SOS | SAVE OUR SKIES ALLIANCE - BDU Updates

This is not what democracy looks like

Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:40:00 GMT

On July 23, City Council will decide whether to make a legally-binding, irreversible commitment to keep Boulder Airport in perpetuity by taking FAA grant money, thereby agreeing to operate the airport under restrictive FAA covenants forever.

The city fought a lawsuit in 2024 to avoid exactly this perpetual binding to the FAA, so it is shocking that some council members are even considering this about-face. That lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality. It could be refiled when ripe.

The alternative is to assemble funding for the airport without FAA grants, working toward release from FAA grant obligations. This path keeps all options open, including future possibilities for better airport management under local control.

How did we get here? It’s ugly. And it’s not democratic.

On April 23, a bare majority of five City Council members tried to force through a fast-tracked decision to take FAA funding, despite unanswered questions and concerns from the other four members. The public had never been informed nor asked their opinion about accepting a commitment in perpetuity. This session did not allow for public comment, and did not include a formal Council vote even though it was clearly a commitment. Not democratic.

An independent legal opinion found that this meeting potentially violated Colorado open meetings law.

The April 23 study session was based on biased, incomplete, and misleading information. Concerned community members compiled an extensive Gaps and Errors Report documenting its flaws. To name some:

no budget was provided to justify claims about expenses and revenues;
substantial revenue streams recommended by airport consultants in 2024 for airport self-funding – such as landing fees, bringing airport rents up to market rate, and developing commercial uses – were omitted; and
staff made the false claim (rebutted by CDOT) that state funding would not be available unless Boulder signaled an intention to operate the airport in perpetuity.

If there ever was a time for a joint fact-finding process, this is it. But staff has ignored invitations to meet with report authors to correct errors on either side and establish an agreed-upon baseline of facts. Not democratic.

Under extreme public pressure and dissatisfaction with the study session, Council agreed to a public hearing before making their official decision. Still, the situation remains deeply problematic.

Despite Council's request for other funding options, the staff memo for the July 23 public hearing doesn’t provide a good faith analysis. An analysis of airport self-funding mechanisms is still absent, ignoring input from vendors and consultants who have done it elsewhere. Staff have not researched the dozens of Colorado airports that operate without FAA funding.

Remarkably, staff now claim that airport land analyzed in 2024 for commercial development is designated open space. How did that happen? Who decided? Was there compensation to the airport fund for loss of land and future revenue? Further, it seems staff have not actually spoken with CDOT yet to clarify funding availability.

This skewed staff memo seems designed to push the city into the arms of the FAA. Not only undemocratic, but bad faith!

It is disturbing to hear a councilmember assert, “the community’s been heard and we’ve got a pretty clear understanding of where the community wants to go.” Utterly false! Public input to date has been fiercely mixed with no clear consensus. In 2024 over 4000 individuals including 3400 registered city voters signed petitions to put the future of the airport to a vote. The petitioners, signees, and indeed all current and future city voters would be forever prevented from voting on this issue if the city takes FAA funds.

The public needs honest, complete information about the true costs of this perpetuity decision. The city would be signing away 175 acres of public land whose value is at least $375 million. Boulder’s past average annual grant from the FAA is $250,000, which is .05% of the city’s annual budget. There is no guarantee of perpetual funding from the FAA. Is this fiscally prudent? Voters deserve a say.

FAA obligations prohibit meaningful local control. There is no protection from noise or other pollution, no quiet hours, no limit to looping “touch and go” flights. There is no ability to require quieter equipment, such as quieter propellers or mufflers. The only noise abatement tool is a voluntary protocol that some pilots break daily. The city would lose future land use flexibility to meet city needs. Do city voters accept these trade-offs? Council doesn’t know! Not democratic.

How can five councilmembers, three of whom may be voted out in November, make this consequential and controversial forever commitment in this manner, over strong community objection, using a hasty and shoddy process based on woefully incomplete information? Not democratic.

There is no urgency. Council should not rush into this drastic, irreversible step, sticking all future councils and residents with the fallout. This is plain bad governance.

How many Boulderites want Council to reject FAA funding and preserve the opportunity for local control? If councilmembers truly care about honoring the will of the people, they will put the decision about FAA funding on the ballot for a public vote.

Fwd: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Airport HOTLINE Responses

Wed, 22 Jul 2026 07:00:00 GMT

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Bailey, Blythe <baileyb@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 5:43 PM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Airport HOTLINE Responses
To: HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov>
Cc: Rivera-Vandermyde, Nuria <Rivera-VandermydeN@bouldercolorado.gov>, Tate, Teresa <TateT@bouldercolorado.gov>

Good Afternoon, Council and HOTLINE followers,

We have consolidated questions from Hotlines from Councilmembers Marquis, Schuchard, and Wallach below. For purposes of efficiency, and in some cases, we have shortened the language of the questions. We look forward to additional discussion and answering further questions at tomorrow's council meeting.

Condensed questions are below for reference, with each staff response immediately following in italics.

CM Marquis Hotline Question about Emergency and Natural Disaster Capabilities

Question: Could staff describe the current and projected/anticipated uses of the airport that are for response to natural disaster (fire, flood, etc) and emergency medical uses at the airport.

Answer: The Boulder Airport has been used as a staging and support location for major incidents such as the CalWood Fire and the 2013 flood, providing space for helicopters, command functions, and other incident management needs because of its Fixed Base Operator (FBO) type services (fuel, internet, maintenance, etc). While regional wildfire response primarily relies on resources based at Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport (RMMA), which is already set up to provide the aviation services and infrastructure needed for firefighting operations, the Boulder Airport provides additional local staging that can be leveraged when needed.

As for projected/anticipated uses, staff can foresee additional functions for these purposes if supported within our availability of resources:

stationing of firefighting helicopters or single-engine air tanker 802s,
development of emergency power back-ups for enhanced resiliency for critical systems and infrastructure supporting airfield lighting, fuel systems, and hangars that store emergency-oriented equipment and helicopters
the airport terminal is equipped to be an emergency warming shelter
for future scenarios in which there is demand for passenger service at the airport which is possible through Electric Vertical Takeoff/Landing (eVTOL) vehicles, such service development could require additional emergency response capabilities by the FAA and if so would be FAA funding-eligible
backup emergency operations center with direct city fiber to support this function in the future.

CM Ryan Schuchard’s Hotline Questions

Q1. Perpetuity liabilities. Accepting FAA funds will newly obligate the city to a permanent encumbrance on the airport's ~180 acres and an ongoing commitment to operate and maintain the airport in perpetuity. The FAA, for their part, is not obligated to ensure Boulder can do that cost-effectively over time. Their commitment is to offer the possibility of grants that we may apply for one at a time, subject to the evolving federal budget. At the April 23 and May 28 meetings, councilmembers raised the idea that a perpetuity issues assessment, meaning a rigorous, objective evaluation of Boulder’s financial exposure, with accounting for uncertainty in future federal partnership and economic conditions, is necessary before council can responsibly decide to make such a far-reaching obligation of resources. What has staff done to evaluate our exposure to such a large, open-ended commitment, and what unforeseen liabilities, if any, have been identified and addressed?

Answer: While the FAA has asserted that a 1991 grant received by the city along with any post-2022 grants would carry perpetual airport-use obligations, the City continues to disagree with the legality of that position. Just as predictions of future grant availability are subject to change in the future, so are the potential policies of future administrations or the result of future litigation.

Notwithstanding the above, staff have evaluated future liabilities relative to whether FAA grants are accepted or foregone and those differences are quantified in the scenarios presented in the memo and upcoming presentation on July 23. That is the extent of the financial evaluation that has been completed by staff alongside confidential information shared with city council by the City Attorney.

Some liabilities exist around the inevitable uncertainty. Neither FAA nor CDOT grant funding is guaranteed, and the likelihood, timing, and amount of future awards cannot be predicted with certainty.

The financial scenarios presented in the July 23 memo are intended to illustrate the financial consequences of different funding assumptions relative to one another to assist in policy decisions that impact the long-term certainty of airport operation. Without specific policy direction, this is a thorough evaluation of the liabilities related to long-term, possibly perpetual, obligations for airport operation.

Q2. Scenario assumptions and severity. The memo's most favorable financial outlook, which combines FAA and CDOT funding, is Scenario 3A. This scenario assumes CDOT support brings the local project share down to roughly 5 percent when paired with FAA funding, but the elevated match behind that assumption is only guaranteed through fiscal year 2026. Has staff modeled what Scenario 3A looks like if the match reverts to its prior, lower level after that? Relatedly, does Scenario 3B1, the zero FAA, zero CDOT case showing a $26.6 million shortfall over 18 years, represent the most severe downside staff evaluated, or was a harder case considered but left out of the memo?

Answer Q2a: We can’t guarantee future CDOT participation, but it is relatively standard for CDOT to provide 5% of project cost against an FAA grant. There was a COVID-era 95% authorization which resulted in funding that does expire in 2026, but we still expect the standard 90/5/5 arrangement that is typical CDOT support for FAA grants. However, if CDOT were to discontinue that practice then our local match (i.e., cost to City of Boulder) would increase from 5% to 10% which, based on a quick calculation of modified State Grant Discretionary & State Match (5%), would be about $1.25M of cost between now and 2040 that would be a local burden.

Answer Q2b: Yes, practically, 3b1 is the most severe scenario. Theoretically, with worsening future inflation, unforeseen future capital project needs, or other circumstances, a more severe scenario could be possible, but holding all basic assumptions constant, 3b1 is intended to be the most financially severe of the scenarios presented.

Q3. Compliance cost projections. Beyond capital costs, the airport carries compliance costs, including leaded fuel phase-out, PFAS remediation, and environmental review. What does staff project for these costs, and what risk management has been applied to account for uncertain future conditions in the figures presented?
Answer: Staff have not completed additional research around future compliance costs for the items listed or risk management for the same. There are many cost considerations scenarios that staff would need to evaluate depending on the policy direction. We expect that we would fully explore remediation for any activities that might have happened on the property such as for PFAS, lead or other circumstances that would require further study. Additionally, staff has not undertaken a full cost of closure and remediation analysis were the airport to close in the future as such analysis would be premature at this stage, nor have staff included future costs of litigation.

Q4. Federal funding concentration. The scenario comparison shows Scenario 3A (FAA plus CDOT) with an average annual deficit near $80,000. Scenario 3B1 (no FAA and no CDOT) shows a deficit near $1.8 million. That's roughly a twentyfold difference tied to federal participation alone. Can staff confirm this is the right way to understand how dependent the airport's finances are on federal funding, and describe what would need to be true for the city to absorb the loss of that funding?

Answer: Airports in the U.S. are majority funded through federal grants by design, and the noticeable difference is mostly tied to federal participation but does also include a small amount of CDOT participation. Council requested that we equalize the capital plans in our scenarios so they could be compared apples-to-apples. If the policy decision leads us towards a scenario 3b1 or something similar which would provide very little, or zero, outside state or federal grant sources, staff would develop a long-term capital project plan that is very tight, similar to what was presented in the April presentation for Scenario 2, enabling a reduction in cost exposure associated with the capital plan. Minimal capital investment will be necessary through at least 2040 to maintain current grant assurances. Additionally, as with all scenarios, once there is more certainty on the future of the airport, staff will pursue any new revenue opportunities that are feasible given the timeline expectations of airport operation. As for the right way to understand the projections as we have developed them, our intention has been to show a scenario which is able to use FAA and CDOT assistance compared to one that is able to use CDOT assistance alone. As with all of our assumptions, they are not guaranteed but are intended to highlight the fundamental differences in the scenarios.

Q5. Alternative funding sources and responsiveness to council’s direction. Council directed staff at the May 28 special meeting to provide a side-by-side comparison of FAA and non-FAA funding sources, building on requests from multiple council members at the April 23 study session and May 28 special meeting. That direction requires a full alternative-funding picture, covering every category of source considered, what each realistically contributes, and why any were set aside. The July 23 memo provides CDOT-specific scenarios but no accounting of other potential sources, including landing fees, new kinds of building leases, or other business partnerships or investments, nor an executive-level summary tying all sources together in one place. Does the July 23 memo, as submitted, satisfy council's May 28 direction for a complete, side-by-side accounting? If yes, where is the summary of alternative funding sources? If not, please say so directly.

Answer: Staff have worked earnestly to develop a memo and attachments that respond to Council direction as of the May 28 meeting. The direction from the May 28 discussion was to present two scenarios, one which utilizes FAA funding and one which does not. At the previous meeting, some council members posed inquiries around alternative revenue potential like solar development, staff indicated we’d be able to share some possibilities at a high level at the upcoming meeting but it would not be timely (nor would it have fit in the current workplan) to take a deeper dive to provide a full accounting of revenue generating possibilities as some of what staff might consider would be dependent on the policy direction. Some of the additional research, particularly around funding sources used by airports outside of our jurisdiction, would require more extensive consideration and effort by staff that was not feasible within the timeframe between when the June 15th CAC meeting established the public hearing date and when the July 23rd memo and materials were due. Additionally, some of the revenue-generating work staff might pursue could warrant consulting capacity, and we have been deliberate to avoid at this time in our efforts to not incur additional costs to the already tight airport fund.
That said, staff have researched and compiled high-level information related to landing fees, new kinds of building leases, or other businesses and partnerships within the available capacity and will present this information on July 23.

Q6. Transportation Fund rationale and impact. The memo identifies two dedicated Transportation Fund sales-tax streams as the first resort if FAA and CDOT funding fall short, ahead of General Fund dollars. Our outcomes-based budgeting approach is meant to guide tradeoffs like this one, where limited funds have to be allocated across competing needs. What criteria led staff to select this fund first over other options, and how does that selection hold up against our outcomes-based budgeting principles? Separately, should council go this route and approve staff’s recommendation, what specific transportation programs, projects, or outcomes would likely see reduced funding or delayed timelines as a result, and at what scale?

Answer: Staff looked at the different possible uses of the revenue streams that feed into the Transportation Fund and determined the 2 identified could be used for general transportation purposes. Consistent with past practice, the city looks to all available sources of funding before increasing the burden on the General Fund.

Staff does not know yet what specific programs or services would be impacted as that determination is dependent on council’s policy approach. Depending on how council decides, staff would then evaluate funding options based on project priorities and funding availability for all transportation projects. This analysis would be part of the annual budgeting process that would include outcome-based budgeting principles as well as any legal requirements the city needs to adhere to, including compliance with grant assurances attached to the airport.

Q7. Alternative repurposing approaches. Repurposing funding within the city budget, including to cover a shortfall from not accepting FAA funding, is a council decision made through the normal budget process, not a staff determination. What are one or more alternative approaches staff would bring to council for that decision, should this scenario play out?

Answer: Certainly, staff acknowledge final approval of the City Manager’s Recommended Budget falls to City Council. It is precisely the need to budgetarily account for the airport that staff has brought forward this conversation so that appropriate fiscal planning can be brought forward as part of the budget process. It would be premature at this moment to put forward funding alternatives as the proposals will be dependent on the policy direction provided to staff, but staff would endeavor to take council’s direction and then start to look at project criticality and available funding to bring the recommended budget to council for review and approval in September and October.

Q8. Responsiveness to requests for due diligence. Across the April 23 study session and May 28 special meeting, multiple councilmembers, including me, asked for two things that go to the core economics of the decision in front of us: a defensible assessment of the long-term financial liability created by perpetuity obligations, and a complete accounting of alternative revenue and funding sources beyond FAA grants. I do not see these issues addressed in the memo. Why have these questions not yet been answered? I am not asking for the analysis itself here—I want to know the reason that these specific, repeated requests have not been addressed and the due diligence is still not available.

Answer: Staff appreciates the difficulty of this decision and the tradeoffs associated with the possibilities being discussed. There are inherent limitations in prognostics of finance or in predicting the city’s exposure for an indefinite period of time. Staff may know, for example, what funding opportunities could be available from the FAA or CDOT, but funding acceptance is not guaranteed, so staff plans for funding and project alternatives each year or funding cycle to fully determine what projects could move forward and thus what financial impact that would have on our fiscal resources. The FAA has asserted perpetual obligations for any grants we accept while the city has disagreed with the legal validity of that position.

Staff has understood the primary policy question before Council to be how the City should plan for the future of the airport and have focused our work on creating a comparison between scenarios that we think provide necessary background for direction on that fundamental question. Once staff has that direction, we can focus our resources on specific scenario alternatives more thoroughly.   We intentionally did not procure additional consultant expertise to undertake a broader financial or business-planning analysis, in part to avoid additional expense to an already constrained Airport Fund. We have developed what we thought was the most appropriate approach to help with the policy decision and respond to what we’ve heard from the public.

Q9. Good-faith engagement with petitioners. In 2024, community members gathered thousands of signatures to qualify a ballot measure on the airport's future, then withdrew it, explaining that they wanted the city's litigation against the FAA resolved before voters weighed in on the airport's future. That litigation concluded last year. How much advance notice was this group given ahead of meetings to decide on restarting a process to pursue FAA funding with perpetuity covenants?

Answer: Generally, staff’s communications with those seeking to put an item on the ballot is limited, and that was no different as we prepared for this meeting. Notice of council meetings in which this topic would be discussed were shared publicly and not with any particular coordinated groups. For context, staff, previously during the Airport Community Conversation project, did not engage formally with the group petitioning. Staff and council have received hundreds of emails on the topic of the airport, both in favor of, and opposed to, continued operation. We understand that many of the petitioners have engaged with us directly and thoroughly, and staff have tried to be responsive and objective in providing answers to questions and requests for information.

CM Wallach Hotline #1 Questions

Question: What would that strategy look like? What expenditures can be delayed? What can be eliminated? What funding sources can be maximized? We already know that not taking FAA grants will provide less revenue. We are asking for an analysis – a strategy - of how we can do this, and what are its implications. I do not see that analysis.

Answer: Scenario 2 as presented in April offered a strategy for how to pursue a capital plan within the context of a lack of availability of federal funding sources (the apples to oranges comparison). After the Council’s discussion on May 28, we were asked to bring forward a scenario that presumed equal expenditures – the apples-to-apples scenario 3 that is included in our memo and will be discussed in more detail at the session on July 23rd. If the Council direction results in continued foregoing of FAA grants, staff would move back towards the direction of a very tight capital plan to minimize cost. The implications of this strategy likely include deferred maintenance risk which could have cost implications in 2040 based on the process and time required to develop a strategy for reuse of the land at that time. Staff would evaluate the options based on criticality and funding options, and would present that to council as part of the budget process.

Question:   i) On page 2 it is assumed that in the years 2041 and 2042, if we decide not to pursue FAA grants we will owe the government a fee of $11.07MM for a “land reimbursement fee” and a “real estate fee for remaining land” of $25.03MM. What is the basis for these fees and in these amounts? Is this an FAA calculation? Does it apply even if we continue airport usage after those dates? And are we assuming that we cannot obtain a mortgage or certificate of participation against a property whose value will then approach $500MM to pay those fees? At a loan to value ratio of about 7%, I do not think this would be a heavy lift.
   ii) Frankly, this appears to be an effort to gross up our liabilities in the event we decline to take up FAA grants. There needs to be a narrative explanation for this $36MM liability, which I do not believe has appeared in any previous document.

Answer: This requested narrative is located in the July 25, 2024 meeting packet on page 116 or Section 2.5 of the Aeroplex produced Financial Analysis. In short, scenario 2 assumed all airport land will be sold at future market rates, requiring real estate commission transactions fees at 4%, environmental review, legal fees, and remaining payback on unamortized values from new development. The City will also need to repay the FAA for 37.93 acres of land originally purchased with federal support at the future fair market value at the time of sale. The preceding section 2.4 Boulder Colorado Land Value Assumptions outlines value assumptions and recommends a formal evaluation to determine values..

Question: There are airports in California that have managed to free themselves from their FAA grant obligations. They have instituted robust noise control ordinances, banned or controlled stop and go landings and basically run their airports as the community desires, not what the aviation community desires. They also appear to do so profitably, something that appears to have escaped our analysis. Why is this not discussed?

Answer: The issue of local control is extremely nuanced. There are a lot of misconceptions about this topic and staff caution comparisons to other airports whose individual circumstances are different. For example here are some complexities we are aware of:

On noise abatement the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) of 1990 requires a public airport operator to obtain FAA approval of any “noise or access restriction” that would affect “stage-rated” aircraft (i.e., all modern jets). The courts have found ANCA applies to all public airport operators, not just those receiving or that had received federal funding. Santa Monica had a noise ordinance in effect in 1984, prior to ANCA. They were also able to shorten their runway to prevent certain aircraft from using the airport, but that was only after a substantial amount of costly litigation and eventually reaching an available consent decree.

On touch and go legislation, Torrance has attempted to implement touch and go prohibitions but there are some follow-up questions around validity or permissibility by the FAA as suggested in this referenced letter.

Question: It is important to remember that we are not discussing closure and an alternative use of the airport; that subject has been resolved for at least the next 14-20 years. We have an airport, and we will continue to have an airport well beyond the time when every member of this Council has exited the stage. Thus, the staff memo, which only discusses the preservation of the right to close the airport, and not the benefits/detriments of local control, is seriously incomplete and fails to properly present the issue. Currently, the FAA does not permit us to operate the facility in accordance with our local values. We cannot institute an enforceable noise ordinance or ban the use of leaded fuel. Where is this discussed?

Answer: Both issues of local control for noise and leaded fuel have been discussed previously. Regarding noise regulations, see answer above. Regarding leaded fuel, per the FAA’s Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) program, during the transition to unleaded which has the stated goal to be complete by 2030, our grant assurances with FAA do restrict our authority to discontinue the sale of leaded fuel at the airport. We are committed to transitioning fully to unleaded fuel once a fleet-wide drop-in is approved for all piston-engine aircraft. Also, as the Council is aware, through a grant with CDOT, we deployed unleaded fuel at the airport this summer to expand those offerings and additionally, the FAA approved more than 1200 aircraft for unleaded fuel within the last week.

If any additional questions arise, don’t hesitate to reach out. We look forward to the discussion this evening.

July 22nd, 2026

Wed, 22 Jul 2026 07:00:00 GMT

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Benjamin, Matthew <BenjaminM@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 2:41 PM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] CORRECTION: Re: Staff Preparation on Longmont’s Recent FAA Grant Acceptance, and Whether It Changes Our Perpetuity Assumptions Ahead of Thursday’s Airport Hearing
To: HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov>

Dear Colleagues, staff and community members,

A quick correction ahead of tomorrow’s airport hearing. Since yesterday’s hotline, I’ve reviewed additional documents and information, and spoken with the City Attorney’s Office, and I have a more concrete picture of the perpetuity question than I did.

The key language, from the FAA’s standard grant assurances:

“There shall be no limit on the duration of the terms, conditions, and assurances with respect to real property acquired with federal grants.”

Unlike development grants (pavement, taxiways, equipment), which carry a 20-year term, this one never expires. Once FAA money has been used to acquire real property, that property is bound in perpetuity. Boulder: Decades ago, the city used FAA grant funds to acquire a small piece of land at the airport. The federal government’s position is that Boulder is bound in perpetuity today, based on a transaction that happened long before any of us were on Council, independent of whatever we decide tonight. Meaning all FAA grants further reinforce the operation of the airport in perpetuity, if they’ve used past FAA money to acquire land (like Boulder did).

I erred in thinking that Longmont’s grant offered us a middle ground to seek FAA funds without triggering a separate binding action of perpetuity. I was wrong in that assertion, and I’m sorry if anyone got their hopes up that there might be a middle ground.

The main question for tomorrow: Does Council want to reaffirm its commitment to operating the airport for the foreseeable future?

If yes, we need to give staff direction on what conditions we want attached to that long-term operation. If we wish to pursue FAA funds, we’d simply be using available federal funding for an obligation that, per the FAA’s position, already exists regardless of whether we take the money.

Longmont is in the exact same position. Their airport is also already encumbered in perpetuity from historical land acquisitions. That’s why their debate was never about avoiding perpetuity; it was already settled by history, same as ours. Their actual question was simply: given that they’re committed to the airport long-term, what’s the least costly way to fund it without pulling from the general fund and their community’s other priorities? They concluded FAA grants were the best answer, and took the money.

I think that’s the right lesson for us: keep this simple. We don’t need to solve the perpetuity question tomorrow; it’s already resolved by history. The real question in front of us is narrower: does Council want to reaffirm operating the airport for the foreseeable future, and if so, what’s the most responsible way to fund it? I’d argue we should follow Longmont’s lead, make a straightforward decision to fund the airport with the resources that least burden our general fund and other priorities, and then work with our community and partners to build the best airport we can.

If Council instead wants to contest the FAA’s underlying perpetuity claim, that’s a separate, harder legal fight, the same one that was the premise of our prior legal case, and it remains open. But it’s not something we need to resolve to act tomorrow.

Looking at what Longmont did is very relevant and should be an example for us to follow.
Again, my apologies for my previous HOTLINE.

With gratitude,

Matt Benjamin
Boulder City Council Member
(303) 453-9896
Pronouns: he/him/his

[BoulderCouncilHotline] Staff Preparation on Longmont’s Recent FAA Grant Acceptance, and Whether It Changes Our Perpetuity Assumptions Ahead of Thursday’s Airport Hearing

Tue, 21 Jul 2026 07:00:00 GMT

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Benjamin, Matthew <BenjaminM@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 4:20 PM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Staff Preparation on Longmont’s Recent FAA Grant Acceptance, and Whether It Changes Our Perpetuity Assumptions Ahead of Thursday’s Airport Hearing
To: HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov>

Dear Colleagues, staff and community members,

Ahead of Thursday’s hearing on the future of Boulder Municipal Airport, I want to flag a very timely, very local data point: Longmont City Council just accepted its own FAA grant for Vance Brand Municipal Airport, and I’ve now reviewed the actual executed grant documents (not just news coverage). I think it’s worth asking staff directly: does this change anything about how we should be thinking about Thursday’s discussion, or does it confirm what we already assumed?
What Longmont actually accepted from the FAA:

Grant 1: No. 3-08-0040-023-2026 (Contract DOT-FA26NM-1086) — IIJA/Airport Infrastructure Grant, $313,470 federal share, ~43% of a taxiway reconstruction project.
Grant 2: No. 3-08-0040-024-2026 (Contract DOT-FA26NM-1087) — standard AIP funding, $412,763federal share, ~57% of the same project.
Combined: $726,233 at a 95% federal cost share, application dated Feb 13, 2026, execution deadline July 24, 2026.
Both grants were for pavement reconstruction only — no land acquisition, no new facilities, no expansion.

This is the same type of grant Boulder could consider. These are ordinary AIP/infrastructure development grants: pavement, taxiways, routine maintenance, structured similarly to the FAA grants Boulder has pursued and accepted historically, and no different in kind from what we’d be evaluating for Boulder Municipal Airport going forward. Nothing about Longmont’s grants involved land acquisition or expansion, which is the distinction that matters for the perpetuity questions we’ve been debating.
Source: https://longmont.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16353

One more note before I get to the main issue: these Longmont grants also carry DEI/Executive Order certification language that has drawn real scrutiny nationally. That’s genuinely concerning, and I don’t want this email to read as dismissing it; it isn’t, and it shouldn’t be waved off. It deserves real scrutiny on its own terms, independent of Thursday’s decision. Our City Manager’s Office has a demonstrated track record of declining or refusing to pursue grants when the attached conditions directly conflict with our local ordinances or community values. That track record gives me real confidence in how staff will handle this, which is exactly why I think this deserves its own dedicated review by the staff, rather than being litigated informally as part of the airport-perpetuity conversation. It’s too important to be a footnote to a different debate. With that said, the rest of this email focuses on the perpetuity question, which is the one that’s actually been driving our Thursday conversation.

The duration language, quoted directly from the executed grants (Assurances, Section B, identical in both):

“The terms, conditions and assurances of this Grant Agreement shall remain in full force and effect throughout the useful life of the facilities developed or equipment acquired… but in any event not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date of acceptance of a Grant Offer of federal funds for the project. However, there shall be no limit on the duration of the assurances regarding Exclusive Rights and Airport Revenue so long as the airport is used as an airport. There shall be no limit on the duration of the terms, conditions, and assurances with respect to real property acquired with federal funds.”
My read of this language, which I want staff to test:

Taking a 20-year development grant for pavement, lighting, equipment, and taxiways is no different from what Boulder has done historically, repeatedly, without it being treated as a perpetual commitment to keep the airport open. The 20-year clock runs, and it expires. That’s what Longmont just did. Taking one of these grants doesn’t lock us into anything more than what we’re already invested in today.

Based on this language, perpetuity isn’t actually an issue for us unless one of two things is true:

We use an FAA grant to acquire land. Real property obligations under FAA grants have no time limit; that’s a fundamentally different commitment than a 20-year development grant, and it’s the one scenario where accepting new money would clearly create a new, open-ended obligation.
We choose to continue fighting the FAA’s assertion that we’re already in perpetuity because of previous grants that were used to acquire the airport’s land. That’s a live question about our existing obligations, not something a new development grant would create, but it’s only relevant if there’s an actual desire on Council to close the airport. If there isn’t, whether we’re technically “already in perpetuity” from historical land grants is a moot point in practice, because we’re not trying to get out of it.

If that read is correct, then Thursday’s decision on any new development grant is narrower than the public debate suggests: it’s a routine infrastructure question with a 20-year clock, not a referendum on the airport’s permanent existence. The permanent-existence question, if we want to re-litigate it, is really about whether Council wants to continue challenging the FAA’s perpetuity position on our historical land grants, which is a separate conversation that only matters if closure is genuinely on the table. Perhaps the draft ordinance clarifying Council's role/authority for grants that carry a perpetuity clause is still relevant and an important safeguard, but not necessarily relevant for Thursday’s discussion nor urgency to seek grant funding in order to stop spending Transportation Department money that should go to CAN (Core Arterial Network), road maintenance, and snow plowing.

Questions I’m asking staff to be prepared to answer Thursday:

Does accepting a routine, 20-year development grant (pavement, taxiway, equipment — like Longmont’s) change Boulder’s obligation posture at all, or does it operate on its own 20-year clock, entirely separate from any existing land-related obligation?
Can staff confirm Boulder is not currently seeking, and would not be using, any FAA grant to acquire additional land at or around the airport? If that’s off the table, does that resolve the primary perpetuity concern for any near-term grant decision?
If Council does not currently intend to pursue closing the airport, does the historical-perpetuity question need to be resolved at all at Thursday’s meeting? Or is it only a live issue if and when Council seriously considers closure?
If we can indeed go after FAA grants for infrastructure with 20-year obligations, then do we have less concern about the trade-offs of the city having to self-fund major airport-related capital expenses?

I think this framing matters because if the perpetuity issue is really about land acquisition and historical grants, and only becomes operative if we’re seriously considering closure (which a majority of council expressed a preference to operate the airport for the foreseeable future at a previous study session), then Thursday’s decision on any new FAA grants that carry a perpetuity covenant may be narrower and more focused than some of the public debate has suggested.

With gratitude,

Matt Benjamin
Boulder City Council Member
(303) 453-9896
Pronouns: he/him/his
_______________________________________________
bouldercouncilhotline -- bouldercouncilhotline-request@com-mailman1.bouldercolorado.gov
To unsubscribe send an email to bouldercouncilhotline-leave@com-mailman1.bouldercolorado.gov

Boulder Municipal Airport Begins Offering Unleaded Aviation Fuel, Taking Steps to Reduce Airborne Lead Emissions

Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:00:35 GMT

See original post here.

The Boulder Municipal Airport (BDU) now officially offers unleaded aviation fuel. The City of Boulder invites members of the public to a celebratory event on Friday, July 10, at 9 a.m. in the Boulder Municipal Airport Terminal, located at 3327 Airport Road, Boulder, CO 80301. Parking is free. The event will include brief remarks from city staff, light refreshments, a ceremonial ribbon cutting, and a first fueling of the new fuel, called UL94.

Through state grant funding, the city is providing incentives for airport operators to transition away from leaded aviation fuels. Reducing the use of lead in fuel helps to reduce airborne lead emissions and in the fuel handling and transportation process, reducing the risks of lead in the environment. The city will subsidize the cost of unleaded fuel with funding from this specific grant source. The city will additionally provide rent credits to incentivize airport tenants to pay to certify their aircraft for fuel compatibility, a federal requirement for aircraft using UL94.

“For many years, it has been our goal to make aviation in Boulder more environmentally sustainable. Providing unleaded fuel gives UL94-certified aircraft a dependable option while making a big step forward with the core values of the airport, city and community,” said Boulder Airport Manager Eric Vences. “Several operators have already committed to the switch.”

“We’re thrilled to see the Boulder airport now offering unleaded avgas,” said Colorado Division of Aeronautics Director David Ulane. “Along with Centennial Airport and Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport, Boulder is leading the way with the transition to unleaded aviation fuels in Colorado, and our Aeronautical Board and Division are excited to provide funding support to facilitate the city’s efforts.”

Most aircraft based in Boulder tend to be smaller aircraft with piston engines. The city estimates up to 70% of Boulder-based aircraft can use UL94. More options will soon be available as technology improves, reducing emissions and environmental impacts while supporting safety for aircraft operators.

“Within the next year, we anticipate bringing Swift’s 100R unleaded avgas to Boulder, a fuel that is expected to be approved for all 100% of the piston-powered fleet of aircraft,” added Vences.

As part of a citywide community conversation in 2023, Boulder community members shared their desire for near-term airport action items, including transitioning to unleaded aviation fuel. Now that UL94 has arrived at BDU, future work will aspire to increase the use of unleaded fuel over leaded fuel, develop permanent infrastructure, and support a full nationwide phase-out of leaded fuel as determined by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Like many airports, fuel in Boulder is delivered by the Fixed Base Operator (FBO). The airport’s FBO, Journeys Aviation, has partnered with Swift Fuels to provide and store the new unleaded fuel. Operators can get aircraft certified via the Swift Fuels website.

Funding for incentives primarily comes from a $63,000 grant awarded by the Colorado Department of Transportation Colorado Discretionary Aviation Grant Program (CDAG), and a local match of $7000 through the airport fund. The discretionary grant does not require city airport obligations for an extended time into the future.

Boulder Municipal Airport is a general aviation airport, providing business, private and recreational aviation services to the city and surrounding communities. Learn more on the airport webpage.

[BoulderCouncilHotline] Airport Staff Analysis Before We Get to a Public Hearing

Sat, 30 May 2026 22:13:46 GMT

From: Kaplan, Rob <kaplanr@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: Sat, May 30, 2026 at 3:37 PM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Airport Staff Analysis Before We Get to a Public Hearing
To: HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov>

Colleagues and Staff,

At last Thursday’s meeting, we did two important things. We agreed 8 to 1 that the airport decision deserves a public hearing, not a consent agenda item. Five of us also gave direction to staff to come back with both options: Scenario 1 (indefinite operation with FAA grants) and Scenario 2 (no grants, with the option to pursue closure after 2040) presented side by side, with the financial research needed to actually compare them. I think that was the right call and I want to make sure the analysis that comes back is complete enough to be useful.

The cost comparison we were presented wasn’t apples to apples. The April 23 packet shows a $28M CIP for Scenario 1 versus $12M for Scenario 2 - a $16M gap. Those two numbers represent fundamentally different things. Scenario 1 includes full pavement reconstruction once across the next 14 years. Scenario 2 only accounts for seal coating, deferring the full reconstruction entirely. That’s not a comparison of two ways to run the same airport, it’s a comparison of full maintenance versus kicking a major capital expense down the road. The packet itself flags the risk: if Scenario 2 doesn’t result in closure in 2040, meaning the FAA fight is lost or takes longer than expected, the city would face the full deferred reconstruction cost on top of the $9M shortfall, not instead of it. I’d like staff to present a true normalized comparison that uses the same maintenance standard for both scenarios, so council can see what the actual policy choice costs rather than comparing full investment against deferred maintenance.

I also think we need to be honest about what the no-grants option actually is. It’s not “close the airport in 2040 and we then have control of the land.” Based on the FAA’s stated legal position, that grant obligations run in perpetuity. The 2040 date is the starting line for a federal lawsuit, not the finish line. The $9.9M maintenance figure only gets us to that point. It doesn’t include legal fees, the potential FAA land payback on the roughly 38 acres purchased with federal funds (estimated at around $118M in 2041 dollars), environmental remediation, site preparation, or the cost of continuing to fund airport operations throughout however long the litigation takes.

Just for reference, Santa Monica is the closest parallel we have. They were in active federal litigation with the FAA from 2013 until they settled in January 2017. It took four years in court, on top of decades of prior disputes. The settlement made headlines under the title “Santa Monica Airport Agreement Clears Runway of Mounting Litigation Costs.” Council Member Gleam Davis said at the time: “All I know is that we have spent millions of dollars trying to close the airport and that it is very likely that, in the future, the legal and other expenses would be in the millions.” Council Member Terry O’Day confirmed the costs “run into the millions.” Davis put it plainly: “I gladly would spend millions more if I were certain that the end result of litigation and conflict would be closure of the airport. No knowledgeable person with whom I spoke could make that guarantee.” And critically, even after settling, Santa Monica was required to keep the airport operational for another 11 years, until December 31, 2028.. I don’t think we should walk into that path without a realistic picture of what it actually costs and how long it takes.

At Thursday’s meeting it was confirmed on the record that the legal question of whether accepting FAA grants is an administrative decision or requires a council vote has not yet been researched. I think we need a clear answer to that before we get to a public hearing, given the long-term implications of accepting these grants.
I’d also like to see the Scenario 1 grant assumptions broken out more clearly. The $26M includes FAA entitlement grants, FAA discretionary grants, and CDOT discretionary grants and those carry very different levels of risk. FAA entitlement grants for compliant airports are formula-based and have been awarded consistently for over 75 years through a dedicated trust fund. Those are about as reliable as federal funding gets. FAA discretionary grants are competitive and carry exposure to the current federal environment. CDOT discretionary grants are funded by Colorado aviation fuel taxes, not federal appropriations, and are generally more stable and insulated from Washington.

However, council needs to take into consideration of a letter CDOT sent to our Director of Transportation and Mobility on May 27th that has significant implications for Scenario 2. Colorado statute - specifically CRS 43-1-109(2)(C) - prohibits CDOT from funding projects that are eligible for available federal funds. CDOT’s letter explicitly confirms they would not be able to fund projects at Boulder Municipal Airport that the FAA determines to be eligible and for which they would be willing to provide federal grant funding. The critical word is “available”. The FAA’s willingness to fund a project doesn’t disappear just because Boulder chooses not to accept their grants. That means under Scenario 2, the city likely loses access to CDOT capital funding as well as FAA funding, for any project the FAA would otherwise cover. The $9M Scenario 2 subsidy figure assumes no federal grants but doesn’t account for losing CDOT funding too. I would ask staff to recalculate Scenario 2 costs with that reality factored in. I’d like staff to break out all three grant sources clearly so council understands exactly where the $26M comes from and which portions are available under each scenario.
One question that didn’t come up Thursday but probably should have: within Scenario 2, does council retain the option to pivot in two, three, or seven years and decide to start accepting FAA grants again? Technically yes, but there are real consequences to that path that need to be part of the analysis. Any maintenance costs the city pays out of pocket while operating under Scenario 2 cannot be recovered retroactively. FAA rules require costs to be incurred after a grant is executed, so money spent before resuming grants is simply gone. On top of that, every year we operate without grants restarts the 20-year clock from whenever we do resume, meaning a pivot in year five doesn’t buy back those five years. And given that Boulder has already sued the FAA and publicly signaled closure intent, resuming grants after a multi-year pause puts us in arguably the most difficult position of any scenario when it comes to the FAA’s discretion on competitive grant applications. I’d like staff to address the pivot option explicitly, what it would actually cost to resume grants after 2, 5, or 10 years under Scenario 2, and whether our existing relationship with the FAA makes future discretionary grants more or less likely after a period of adversarial litigation.

I want to make sure when we get to a public hearing, council and the community are looking at an honest picture of both options.

Respectfully,

Rob Kaplan
kaplanr@bouldercolorado.gov

_______________________________________________
bouldercouncilhotline -- bouldercouncilhotline-request@com-mailman1.bouldercolorado.gov
To unsubscribe send an email to bouldercouncilhotline-leave@com-mailman1.bouldercolorado.gov

[BoulderCouncilHotline] Re: Way forward with the airport

Thu, 28 May 2026 03:06:03 GMT

From: Rivera-Vandermyde, Nuria <Rivera-VandermydeN@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: Wed, May 27, 2026 at 6:10 PM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Re: Way forward with the airport
To: Schuchard, Ryan <schuchardr@bouldercolorado.gov>, HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov>

Council Member Schuchard –first let me apologize for the delay in response. I'm not sure why but this hotline message is not showing up in my outlook and it has only just come to my attention.

We appreciate your sharing your thoughts and leave to your colleagues consideration of the same. We note, however, that the information you have outlined may require either a nod of 3 or 5 depending on the breadth of the research and information council would want staff to bring back. Some of these items, particularly around what constitutes local control in this context and funding sources used by airports outside of our jurisdiction, would require more extensive consideration and effort by staff in both Transportation and Mobility as well as the City Attorney's Office.

I’ll also note that staff had an opportunity today to meet with CDOT to clarify their position as to funding.

Attached, please find that letter which speaks for itself.

Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde
City Manager

(pronouns: she/her/ella) What's This?

O: 303-441-3090
riveravandermyden@bouldercolorado.gov

City Manager’s Office
1777 Broadway | Boulder, CO 80302
BoulderColorado.gov

[BoulderCouncilHotline] Way forward with the airport

Thu, 28 May 2026 02:56:31 GMT

From: Schuchard, Ryan <schuchardr@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: Fri, May 22, 2026 at 1:14 PM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Way forward with the airport
To: HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov>

On May 28, Council is scheduled to discuss how to proceed with the airport. That discussion follows the April 23 study session, where five councilmembers indicated support for staff to prepare a proposal for official Council action to conclude the multiyear community conversation and provide long‑term direction for the airport.

As we prepare for that next step, please let me highlight a few things.

First, I have heard councilmembers and staff offer diverging interpretations about whether concluding the process in favor of long term airport operations and acceding to grant covenants from the FAA (which obligate Boulder to the use of land and operate airport services in perpetuity — covenants strengthened in FAA’s favor in 2022 and which Boulder has not yet pursued) represents the status quo, and hence does not require rigorous or even any council action, or rather it is something that merits a thorough formal action by council. Setting aside the different arguments, this question is still open, and council needs to settle it.

Second, there is a key policy question that we did not fully address on April 23: what level of local control do we want to strive to retain over the 179 acres of city‑owned land that make up the airport? This is a local control question, and it is foundational to any long‑term airport decision. Because the April 23 discussion moved quickly to the topic of federal funding, we did not have the opportunity to consider a local control pathway alongside other options.

And third, since April 23, we have received new information that appears to indicate state aviation funding is in fact available even if the city does not take new FAA grants, per written correspondence from CDOT’s director of aeronautics. This state funding does not involve perpetuity requirements. This would seem to materially improve the feasibility of a local control option, which was not presented or explored at the study session, and warrants an evaluation.

It also means that Boulder now potentially has at least two long‑term funding models available that could support fiscal stewardship:

An FAA‑funded model, which provides federal dollars but carries strengthened post‑2022 perpetuity covenants and long‑term federal land‑use obligations; and
A local control model, which preserves maximum city discretion over the land while allowing access to CDOT funding and supporting long‑term leases.

Both models appear to be viable, and Council has not yet had the opportunity to consider them side by side.

For these reasons, at the May 28 meeting I intend to ask my council colleagues to support the following:

Direct staff to bring forward the proposal indicated on April 23 in the form of a public hearing, so Council can take formal action with a complete record.
Direct staff to prepare two versions of the policy for that hearing: one authorizing the use of FAA funding, and one reflecting a long‑term airport path that preserves maximum local control and avoids new FAA grants.

This approach will allow Council to choose among a hopefully full set of fiscally responsible options at a public hearing.

If Council proceeds with a hearing, I will also request that staff provide information on:

Airports that operate successfully under local control;
Funding sources utilized by airports that have chosen to not take new FAA grants; and
The financial and legal implications of accepting FAA grants under the strengthened 2022 covenants, with an assessment of the issues surrounding perpetuity covenants.

For transparency, here is my current thinking about the airport itself: I am inclined to support a long‑term commitment to the airport that provides a clear, stable investment environment and aligns with Boulder’s excellence in long‑range planning. At the same time, I want to ensure we strive for local control and avoid long‑term or even perpetual federal obligations on city‑owned land unless they can be shown to fully be in our community’s interest.

I look forward to a good discussion on May 28!

Ryan

Ryan Schuchard (he/him)
Boulder City Councilmember

1777 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80302
schuchardr@bouldercolorado.gov

Office hours and newsletter:
www.ryanwithboulder.com

_______________________________________________
bouldercouncilhotline -- bouldercouncilhotline-request@com-mailman1.bouldercolorado.gov
To unsubscribe send an email to bouldercouncilhotline-leave@com-mailman1.bouldercolorado.gov

See the CDOT re: Clarification of CDOT Aeronautics Funding Eligibility and State Grant Assurances here.

[BoulderCouncilHotline] Airport clarification

Wed, 27 May 2026 17:49:40 GMT

From: Rivera-Vandermyde, Nuria <Rivera-VandermydeN@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: Wed, May 27, 2026 at 10:48 AM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Airport clarification
To: CouncilMembers <CouncilMembers@bouldercolorado.gov>, HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov>
CC: Bailey, Blythe <baileyb@bouldercolorado.gov>, Davis, Pam <DavisP@bouldercolorado.gov>, Vences, Eric <vencese@bouldercolorado.gov>, Tate, Teresa <TateT@bouldercolorado.gov>

Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Council Members and Hotline followers -

At our last city council meeting, a speaker questioned a statement made from staff during the course of our conversation about the future of the airport site. I committed to reviewing the video to ascertain the full scope of the statement which was whether staff represented accurately information they understood to be CDOT’s position regarding grants in the event the airport’s future operations remained uncertain.

I’ve always been clear that we should own when we’ve gotten something wrong, and this case requires us to provide some clarification. Staff did say it was their understanding that “CDOT has indicated an unwillingness to provide this grant in the future without the city signaling the intention to operate the airport indefinitely." That information had been transmitted to our new staff in the department and not verified directly. Logically, staff believed that if CDOT had a 20-year grant to provide, it would not make sense to award that to a city that was ostensibly operating an airport for only 10-15 years. We should have confirmed that statement prior to speaking to it and for that, we apologize.

We have also heard from community that we did not provide you with sufficient information as to the feasibility of operating the airport without federal funds. Staff’s scenario 2 is precisely that scenario where staff speaks to operating the airport without the use of federal subsidies from the FAA. Scenario 2 does not negate the city’s opportunity to seek grants from CDOT, for example, as we have already successfully shown we are willing to seek grants that do not exceed our current grant assurance period. CDOT grants, however, still require the city to make a matching or additional investment that will require us to use monies under the Transportation or the General Funds. It is this fundamental financial situation staff was bringing to light as the decision to continue to use the airport for its current use – or not – leads us to entertain different funding scenarios.

I hope that provides some clarity and again, apologize for misspeaking about what we understood to be CDOT’s position.

Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde
City Manager
(pronouns: she/her/ella) What's This?

O: 303-441-3090
riveravandermyden@bouldercolorado.gov

City Manager’s Office
1777 Broadway | Boulder, CO 80302
BoulderColorado.gov

The City of Boulder acknowledges the city is on the ancestral homelands and unceded territory of Indigenous Peoples who have traversed, lived in and stewarded lands in the Boulder Valley since time immemorial. Those Indigenous Nations include the: Di De’i (Apache), Hinono’eiteen (Arapaho), Tsétsėhéstȧhese (Cheyenne), Nʉmʉnʉʉ (Comanche), Caiugu (Kiowa), Čariks i Čariks (Pawnee), Sosonih (Shoshone), Oc'eti S'akowin (Sioux) and Núuchiu (Ute).

We honor and respect the people of these Nations and their ancestors. We also recognize that Indigenous knowledge, oral histories, and languages handed down through generations have shaped profound cultural sustained and celebrated to this day.

The City of Boulder recognizes that those now living and working on these ancestral lands have a responsibility to acknowledge and address the past. We must not only acknowledge our past but work to build a more just future. We are committed to taking action beyond these words. We pledge to use this land acknowledgment to help inspire education and reflection and initiate meaningful action to help support Indigenous Nations, communities and organizations.
READ THE FULL STAFF LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT: https://bit.ly/staff-acknowledgment

_______________________________________________
bouldercouncilhotline -- bouldercouncilhotline-request@com-mailman1.bouldercolorado.gov
To unsubscribe send an email to bouldercouncilhotline-leave@com-mailman1.bouldercolorado.gov

PLAN-Boulder Comments for Airport Discussion

Tue, 26 May 2026 19:16:32 GMT

From: allyn s feinberg <feinberga@comcast.net>
Subject: PLAN-Boulder Comments for Airport Discussion
Date: May 24, 2026 at 4:46:42 PM MDT

To: "Adams, Taishya" <adamst@bouldercolorado.gov>, "Brockett, Aaron" <BrockettA@bouldercolorado.gov>, "Marquis, Tina" <marquist@bouldercolorado.gov>, "Winer, Tara" <WinerT@bouldercolorado.gov>, Mark Wallach <mfwallach@gmail.com>, "Schuchard, Ryan" <schuchardr@bouldercolorado.gov>, "Benjamin, Matthew" <benjaminm@bouldercolorado.gov>, "Speer, Nicole" <speern@bouldercolorado.gov>, Rob Kaplan <rsk333@gmail.com>

To: The Boulder City Council
From: PLAN-Boulder County
Subject: Boulder Airport

PLAN-Boulder County strongly supports Councilmember Schuchard’s requests for council support for the following in your discussion on May 28th:

That staff bring forward the proposal indicated on April 23 in the form of a public hearing, so Council can take formal action with a complete record;
That staff prepare two versions of the policy for that hearing: one authorizing the use of FAA funding, and one reflecting a long‑term airport path that preserves maximum local control and avoids new FAA grants.

These actions would address two of the major failures of the council’s consideration of the future of the Boulder airport, which are:

the direction to staff in a study session with no public hearing, to encumber the city in perpetuity to maintain our general aviation airport under burdensome FAA grant assurances; and
no option for achieving local control of the airport presented to the council for consideration of the airport issue.

After evaluating the available legal, financial and land use information presented to the council on the airport issue, PLAN-Boulder finds that the information is incomplete, misleading, or completely absent, and that a rational decision cannot be made at this point. The citizens of Boulder deserve better.

A lot can change in almost 15 years before 2040 when our current FAA grant funding commitment will expire. We see the unavoidable evidence of that almost daily in our current political environment. There is no guarantee that funding will be forthcoming from the FAA, which even under current circumstances only funds capital projects not overhead and maintenance. A potential alternative source of this funding is CDOT, without the commitment of outside control in perpetuity; however this alternative does not appear to have been fully evaluated.

Different facts are argued by different interests in the future of the airport. However, there are real, provable facts for all parties to agree to. The major argument by the city staff for taking FAA grants is financial, but there has been no evidence presented of a real examination of the potential funding sources to keep the Boulder airport open under local control. The citizens of Boulder deserve at least a full and public determination of the facts that will provide the basis for a rational decision, including an evaluation of the true costs and benefits of the airport.

PLAN-Boulder strongly supports council action to preserve local control of the airport at least until 2040. We encourage a full consideration of pursuing this option on May 28th.

Respectfully,

Allyn Feinberg
PLAN-Boulder County