Falcon Field Airport Landing Fees

Expressed concern over the removal of exemptions for small private pilots in upcoming Falcon Field landing fee proposals and suggested exploring flight school taxes like those used at Deer Valley.

Expressed opposition to Falcon Field landing fees, arguing they threaten the local aviation ecosystem and small aircraft training.

Argued against landing fees, pointing to potential legal costs, safety issues, and alternative revenue sources like fuel taxes.

Raised concerns about transparency and unfulfilled public records requests regarding airport finances, and spoke for a nonprofit youth flying club.

Supported the landing fees, stating that airport users should pay for facility maintenance rather than taxpayers.

Representing neighborhood groups, supported landing fees to ensure the airport remains self-sustaining without burdening taxpayers.

Opposed landing fees, warning they would push training flights to overburdened airports and create safety hazards.

Questioned the lack of transparency and financial comparisons between Falcon Field and Mesa Gateway Airport.

Argued that taxing based aircraft and training flights is unprecedented and harmful to pilot production.

Supported self-sufficiency for enterprise funds to protect city taxpayers from budget shortfalls.

Stated that landing fees would cripple small flight schools and hurt local surrounding businesses.

Highlighted aviation safety risks associated with tracking systems like ADS-B being used for fee collection.

Requested a delay and the creation of an advisory board to evaluate alternative revenue sources.

Argued that lease agreements protect tenants from such steep cost increases and threatened viability.

Supported the user-pay model, noting the high volume of operations and wear on airport facilities.

Stated that fees threaten aviation businesses, veteran-owned enterprises, and future aviators.

Expressed concern that landing fees would destroy volunteer youth aviation programs like Young Eagles.

Warned of airspace congestion and safety risks if flight schools relocate due to fees.

Supported self-sufficiency, noting significant noise impacts on surrounding neighborhoods from repetitive flights.

Stated that airport users should pay for wear and tear rather than relying on general tax funds.

Argued that self-sustainability should be balanced against the massive economic benefits the airport brings to Mesa.

Warned against a negative economic spiral where fees reduce traffic, leading to further budget shortfalls.

Supported fees to address deferred maintenance and enterprise fund deficits rather than using taxpayer funds.

Asserted that high-frequency training flights drive maintenance costs and users should pay accordingly.

Expressed strong opposition, criticizing airport management and arguing the fees would destroy the airport's heritage.

Argued the fees would harm his flight school business and called for better management rather than new fees.

Supported fees, noting dramatic increases in training flights and safety concerns near his home.

Supported the fees as a necessary measure for enterprise fund self-sufficiency despite personal financial impact.

Drew comparisons to other city facility user fees and supported fair cost distribution.

Supported fees while raising concerns about noise, business impacts, and leaded aviation fuel toxicity.

Supported user-pay principles and questioned the long-term growth targets for flight training operations.

Criticized airport staff spending and management transparency while opposing the proposed fee structure.

Warned that reduced traffic from fees would destabilize the airport's revenue and broader economic impact.

Former mayor supported the rate increase to address deferred maintenance and protect taxpayers.

Described severe noise disruptions from continuous flight training and supported user fees.

Expressed student pilot perspective, warning that fees would financially crush students and close flight schools.