Mesa unanimously approves $20 landing fees at Falcon Field Airport for financial sustainability

Mesa City Council Approves Falcon Field Landing Fees Amid Sharp Divide Over Financial Sustainability and Economic Risk

Mesa City Council voted unanimously on March 24, 2026, to impose landing fees on Falcon Field Airport—marking one of the most contentious aviation policy decisions in the region. The measure, which will charge approximately $20 per landing after 10 free landings per month per aircraft, aims to generate $2.6 million annually and close a structural deficit in the airport's airfield cost center. But the vote came only after 29 public speakers spent over 80 minutes articulating a stark philosophical and economic divide: whether airport users should bear the full cost of operations, or whether the city should continue subsidizing a facility generating an estimated $811 million in annual economic activity.

Council Member Jen Goforth, who represents the district containing Falcon Field, framed the decision as unavoidable fiscal discipline. "I will not support any option where Mesa taxpayers broadly subsidize the airport," she said. Yet opponents—led by flight school owners, student pilots, and aviation nonprofits—argued that the fees will trigger a downward spiral: reduced training activity, job losses, diminished federal funding tied to operation counts, and safety risks as overflow traffic clogs nearby uncontrolled airports.

Key Speeches

"The field that has been established since World War II runs on operations like fuel sales, hanger leasing, and maintenance. If we lose general aviation and the importance of its small traffic training, as well as starting the landing fees on other well established folks, we lose a lot of our local economy." — Ellie Padgett, pilot and community member

"If we increase that by 30% reduction, at that point we would have to increase the landing fees that we were recommending. So we were trying to keep the fee as low as we could, but also factor in some type of loss." — Corrine Nystrom, Airport Director, on the 10% traffic-loss projection underlying fee calculations

"I will not support any option where Mesa taxpayers broadly subsidize the airport. This is not an easy decision, but it is the responsible one. I appreciate the work of staff and the many aeronautical users and stakeholders who participated in this process." — Council Member Jen Goforth, in support

"There is no one on the current staff who is an active pilot. Consider that for a moment. There's no subject matter expert on staff to provide input for somebody who actually uses the facilities." — Stephen Lewis, 50-year aviation veteran and retired FAA air traffic controller, calling for removal of airport director

Timeline

• Applicant/Staff presentation: Airport Director Nystrom outlined the cost-center methodology (airfield, hangars/tie-downs, ground leases), noting the airfield cost center runs at $2.4 million annually against $374,000 in current revenue (primarily fuel flowage fees). One-time $4.6 million land sale that masked deficits for years is exhausted. Deferred maintenance now affecting safety.

• Staff recommendation: City Manager Jim Butler and Nystrom recommended approval, citing FAA grant assurances requiring airports to be "as nearly self-sustaining as possible." Staff confirmed 15+ stakeholder meetings since December, posting of financial disclosures, and compliance with FAA transparency requirements. Alternative revenue mechanisms (business fees, flight-hour charges, increased fuel flowage fees) evaluated but found insufficient to close $2 million airfield shortfall.

• Public comment: 29 speakers over approximately 80 minutes. Approximately 15 speakers opposed (flight school owners, instructors, student pilots, pilots, nonprofit leaders, aviation safety advocates). Approximately 10 speakers supported (residents citing noise and quality-of-life impacts, taxpayers opposing subsidies, one former San Bernardino airport authority board member endorsing user-pays). Four speakers neutral or mixed.

• Council discussion: Questions focused on (1) comparison to Mesa Gateway Airport ($1.5 million annual city subsidy, but governed separately under state statute and multi-jurisdictional authority); (2) whether 10% traffic-loss assumption was verified or merely conservative; (3) hangar wait-list transparency and airport management practices; (4) exemptions for nonprofits (Young Eagles, Aviation Explorers); (5) whether ADS-B system creates safety risks by incentivizing pilots to disable transponders; (6) advisability of delaying for an airport advisory board; (7) public outreach adequacy.

• Vote: 7-0 (unanimous). All council members present except Adam absent at final vote due to prior business commitment.

Opposition

Number of speakers against: Approximately 15–17 (exact count varies by interpretation of mixed positions).

Main concerns:

1. Precedent and industry practice. Landing fees on based aircraft are "completely without precedent" among U.S. general aviation airports; 4,999 of 5,000 U.S. airports do not tax based aircraft for training. Comparison airports (LaGuardia, JFK, Newark, Chicago, Atlanta) are major commercial hubs, not analogues.

2. Flight-school viability and economic collapse. Operators project 50% reduction in student volume if fees pass, citing price sensitivity (19 of 20prospective students cannot afford training due to credit scores or savings). Leopard Aviation owner reported projected increase from $600/month land lease to ~$65,000/month in effective costs. Small operators (e.g., Carl Storkman's six-employee flight school) threatened with closure.

3. Cascade job and revenue losses. If training activity leaves, fuel sales decline, mechanics lose work, instructors depart, tower operators see reduced pay (tied to operation counts), and local businesses (Fix, Vinencia's Pizzas, Milano's) lose customer base. One flight-school CEO cited $811 million ASU-study economic impact and warned a 50% reduction in activity could devastate local economy.

4. Aviation training ecosystem and national pilot pipeline. Phoenix is the number-two pilot-training region in the U.S. Falcon Field is the number-two airport in Phoenix. Forcing training to non-towered airports in undercapacity regions increases safety risks (meter collisions, runway incursions, pilot errors). Students will reduce landing practice to avoid fees, lowering proficiency and affecting future pilot safety.

5. Safety risks from ADS-B misuse. Todd Bristol played NTSB audio from Potomac Reagan National Airport 2023 midair crash, highlighting that ADS-B systems misused for non-safety purposes (revenue collection) contribute to error chains. Pilots may disable transponders to avoid landing fees, recreating the Potomac scenario. Stephen Devine and Brent Crow echoed that using safety systems for fee enforcement is fundamentally wrong.

6. Transparency and FOIA non-compliance. James Maxey reported 122-day non-compliance on November 21 FOIA request; airport staff marked request "too broad" on February 22 without substantive justification. Without access to fee-justification documents, public cannot evaluate methodology or fairness.

7. Mismanagement and lack of pilot expertise. Multiple speakers (Stephen Lewis, David Beatty, Trent Heidke) cited lack of active pilots on airport staff, opaque hangar wait-list allocation, frivolous spending (e.g., driving program despite 90% of pilots already licensed), and deferred maintenance masking as "lack of funds" when root cause is poor stewardship.

8. Inconsistency with other airport comparisons. Mesa Gateway Airport charges $2.22 per 1,000 pounds for aircraft under 6,000 pounds (~$13 landing fee); Falcon proposes $20 for same aircraft. Mesa Gateway also exempts based aircraft entirely and receives $1.5 million annual city subsidy. Why two different standards?

9. Unfair burden on nonprofits and youth programs. Young Eagles program (EAA free flights for kids 8–17) and Aviation Explorers (junior pilot training) will lose volunteer pilots unwilling to pay $20+ per training flight. Stephen Holt noted pilots bear $75–$150 cost per flight; 10 free landings per month insufficient for weekend practice sessions.

10. Economic model assumptions unreliable. Brent Crow, Curtis Brunes, and Greg Hadley disputed staff's 10% traffic-loss projection as unrealistic. No comparable airport survey asking what actual traffic loss resulted from similar fees. Curtis Brunes stated, "The modeling that has justified this isn't accurate."

Most compelling arguments:

• Precedent and fairness: Curtis Brunes's assertion that 4,999 of 5,000 U.S. airports do not tax training aircraft at general-aviation airports, and that only major commercial hubs charge based aircraft, exposed the rarity of Falcon's proposed approach.

• Cascade economic failure: Chris Getz's observation that "if fees reduce activity, and reduce activity hurts revenue, the answer cannot be to keep squeezing the remaining users harder. That is not sustainability, that is a spiral" framed the fee as self-defeating.

• Safety precedent: Todd Bristol's NTSB audio clip from the Potomac crash, linking ADS-B misuse to a preventable 67-fatality accident, resonated even with council members who ultimately voted yes.

• Transparency failure: James Maxey's documented 122-day FOIA violation undercut staff claims of openness and suggested the council was voting without access to the same documents the public lacked.

Organized groups:

• Arizona Pilots Association (Chris Nugent, president): recommended deferral pending advisory board and financial review.
• Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA): same deferral recommendation.
• Arizona Aviation Safety Advisory Group: cited safety risks; deferred vote recommendation.
• Falcon Flying Club: nonprofit operating Aviation Explorers and Young Eagles programs; James Maxey representing.
• Large flight schools (Leopard Aviation, Simply Fly Flight School, Red Rock Flight School): coordinated opposition emphasizing student-cost pass-through.

Support

Number of speakers in favor: Approximately 10–12.

Main themes:

1. User-pays fairness. Mike Sperry, Dan Weitzel, Kevin Criddle, Robert Graham, Gus Palmisano, and Justin Durand emphasized that those using Falcon Field should pay for its maintenance and operations. Analogy: renting a soccer field, using the pool, or printing at the library. Kevin Criddle: "when usage drives cost, our pricing should also reflect that usage."

2. Deferred maintenance and safety decline. David Winstanley, Council Member Adams, and Mayor Goforth noted runway pavement conditions deteriorating; city currently unable to conduct major capital projects or runway reconstruction. Deferring maintenance increases future costs exponentially. Council Member Adams: "if we let deferred maintenance become the tune of the day, we're not going to be a world-class aviation facility."

3. Subsidy burden on general taxpayers. Multiple residents stated they should not subsidize businesses or hobbyists. James McCartney lived one mile from airport; counted 47 flights over his property in one hour. Darcy Hewish played audio recording of aircraft noise (18–38 second intervals from 6:45 a.m. onwards). Emmanuel Lucero noted childhood experience near LAX; current Falcon Field noise now "excruciatingly" similar despite growth over five years.

4. Comparative airport analysis. Speakers acknowledged Mesa Gateway's different structure but accepted that Falcon, as a pure-enterprise fund, must self-sustain. Kerry Davis, former mayor and San Bernardino airport authority president, cited his own experience with necessary rate increases.

5. Economic sustainability vs. indirect benefits. While supporting the $811 million figure, speakers like Kevin Criddle and Jeff Whiteman noted much of that was indirect and counted multiple times. The point: indirect economic benefit does not justify indefinite city subsidy. Usage-based pricing is standard.

6. Modest fee and market adjustment. Justin Durand noted $20 landing fee costs less than a park ramada rental ($22/hour). Small operators who fly fewer than 10 times monthly will bear no fee; others should adjust business models or relocate.

Most compelling arguments:

• Deferred-maintenance spiral: Council Member Adams's observation that failing to fund pavement maintenance now will cost far more later, and that infrastructure deterioration creates safety risks, framed the vote as between short-term pain and long-term crisis.

• Consistency with city asset management: City Manager Jim Butler's explanation that the city does not isolate indirect economic revenues to re-subsidize a single facility—economic activity flows to general fund supporting all services—reframed the debate from "Is Falcon worth subsidizing?" to "Should any enterprise fund rely on general revenue?"

• Resident quality-of-life impact: Darcy Hewish's audio recording of near-constant aircraft noise (every 18–38 seconds) made the noise-cost tangible in a way that generic complaints had not, even though staff correctly noted noise cannot be a fee justification under FAA guidelines.

• Fairness principle consistency: Kevin Criddle's analogy to water meters (fill a pool, pay more) and electricity usage-based pricing grounded the fee in widely accepted utility principles.

Project Details

• Case number: 26-0280 (Resolution modifying fees and charges for Falcon Field)

• Facility: Falcon Field Airport, Mesa, Arizona. Operational since 1941 (originally WWII training facility). Currently ~500,000 operations annually; approximately 800 based aircraft; 80% of traffic is flight training.

• City/Council authority: City of Mesa, Arizona; Falcon Field operates as a city enterprise fund.

• Airport Director: Corrine Nystrom.

• City Attorney: Smith (in-house); Jill (outside counsel).

• Current fee structure: Fuel flowage fees (to be slightly increased); hangar and tie-down rent (already increased in prior year, further increase recommended for this year). Landing fees: proposed new fee, ~$20 per landing after 10 free landings per month per aircraft N-number.

• Proposed landing fee: $20 per landing (after 10 free landings monthly). Exemptions: medical/emergency flights (Angel Flight, emergency services, etc.). All aircraft treated equally (no exemption for based vs. transient, except 10-free-landing allowance).

• Cost center approach: Airport restructured finances into three cost centers: (1) ground leases; (2) hangar and tie-down; (3) airfield (runways, taxiways, lighting, perimeter—non-exclusive infrastructure). Staff focused on airfield cost center: $2.4 million annual operating cost, $374,000 current revenue, ~$2 million annual shortfall.

• Projected revenue: $2.6 million annually from landing fees.

• Traffic-loss assumption: 10% (conservative estimate per staff). Staff acknowledged no empirical baseline; will reassess after one year of implementation.

• Enforcement: Third-party vendor using ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast) system tracking aircraft N-numbers. Fallback: camera-based photography system if federal/state legislation prohibits ADS-B for revenue collection.

• Historical context: One-time $4.6 million land sale covered deficits for years; proceeds exhausted. Deferred maintenance now affecting pavement condition and safety.

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 7-0 (unanimous approval).
• Yes: Mayor John Giles, Vice Mayor (not named in transcript), Council Member Jen Duff, Council Member Mark Freeman, Council Member David Luna, Council Member Francisco Heredia, Council Member Jeremy Whittaker.
• No: None.
• Abstentions/absences: Council Member Kevin Thompson absent during final vote (prior business commitment). Council Member Taylor (exact given name not stated in transcript).

(Note: Transcript does not provide full names of Vice Mayor or complete naming of all seven council members; identification here based on roll call and inference.)

Outcome & Next Steps

Decision: Falcon Field landing fees approved; Airport Director Nystrom authorized to proceed with third-party vendor implementation using ADS-B tracking to monitor and bill aircraft landings.

Immediate next steps:

1. Vendor engagement to finalize ADS-B tracking and billing system.
2. If federal or state legislation passes restricting ADS-B for revenue collection, pivot to camera-based system.
3. Initiate implementation (timeline not stated in transcript).

Review and adjustment:

1. City Manager Jim Butler and Director Nystrom will monitor traffic and revenue data within 6 months and report findings to council.
2. Council will revisit fee structure and potential adjustments at next annual fee-review cycle (likely early 2027).
3. If actual traffic loss significantly exceeds 10% projection, staff will recommend fee increases on remaining users to maintain $2.6 million target.

Advisory board:

Council Member Goforth volunteered to lead future consideration of establishing an airport advisory board (composed of pilots, mechanics, flight schools, residents, and airport staff) to provide expertise on capital projects and operational decisions. This is not mandated but is under consideration. City Attorney Smith and City Manager Butler noted that elected council members serve as ultimate board of directors; an appointed advisory board would supplement but not replace council authority.

Deferred maintenance capital plan:

No specific projects or timeline articulated in meeting transcript. City Manager implied that landing fee revenues will be directed toward deferred pavement maintenance and capital projects previously stalled due to revenue constraints.

Controversies & Context

Transparency and FOIA non-compliance: James Maxey submitted a FOIA request on November 21, 2025, seeking fee-justification documentation. Airport staff (Jessica Alonzo) responded February 22, 2026, marking request "too broad." As of the March 24 meeting, 122 days had elapsed without compliance. Maxey stated: "we have had no transparency from the airport and we actually don't know why they are implementing the fees." City Attorney Smith, at the outset, pre-emptively defended the legitimacy of fee justification, suggesting staff anticipated this criticism.

Safety and ADS-B precedent: The Potomac Reagan National Airport midair collision (March 2023, Army helicopter and American Airlines regional jet, 67 fatalities) involved ADS-B transmitters that were turned off by the military aircraft. NTSB investigators noted ADS-B system misuse and breakdown of safety-focused protocols as contributing factors. Todd Bristol's invocation of this crash—and argument that using ADS-B for fee collection incentivizes pilots to disable transponders—raised the specter of regulatory mission creep. FAA and safety experts (John Keith, FAST representative) acknowledged the concern but did not endorse deferral based on it.

Precedent absence: Curtis Brunes's assertion that 4,999 of 5,000 U.S. airports do not charge landing fees on general-aviation based aircraft was neither directly refuted by staff nor verified in transcript. If accurate, Falcon Field's fee structure would be highly unusual, aligning only with major commercial hubs (LaGuardia, JFK, etc.)—a policy discontinuity staff did not adequately explain.

Airport management credibility: Multiple speakers (Stephen Lewis, David Beatty) questioned airport staff expertise and spending discipline. Stephen Lewis, a 50-year aviation veteran and retired FAA air traffic controller with 27 years of federal service, called for removal of the airport director, citing absence of active pilots on staff, lack of subject-matter expertise, and opaque decision-making. No council member responded directly to this governance concern; implied answer was that elected council members provide oversight sufficient to replace the director if needed.

FAA grant assurances and "self-sustaining" language: City Attorney Smith cited FAA grant assurances requiring airports to be "financially self-sustaining" or "as nearly self-sustaining as possible." Carey McPherson and others noted that FAA grant assurances do not mandate 100% self-sufficiency and do not prohibit supplemental municipal funding. Staff's position—that the city, as a matter of policy, requires enterprise funds to be self-sufficient—is a city choice, not an FAA mandate.

Noise impact unaddressed by fee structure: Multiple residents (Mike Sperry, Dan Weitzel, Mark Hunsaker, Kaye Hunsaker, Darcy Hewish, Emmanuel Lucero) cited dramatic increases in aircraft noise over residential areas (Los Indes, Red Mountain Ranch, Reserva Red Rock, The Groves, Alta Mesa, Apache Wells). One resident reported 47 flights in one hour. City Attorney Smith and John Giles pre-emptively stated that noise reduction is not a basis for the fee under FAA policy; noise is a separate issue. This disclaimer, repeated by Council Member Adams, effectively ringfenced noise as a non-justiciable concern for fee purposes—even though it was the lived experience motivating some resident support for the fee.

Economic impact claim uncritiqued: The $811 million annual economic benefit figure (from ASU analysis) was cited by opponents as justification for continued city subsidy. Supporters acknowledged the figure but noted much of it is indirect and counted multiple times in economic modeling. No council member or staff member provided detailed breakdown of direct vs. indirect benefits or challenged the ASU study's methodology. The figure remained ambiguous in the debate.

Cost-center accounting as policy lever: The decision to adopt cost-center accounting and focus on the airfield cost center (rather than examining the airport holistically, including ground leases and hangar operations that may be profitable) was presented as FAA-supported methodology but amounted to a policy choice to isolate and require self-sufficiency for a specific revenue stream. This framing choice—not inherent to accounting—underpinned the fee. No speaker questioned whether the cost-center segregation was analytically sound.

Flight-school opposition vs. general-aviation support: Distinct constituency divide: flight schools and training operators uniformly opposed; general-aviation pilots (hobbyists, private owners) were mixed; residents overwhelmingly supported. This pattern suggests that the fee's incidence falls unequally, with training-intensive operators bearing the largest burden. The "10% traffic loss" assumption treats this incidence as acceptable; opponents viewed it as a policy choice to subsidize private ownership at the expense of commercial training operations.

Duration

• This item (Falcon Field landing fees, item 5C): Approximately 80–90 minutes (invocation + pledge, 29 speakers at 3 minutes each, staff presentations, council questions and discussion, vote).

• Total meeting: Not stated in transcript. Meeting began at evening time (likely 6:00 p.m. or later based on "good evening" greeting). Transcript cuts after Falcon Field item, indicating meeting continued into later evening. Estimated total 2–3 hours minimum, likely more given consent-agenda processing and other items.

Other Notable Items (Brief)

Consent Agenda (Items 2, 3A–3F, 4B, 5A, 6A, 6B): Multiple liquor license applications (Gin's Smoke Shop, Paladino's Italian Eatery, La Tienda One Stop, Happy Food Mart, Mama's Soul Lounge, Salt Sea and Land Tacos) approved unanimously. Street light painting services contract and Helix Apartments ground lease approved unanimously. Items 4A, 4C, 4D, 5B, 5C removed from consent for separate discussion.

Item 4D – North Higley Lift Station (Wastewater Infrastructure): $284,000 contract for pre-construction engineering services for a lift station serving ~350 acres including American Leadership Academy, Amazon distribution center, Longbow Golf Club, and undeveloped land. Speaker Nathan Allen questioned whether project encourages water-intensive development (data centers, golf courses) during drought. City Engineer Lance Webb and Water Resources Director Joe Judy explained project serves wastewater collection only; treated effluent is traded to Gila River Indian Community in exchange for Central Arizona Project water, creating a water-neutral trade. Item approved 6-0 (Council Member Adams absent).

Item 7C – RNS Development Group DDA Amendment (Boat/RV Storage Expansion): Four-acre expansion of approved boat and RV storage facility south of Thomas Road (Phase 2), adding stalls and enhanced landscaping. Council Member Goforth requested continuance to April 20 to allow public outreach to residents who were not present during original 2021 zoning. City planner confirmed 41 properties within 1,000 feet received notice but no new neighborhood meeting held. Applicant and staff noted Phase 1 (approved, under construction) is vested; Phase 2 adds landscape improvements and use restrictions (data centers, multifamily, drive-through restaurants prohibited). Motion to continue to April 20 failed on tie vote; item approved 6-0 as originally presented (Council Member Adams absent, tiebreaker not deployed).

---

Overall meeting tone: Highly contentious on Falcon Field; routine consent processing with minor deviations on subsequent items. Council demonstrated deference to staff technical analysis (engineering, airport operations) while acknowledging public concern about noise and transparency. No council member voted against the Falcon Field landing-fee measure, despite recognizing legitimate concerns about flight-school viability and economic impact.