NORTH ADAMS, Mass. — The Airport Commission will rethink its badge policy after a discussion with airport users who shared their grievances regarding the current system.

 

The commissioners voted last week to approve a new fee structure for the airport — minus badge fees — as they hope to continue their discussion and craft a policy that creates fewer barriers for airport users.

 

Three years ago, former manager Bruce Goff was charged with cleaning up the badge system. At the time, it was unknown how many badges were in circulation; some airport users had multiple badges, while others had moved away or passed away.

 

Badges are required to access the airside of the airport. Under the current rules, all new badges were set to expire in three years, leaving airport users currently scrambling to obtain new ones. This process comes with a $50 fee.

 

Airport user and former commissioner Trevor Gilman said the sticking point for him was not the price, but the automatic shutdown of the badges upon expiration, as well as the process by which users must obtain brand-new physical cards.

 

"Why change out a badge for the same person? They are perfectly good badges. It is not the cost, it is the process. All of a sudden my badge expired and I can't get in. It takes forever to get one from the state," Gilman said. "If you lose a badge, certainly you should have to buy a new one because there is a cost. That is not the problem; it is the process."

 

He said other airports do not have expiration dates on their badges, adding that he has held one from another airport for 10 years. Gilman argued there should be no barriers to users obtaining a badge, suggesting that higher badge adoption allows the city to better track airport activity.

 

"I argued at many meetings for this specific topic," he said. "... We want as many people to have badges as possible so when they swipe their badges we see what kind of activity is happening here."

 

Gilman added that emergency services and utility services, such as trash removal, should also have badges. He noted it is currently not difficult to enter without one, mentioning that airport users often "swipe each other in" all the time. He underlined that if it were easier to get a badge, more people would use them.

 

"If someone wants to get in here it is pretty easy. The deer hop in easily without a badge," he joked.

 

Commissioner William Hooper was hesitant to move to open-ended badges and wanted accountability from users. He advocated for a simple annual check-in to ensure users remain aware of rules and changing policies, adding that the baseline responsibility of renewing an expiring ID was important to him.

 

Commissioner Dean Bullett agreed, citing database management. He felt it was important to review all users to see who was actually active and purge those who may no longer use the airport.

 

Commissioner James Haskins felt a yearly renewal was too frequent and suggested a three-year renewal process consisting of a simple agreement update. Under this plan, the badge expiration date would be extended in the system, eliminating the need for a new physical card.

 

The commission agreed that renewals should be synced so the manager can send a mass email to all airport users notifying them it is time to renew. Commissioners also supported a two-month grace period so badges are not abruptly shut down.

 

Regarding fees, the commission agreed there should be an initial badge fee and a fee for card replacement. Suggestions included a renewal fee of $30 and a "civilian" fee of $10, though the commission did not finalize any specific numbers.

 

Goff, who attended the meeting, advocated for a fee that could help offset gate maintenance. He also agreed on the importance of tracking active badges so the work he performed three years ago would not be undone. The commission will revisit the policy at the next meeting after reviewing a drafted proposal.

 

The commission also discussed landing fees. It was reported that when the part-time manager is not on-site, planes often land without paying. 

 

Hooper said for him, the issue was less about the fee and more about security and accountability.

 

"I would only be interested in literally the tail the moment they touch down," he said. "… I have no desire to be intrusive, but I do have a desire to see if someone pulls into my driveway. I want to know from my Ring who pulled into my driveway."

 

Airport users explained that while public tracking data of planes exists, it raises privacy concerns, as most pilots hope to retain some privacy regarding their flight origins.

 

Hooper agreed and reaffirmed that he is only interested in the airplane landing. He asked if the city could install additional cameras and suggested an "EZpass" model where the airport manager could review footage and automatically email a bill to the pilot.

 

That same night, the commission approved three contracts to install security cameras on the administration building, the North East Hangar, and the Shamrock Hangar. City officials noted it would be difficult to extend coverage to the runway itself because new electrical lines would be required.

 

Airport users felt an additional runway camera might be unnecessary, noting the proposed hangar cameras will likely catch landing activity.

 

The two-hour meeting concluded without confrontation, maintaining a civil tone between commissioners and users. In the past, airport commission meetings have occasionally turned hostile.

 

Gilman said the vibes were good and emphasized that the commission needs to continue promoting the airport.

 

"This has probably been the best airport commission meeting I have been to in over 10 years," he said. "I feel like we are in a good direction and it is nice to hear discussion on topics … I think we need to work on welcoming and promoting activity here. I hope we keep that in mind."