ordinance for those pay- ing the fee then because of weather or aircraft condi tions cannot enplane. In answer to Mrs. Beal, Mr. Shelby said some 185 tons of air cargo left the Airport during 1972, but at this time they have no suggestions with regard to fees on ,freight going through the terminal. Councilman Hershner noted that nothing in the proposed ordinance indicates the lOC>ney collected is for airport purposes. Assistant Manager said the section of the Code to which this would be added earmarks any funds collected for airport' use. Mr.Ritchey pointed out that there seems to be no alternative if the Airport' is to be supported as it is now operating. Comm 1/17 /73 Pub Hrng Mr. Williams lOC>ved seconded by Mrs. Beal to schedule the proposed ordinance for public hearing at the January 22 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Manager explained that the ordinance proposing a charge of $2.00 for passengers enplaning at Mahlon Sweet Field comes as the result of the Airport Commission's thinking that users of the Field should to a substantial degree support it. Funds are needed for iI!1provements in addition to recent Federal requirement for security including police and fire protection in order to meet certification standards the FAA has adopted. A few minor exceptions to the charge were noted. . Frank Jackson, vice president of Fire Fighters Local, 449.5 W:l.11hi'Street, suggested that since thef'uhl.:Lc rill b.e 'jpaY'ing for;f.tie. p;rotecti.on through the boarding fee, pr:'ofessional fire, .f:i;gfi:teris;; sIiou1d', he. " e'JJlplo:yed, at tIle Air>port;, for lioth strilctm:>al and aircr:'aft emergency. FIe. Sa.td. the Staff at leaSt should Ee' asked to provide over the next several years upgrading ano professional training for the volimteer department now- contracted to provide fire pro- tect:ton ~ Mayor Anderson' said discussion of the proposed boarding fee is not directed to tfie type of fire protection service to be provided. ' Charles Potterf, Taxpayers Protective Association, 2685 Floral Hill Drive, supported the proposed boarding fee to relieve taxpayers of a share of the cost. He suggested too that more realistic fees should be paid by other users, such as air lines, through revision of contracts to increase landing fees. He felt it l.lI1fair to taxpayers to subsidize operation of tbe Airport, comparing that operation to taxis, busses, and railroads. Stan Cook, '1832 Longview Street, suggested private plan operators should share the expenses by paying a landing fee. Manager explained that private pilots pay a percentage on gasoline that is bought at the airport. . Councilman Murray supported the concept of charging a boarding fee but felt{the $2.00 a minimal charge. He asked how it compared to fees charged at other airports. Mr. Shelby said that nationally fees are divided about evenly between a $1.00 and a $2.00 charge. The ,fee proposed in this ordinance was based on projections for the period to 1990 of estimated cost of improvements in the Master Plan in its entirety. In answer to Councilman Wood, Mr. Shelby said no other airports are known to collect a fee for freight, nor does he know whether such a fee has been tested as to constitutionality. (5 1/22(73 - 6