<![CDATA[SOS | SAVE OUR SKIES ALLIANCE - LMO Updates]]>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 22:39:10 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[Noise Improvement Project -- edited update]]>Tue, 26 May 2026 21:58:17 GMThttps://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/noise-improvement-project-edited-updateMayor Hildalgo-Fahring, Mayor Pro-tem, Council members, City managers, 

The email that was sent to the community re: the Vance Brand Airport Noise Improvement Project Update contained a lot of malarkey. 

While we were shocked to read this messaging sent out widely, in following up from the online discussion that preceded it, which was equally disappointing and misleading as well as mildly inaccurate, perhaps it wasn't surprising.  

How does the city benefit by proliferating this skewed narrative about the airport? Who was behind this PR stunt? I want to bring this to your attention because the larger community affected by this nuisance can see right through this. 

We took the time to edit what was asserted in this email, and provide a fuller set of responses, context and facts to counter what was said in certain sections. You can see those in red below. 


Vance Brand Airport Noise Improvement Project Update

Answers to Questions from May 7th Community Meeting

Thanks to everyone who attended the virtual community meeting on May 7, 2026 about the Airport Noise Improvement Project. Please see below for answers to questions from meeting attendees, organized by various topic areas.

On May 14, the “airport noise project managers” sent an email follow-up to the May 7 Airport Noise Improvement Project meeting. This is a citizen rebuttal of several of the answers provided in the email. Rebuttals found in red text.

Stakeholder Meetings and Advisory Structures

Since the Airport Advisory Board was dissolved, how will the City ensure it receives knowledgeable, expert guidance to inform future planning decisions?

The City Council discussed ideas for the future of the Airport at the March 2026 Council Retreat, including plans for a future governance structure of an advisory board. Information and decisions will be shared as the Council considers this item.

Rebuttal:

The meeting moderator set up the discussion with a nostalgic reminiscence of skydiving in Florida and a restaurant that sat on the Denver Stapleton runway. Brainstorming included things like doing a 1940s Ball (like Boulder does), skydiving events, a drone school, electrification, a museum, visiting pilots working on their engines, meeting spaces at the airport, etc.

In no way was the future governance structure of the advisory board discussed, nor were any of the pain points citizens are experiencing with regard to the airport. 

Citations:

City Council Annual Retreat Day 2 - March 29, 2026 (go to 2:55:06): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7njz19FzE94&t=12796s

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

What are Federal Grant Assurances and how do they relate to Airport noise?

When the City of Longmont accepted federal funding to maintain and improve the Airport, it agreed to a set of 40 conditions established by the FAA. These conditions known as Sponsor Assurances are not suggestions, they are enforceable obligations that govern what the City can and cannot do at the Airport. Violating grant assurances can result in the FAA terminating the City’s eligibility for grants and requiring repayment of federal grant funds. Four of these assurances are particularly relevant to questions about noise and access.

The City Must Protect the Airport’s Ability to Operate (Assurance 5)

The City is required to protect its own authority to run the Airport in compliance with federal requirements. It cannot take actions or allow others to take actions that would undermine its ability to meet its federal obligations. In practical terms, this means the City cannot enact policies that conflict with federal law or FAA rules and regulations. The Airport must also be kept in a safe and operational condition at all times.

The Airport Must Be Open to Everyone on Equal Terms (Assurance 22)

The City is required to make the Airport available to all types and classes of aviation on reasonable and fair terms. It generally cannot single out and restrict specific aircraft types, specific operators, or specific uses, such as flight training, without FAA approval. For example, the City cannot allow some flight schools to operate and refuse others, nor can it charge different fees for similar operators doing similar things. The City is generally required to treat similarly situated airport users in an equal manner.

The City Cannot Give Any Operator Special or Exclusive Access (Assurance 23)

The City is prohibited from granting any single operator, or limited group of operators, the exclusive right to provide aviation services at the Airport. For example, the City cannot limit the Airport to just one flight school while refusing access to others. Nor can the City set standards or conditions so burdensome that only certain operators can meet them.

The Airport Must Work Toward Financial Self-Sufficiency (Assurance 24)

The City is required to maintain a fee structure that makes the Airport as financially self-sustaining as possible. This means the Airport needs to generate revenue from its tenants and users, hangars, fuel sales, flight school leases, and other aeronautical activities.

When do existing federal grant assurances expire?

Most grant assurances require the City to maintain the Airport for 20 years after acceptance of a grant. The assurances also include provisions such as ensuring safe and efficient use of navigable airspace and protecting aircraft operations by mitigating and removing hazards. Additionally, current FAA grant assurances do not place a limit on the duration of grant terms with respect to real property acquired with federal funding.

Rebuttal:

The airport is not being operated as “financially self-sustaining as possible”. It is evident from the 2026 adopted airport budget that, at a minimum, the airport operating and maintenance fund is subsidized by the city for at least $150,000 per year including the airport budget shortfall and 50% ATF.

It is well known that federal grants have strings attached thereby lessening local control of the airport. If recommended revenue generating steps were implemented such as landing fees, local control could be maintained and tax dollars subsidizing the airport could be applied in other more important areas of the city.

Fees and Financial Sustainability

Why doesn’t the Airport at least match the landing fees charged by surrounding airports?

There are no general aviation airports in Colorado that currently charge landing fees for aircraft under 10,000 lbs.

Rebuttal:

Technically, this isn’t true. Both the Buena Vista and Leadville Airports charge landing fees for jets under 10,000 lbs. Seventeen airports in Colorado charge landing fees; each with their unique rules and charges. As airports and their operating contexts evolve: new flight paths come into being; airports and operations expand; traffic increases; new aircraft types are either developed or start using the airport, thus decisions must be made to accommodate new circumstances. Landing fees are one of many tools that can be used to ensure that those who use the airport help support it. Would LMO be an anomaly in charging landing fees for smaller piston-engine planes? Not at all; here are just a few US airports where GA pilots pay landing fees:

Teterboro Airport
Aspen/Pitkin County Airport
Nantucket Memorial Airport
Santa Monica Airport
Key West International Airport
Harry Reid International Airport
Spanish Forks (UT) Airport
Heber Valley Airport

Citations:

CPA list of CO airports with landing fees: https://coloradopilots.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=612720&module_id=728841

Buena Vista: https://buenavistaco.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1665/2026-Fee-Schedule-?bidId=

Leadville: https://s3.amazonaws.com/ClubExpressClubFiles/612720/documents/LXV_Rates_Fees_2025_302483768.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIA6MYUE6DNNJ6ROIH3&Expires=1779050351&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DLXV_Rates_Fees_2025.pdf&Signature=adU236nWZf%2BuB4n88T7zRXVp7nU%3D

SOS: https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/landing-fees.html

Can the City limit the number of flight schools that can operate out of the Airport or charge higher fees to those who are based out of other airports?

No. The FAA oversees the nation’s airspace, Air Traffic Control System, certification of aircraft and pilots, and regulatory oversight of certain airports designated important to the US national aviation system in the National Plan of Integrated Airports (NPIAS). As a recipient of federal airport improvement grants, Vance Brand Airport is bound by FAA Grant Assurances that prohibit discriminatory or exclusionary practices against aeronautical users. (See above.)

Together, these assurances mean that the Airport may establish and enforce reasonable and uniformly applied minimum standards governing how aeronautical businesses operate (safety requirements, insurance, qualifications, etc.), but it may not use those standards or any other mechanism as a tool to cap, exclude, or unreasonably restrict the number of flight schools with access to the Airport. Any operator meeting the published minimum standards must be afforded the opportunity to operate.

How much of the Airport is paid for by Airport-generated revenue versus general fund/local taxes?

The Airport is generally self-supporting, and its expenses and revenues are tracked in the Airport Fund that is part of the overall city budget. Airports are guided by federal regulations that require aeronautical fees to be based on recovering the actual cost of providing Airport facilities and services. The cost-recovery model is a foundational policy for Airport charges, emphasizing transparency, efficiency, and alignment with the true cost of operations. General Aviation Airports typically operate under this approach, which helps maintain stable financial performance regardless of aviation activity cycles.

The Airport does use General Fund dollars to pay Administrative Transfer Fees (ATF) which are payments for services and assistance provided by General Fund supported City departments.

The amount of each year's ATF is based on the estimated General Fund expenditures that represent:
  • direct services (e.g., the estimated time that the City Attorney’s Office spends providing legal assistance on Airport issues)
  • indirect services provided to other operating funds minus those that are directly billed to those funds (e.g., when the Human Resources Department helps the Finance Department hire a new accountant who then works on Airport Fund accounts).

In 2026, the Airport’s ATF will be $239,553 (of which the Airport Fund will pay $119,776) and the major contributors to this amount were for direct and indirect services provided by the following departments:
  • Risk Management – increased by $3,206 compared to 2025
  • Transportation Planning – increased by $4,428 compared to 2025
  • Mayor and Council – increased by $33,024 compared to 2025
  • City Attorney – increased by $19,123 compared to 2025

The 2026 ATF calculation was based on time spent in 2024.

The percentage of the total calculated ATF that is paid for by the Airport Fund has changed over the years. 
  • In 2009 and prior, the Airport Fund paid 25% of the total ATF
  • In 2010, the Airport Fund paid 35% of the total ATF
  • In 2011, the Airport Fund began paying 100% of the calculated ATF which continued each year through 2017.
  • In 2018, the Airport Fund paid 50% of the total ATF. This change was intended to free up Airport Fund dollars to match funds for FAA grants for capital improvements.

Rebuttal:

The airport is not being operated as “generally self-supporting”. Again, it is evident from the 2026 adopted airport budget that, as a minimum, the airport operating and maintenance fund is subsidized by the city for at least $150,000 per year including the airport budget shortfall and 50% ATF.

Data Collection and Transparency

How will project data and recommendations be shared with the public?

The project webpage at longmontcolorado.gov/airportproject will provide updates as they become available. Once the project is finished, the City will move to implement the recommendations. This will include asking the Colorado Department of Transportation and the FAA review any changes to the Voluntary Noise Abatement Procedures.

If Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data is being used for operational analysis and compliance monitoring, doesn't that risk encouraging pilots to turn off their transponders, creating an unsafe aviation situation?

Transponder operation is not optional. Under FAA regulations (14 CFR Part 91), aircraft operating in most controlled and busy airspace are required by federal law to have their transponders on. A pilot who intentionally disables their transponder to avoid monitoring would be violating federal aviation regulations, not exercising a right.

Aircraft Operations and Noise Impacts

Is there anything that can be done about a specific loud propeller aircraft that flies low and is significantly noisier than other aircraft?

If the situation involves aircraft flying in a careless or reckless manner, a complaint should be made to the FAA’s Denver Flight Standards District Office at 303-342-1170. This Federal office is responsible for licensing pilots, certifying aircraft and enforcing flight rules. It’s important to note that as pilots approach and depart an airport, they will be flying at lower altitudes and most likely the pilot is operating in accordance with Federal aviation regulations.

Rebuttal:

Sadly, these "complaints" to the FAA go absolutely nowhere. Same for complaints submitted directly to the city. Longmont’s job description for the airport manager is quite exacting and includes “Formulate, update, and enforce the Airport’s rules and regulations, minimum standards, leasing/rents and fees policies, and development standards (as they may exist or be developed in the future)”. Longmont, you don’t get to just wash your hands of the multitude of pilots misbehaving and defying your defined VNAP procedures.

Flying lower than 1000 feet above ground level (AGL) over the city or outlying residential areas is against FAA guidance. Are some airplanes flying lower than that?

Typically, online flight-tracking tools display pressure altitude, which does not represent the aircraft’s height above the ground or what pilots see on their altimeters. Pressure altitude is determined based on a standard barometric pressure. From day to day, or even hour to hour, an aircraft's actual altitude can vary by hundreds of feet for a given pressure altitude.

The pilot's instruments, set to local pressure, will reflect the correct altitude throughout the flight. Tracking apps simply don't apply the same correction which can cause confusion. View this video for more information on the differences between pressure altitude and actual altitude.

It’s important to note that as pilots approach and depart the Airport, they will be flying at lower altitudes and operating in accordance with Federal aviation regulations.

Rebuttal:

This is an obfuscating reply to airplane AGL's trying to convince the public that our observations of plane flights are incorrect because we are confusing barometric pressure readings. Common sense and simple direct observations notes when a plane is flying at 500-600 feet above our houses in the flight pattern on a rather routine basis.They insult one's intelligence by diverting the question about low AGL's in the flight pattern by informing you that planes fly lower when landing and taking off from the runway. 

Lead Fuel and Environmental Health

Are there any studies available showing how much lead from aircraft fuel is affecting residents in surrounding neighborhoods?

While some general research studies have been conducted on aircraft and lead pollution, none have been able to quantify the impact of lead emissions from small aircraft on surrounding communities. Additionally, no such studies have been conducted that is specifically related to Vance Brand Airport or the Longmont community.

Rebuttal: 

The fact that no study has been conducted regarding lead emissions related to operations at Vance Brand Airport is a failure by the city to protect the health of its residents. Colorado House Bill HB24-1235 titled “Reduce Aviation Impacts on Communities” that passed in May 2024 states “Aircraft that use leaded aviation gasoline are a leading source of lead emissions in our air” and “Excessive exposure to lead has many harmful health effects, which can include adverse effects on the nervous system, kidney function, the immune system, reproductive and developmental systems, the cardiovascular system, and the oxygen carrying capacity of blood” and “Exposure to lead can cause irreversible and life-long harmful health effects in children and pregnant individuals” and “According to the United States centers for disease control and prevention, no level of lead exposure is safe for children, and even low levels of lead in their blood are associated with developmental delays, learning difficulties, and behavioral issues.” 

There are 7 SVVSD schools and many private schools and daycares that reside within 2 miles of the LMO runway. As airport operations increase, so do the dangers to these children. The city should conduct a study to determine the amount of lead the residents are being exposed to as a result of avgas. The bill states that “the Department of Public Health and Environment shall continue to encourage testing in high-risk areas for the presence of lead in the blood of individuals who reside or work near such airports or children who attend schools or child care facilities near such airports.” The city should do the same and educate those near the airport of the risks of lead and should provide them with the data of how much lead they are being exposed to due to aviation activity.

The city could use the VNAP to help limit the public’s exposure to lead by tightening the recommendations. When this bill was passed and this information about the dangers of lead was released, Longmont’s airport manager responded by updating the VNAP to allow more touch and go operations, more hours of the day. That doesn’t protect the residents, that exposes them to more lead, more often.

You’ll soon have a postcard in the mail from Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment with information regarding lead exposure from multiple sources, including living close to an airport, encouraging you to get your children tested if you have concerns. This is serious folks.

Lead was removed from automotive gasoline in the United States over 30 years ago.

Citations:

HB24-1235 Reduce Aviation Impacts on Communities: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1235
NIH: Leaded Aviation Gasoline Exposure Risk and Child Blood lead Levels: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36712926/

“Lead-formulated aviation gasoline (avgas) is the primary source of lead emissions in the United States today, consumed by over 170,000 piston-engine aircraft (PEA). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that four million people reside within 500m of a PEA-servicing airport. The disposition of avgas around such airports may be an independent source of child lead exposure.”

The Association Between Childhood Blood Lead Levels and Proximity to Airports in Colorado: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44274-024-00061-1

 This is a peer-reviewed study by our own state health department contends that childhood lead exposure is a significant public health concern.

“Childhood lead exposure remains a significant public health concern, particularly as leaded aviation gasoline continues to contribute to air pollution near airports. This study found that living one mile further from airport point locations in Colorado is associated with a statistically significant decrease in children's blood lead levels, highlighting the need for targeted lead testing in communities near airports.”

Airport Benefits to Longmont Residents

How does the Vance Brand Airport benefit residents?
Vance Brand Airport is a community asset that supports Longmont’s economy and ability to respond to emergencies.

Economic Benefits

According to the 2025 Colorado Aviation Economic Impact Study, activity associated with Vance Brand Airport generated approximately $73.6 million in total economic activity in 2023. This includes:
  • $44.7 million generated by businesses and services located at the Airport
  • $28.9 million generated by visitors who fly into Longmont and spend money in local restaurants, hotels, and shops

Vance Brand also provides access to Longmont and surrounding communities without needing to use large commercial airports, helping Longmont remain competitive and attractive to employers and business developers.

Emergency Response

Vance Brand Airport protects Longmont residents and property by providing critical infrastructure and a base of operations during local and regional emergencies and disasters. It enables aircraft to deliver personnel, equipment, and supplies quickly when roads may be congested or inaccessible. Specifically, the Airport supports wildfire training and response, medical emergency transport and organ donation flights, law enforcement aviation operations, and disaster relief and search-and-rescue operations.

Rebuttal:

Asset or Liability: Getting Real Numbers to Assess the Airport 

Most people in Longmont don’t see what all the fuss is about. Having been told for years that the Longmont airport is an asset to the city, it seems fitting that the city should quantify those claims. The majority of things we’ve learned show that the airport is more of a liability than an asset. The airport is being run like it is too big to fail.

If you're not under the pattern, you're not going to get what the fuss is about. But, since the airport drains your tax dollars, you should know what’s going on. 

Given its proximity to bigger general aviation airports--Loveland, RMMA, Centennial--is the Longmont airport truly an economic driver for the city or simply a play thing that is subsidized by the greater community? Is the city receiving the true value of the airport to the community?

Longmont is not alone in this hand-wavy narrative. Sadly, this is the case for a lot of GA airports across the country.

Not only is Longmont’s airport not an economic driver, it's a subsidized plaything for a few, and we're also a patsy of greedy parties that do not reside in Longmont, let alone Boulder County. The Jefferson County flight school take-over of Longmont is a game-changer. Not only did they move their touch-and-go operations to LMO, they created their own training areas out of thin air that are mostly using Boulder County Open Space lands, without approval of the FAA, without taking it to the Boulder County Commissioners, or the Boulder County public. There are also unauthorized training areas in Larimer and Weld Counties. 

The flight schools use our airport, and our land, at no charge, without our approval, for their profit. And yet, our airport operates hand to mouth, with no plan for a sustainable future without government subsidies. What kind of sense does that make?

Glenwood Springs did an opportunity cost study with their airport that was quite eye-opening, and they don't have five other airports within spitting distance. The report notes the FAA and aviation driven economic driver estimates are based on the state's commercial airports, like DIA, which then use cost multipliers for every municipal airport. That's like us saying, my local software business is worth $200MM because Google is worth $1 billion. It's time we called out the nonsense.

These economic impact report numbers are bloated, at best, and contribute to a narrative that isn’t true. County commissioners, city councils, airports and pilots treat the mystical and outlandish figures in these reports as gospel simply because the numbers come from CDOT (through a subcontractor, Kimley-Horn). As seen with the Town of Glenwood study, an accurate and local estimate is where real numbers exist. 

CDOT claims that lowly Nucla, CO, airport (AIB) adds $907,000 to the local economy. You could buy the entire town with that amount and have money left over.

CDOT’s report says that Longmont airport supposedly adds nearly $74MM to the local economy. Yet the airport has to live on grant money to survive. The airport manager is paid with transferred city money because the airport isn't self-sufficient. I'd bet that $74MM is more than the top three industries in Longmont combined. 

Every single airport in Colorado, and especially the smaller ones, have ridiculous estimates based on assumptions (that aren’t locally based) and “multipliers.” Airport Managers can’t back these numbers up. 

Nucla has no employees at all--just a runway and a tank of fuel. But their study still maintains that there are 10 employees with a payroll of $287,000, which somehow equates to $546,000 “total value added,” coupled with the imaginary figure of $684,000 of “visitor spending.”  Perhaps five people a year actually fly into Nucla to “visit.”  

It's way easier to see the glaring discrepancy in the CDOT numbers when looking at rural airports. The larger airport's impact is equally flawed. Real unbiased studies are needed.

Perhaps we need a real economic impact study done by a third party that doesn’t have a conflict of interest. Or, we can continue making real life decisions on fantasy and spin.

Citations: 

Vance Brand’s Economic Impact Report
https://www.coloradoaviationsystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/LMO_Vance-Brand-Municipal-1.pdf

How the CDOT reports were made: 
https://www.codot.gov/programs/aeronautics/studies-plans-reports/2025ceis 

We don’t know what happens in Kimley-Horn’s (the consultancy that makes these reports) black box of assumptions and multipliers. It seems that the crafting of such reports is based on the premise to maximize fantasy numbers to the extent possible using gross assumptions that aren't locally based. LMO’s numbers were based on regional numbers -- since our region includes DIA, those numbers are quite larger than they appear in reality at the local level. 

Individual Airport’s Impact Reports:
https://www.coloradoaviationsystem.com/2025-ceis-deliverables/

Nucla’s Impact Report: 
https://www.coloradoaviationsystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AIB_Hopkins-Field-1.pdf 

Glenwood Springs Airport back on the Radar with recent Colorado Aeronautics Study:
https://www.postindependent.com/news/glenwood-springs-airport-back-on-the-radar-with-recent-colorado-aeronautics-study/

Glenwood Springs: Land Use Scenario Planning Study for the Glenwood Springs Airport

####
Additional feedback and questions can be directed to the Airport noise project managers at VanceBrandFeedback@airportmonitoring.info.

]]><![CDATA[Vance Brand Airport Noise Improvement Project Update Answers to Questions from May 7th Community Meeting]]>Fri, 15 May 2026 18:06:10 GMThttps://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/vance-brand-airport-noise-improvement-project-update-answers-to-questions-from-may-7th-community-meetingThanks to everyone who attended the virtual community meeting on May 7, 2026 about the Airport Noise Improvement Project. Please see below for answers to questions from meeting attendees, organized by various topic areas.

Stakeholder Meetings and Advisory Structures

Since the Airport Advisory Board was dissolved, how will the City ensure it receives knowledgeable, expert guidance to inform future planning decisions?
The City Council discussed ideas for the future of the Airport at the March 2026 Council Retreat, including plans for a future governance structure of an advisory board. Information and decisions will be shared as the Council considers this item.

Will there be future opportunities to participate in structured roundtable discussions with community members and pilots to allow mutual, respectful dialogue rather than only one-way public comment sessions?
Roundtable discussions are not included in the current Noise Improvement Project’s scope of work. The City is considering meaningful ways to continue community discussions about the Airport. Residents are always invited to provide feedback, log complaints, and ask questions by submitting a Service Request Form.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

How can residents contact the FAA directly?
Residents are encouraged to contact the FAA’s Denver Flight Standards District Office at 303-342-1170 to report an aircraft flying in a careless or reckless manner. This Federal office is responsible for licensing pilots, certifying aircraft, and enforcing flight rules.

What types of Airport projects have been funded with federal grants?
The FAA has provided grants to the City for the purchase of airfield development and safety equipment and to support Airport planning projects. Specific projects have included $253,429 in taxiway rehabilitation, $478,429 for taxiway construction, $486,950 to improve Airport drainage and erosion control, and $237,420 for Airport wildlife fencing.

What are Federal Grant Assurances and how do they relate to Airport noise?
When the City of Longmont accepts federal funding to maintain and improve the Airport, it agrees to a set of 40 conditions established by the FAA. These conditions known as Sponsor Assurances are not suggestions, they are enforceable obligations that govern what the City can and cannot do at the Airport. Violating grant assurances can result in the FAA terminating the City’s eligibility for grants and requiring repayment of federal grant funds. Four of these assurances are particularly relevant to questions about noise and access.

The City Must Protect the Airport’s Ability to Operate (Assurance 5)
The City is required to protect its own authority to run the Airport in compliance with federal requirements. It cannot take actions or allow others to take actions that would undermine its ability to meet its federal obligations. In practical terms, this means the City cannot enact policies that conflict with federal law or FAA rules and regulations. The Airport must also be kept in a safe and operational condition at all times.

The Airport Must Be Open to Everyone on Equal Terms (Assurance 22)
The City is required to make the Airport available to all types and classes of aviation on reasonable and fair terms. It generally cannot single out and restrict specific aircraft types, specific operators, or specific uses, such as flight training, without FAA approval. For example, the City cannot allow some flight schools to operate and refuse others, nor can it charge different fees for similar operators doing similar things. The City is generally required to treat similarly situated airport users in an equal manner.

The City Cannot Give Any Operator Special or Exclusive Access (Assurance 23)
The City is prohibited from granting any single operator, or limited group of operators, the exclusive right to provide aviation services at the Airport. For example, the City cannot limit the Airport to just one flight school while refusing access to others. Nor can the City set standards or conditions so burdensome that only certain operators can meet them.

The Airport Must Work Toward Financial Self-Sufficiency (Assurance 24)
The City is required to maintain a fee structure that makes the Airport as financially self-sustaining as possible. This means the Airport needs to generate revenue from its tenants and users, hangars, fuel sales, flight school leases, and other aeronautical activities.

When do existing federal grant assurances expire?
Most grant assurances require the City to maintain the Airport for 20 years after acceptance of a grant. The assurances also include provisions such as ensuring safe and efficient use of navigable airspace and protecting aircraft operations by mitigating and removing hazards. Additionally, current FAA grant assurances do not place a limit on the duration of grant terms with respect to real property acquired with federal funding.

Fees and Financial Sustainability

Why doesn’t the Airport at least match the landing fees charged by surrounding airports?
There are no general aviation airports in Colorado that currently charge landing fees for aircraft under 10,000 lbs.

Can the City limit the number of flight schools that can operate out of the Airport or charge higher fees to those who are based out of other airports?
No. The FAA oversees the nation’s airspace, Air Traffic Control System, certification of aircraft and pilots, and regulatory oversight of certain airports designated important to the US national aviation system in the National Plan of Integrated Airports (NPIAS). As a recipient of federal airport improvement grants, Vance Brand Airport is bound by FAA Grant Assurances that prohibit discriminatory or exclusionary practices against aeronautical users. (See above.)

Together, these assurances mean that the Airport may establish and enforce reasonable and uniformly applied minimum standards governing how aeronautical businesses operate (safety requirements, insurance, qualifications, etc.), but it may not use those standards or any other mechanism as a tool to cap, exclude, or unreasonably restrict the number of flight schools with access to the Airport. Any operator meeting the published minimum standards must be afforded the opportunity to operate.

How much of the Airport is paid for by Airport-generated revenue versus general fund/local taxes?
The Airport is generally self-supporting, and its expenses and revenues are tracked in the Airport Fund that is part of the overall city budget. Airports are guided by federal regulations that require aeronautical fees to be based on recovering the actual cost of providing Airport facilities and services. The cost-recovery model is a foundational policy for Airport charges, emphasizing transparency, efficiency, and alignment with the true cost of operations. General Aviation Airports typically operate under this approach, which helps maintain stable financial performance regardless of aviation activity cycles.

The Airport does use General Fund dollars to pay Administrative Transfer Fees (ATF) which are payments for services and assistance provided by General Fund supported City departments.

The amount of each year's ATF is based on the estimated General Fund expenditures that represent:
  • direct services (e.g., the estimated time that the City Attorney’s Office spends providing legal assistance on Airport issues)
  • indirect services provided to other operating funds minus those that are directly billed to those funds (e.g., when the Human Resources Department helps the Finance Department hire a new accountant who then works on Airport Fund accounts).

In 2026, the Airport’s ATF will be $239,553 (of which the Airport Fund will pay $119,776) and the major contributors to this amount were for direct and indirect services provided by the following departments:
  • Risk Management – increased by $3,206 compared to 2025
  • Transportation Planning – increased by $4,428 compared to 2025
  • Mayor and Council – increased by $33,024 compared to 2025
  • City Attorney – increased by $19,123 compared to 2025
The 2026 ATF calculation was based on time spent in 2024.

The percentage of the total calculated ATF that is paid for by the Airport Fund has changed over the years. 
  • In 2009 and prior, the Airport Fund paid 25% of the total ATF
  • In 2010, the Airport Fund paid 35% of the total ATF
  • In 2011, the Airport Fund began paying 100% of the calculated ATF which continued each year through 2017.
  • In 2018, the Airport Fund paid 50% of the total ATF. This change was intended to free up Airport Fund dollars to match funds for FAA grants for capital improvements.

Data Collection and Transparency

How will project data and recommendations be shared with the public?
The project webpage at longmontcolorado.gov/airportproject will provide updates as they become available. Once the project is finished, the City will move to implement the recommendations. This will include asking the Colorado Department of Transportation and the FAA review any changes to the Voluntary Noise Abatement Procedures.

If Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data is being used for operational analysis and compliance monitoring, doesn't that risk encouraging pilots to turn off their transponders, creating an unsafe aviation situation?
Transponder operation is not optional. Under FAA regulations (14 CFR Part 91), aircraft operating in most controlled and busy airspace are required by federal law to have their transponders on. A pilot who intentionally disables their transponder to avoid monitoring would be violating federal aviation regulations, not exercising a right.

Aircraft Operations and Noise Impacts

Is there anything that can be done about a specific loud propeller aircraft that flies low and is significantly noisier than other aircraft?
If the situation involves aircraft flying in a careless or reckless manner, a complaint should be made to the FAA’s Denver Flight Standards District Office at 303-342-1170. This Federal office is responsible for licensing pilots, certifying aircraft and enforcing flight rules. It’s important to note that as pilots approach and depart an airport, they will be flying at lower altitudes and most likely the pilot is operating in accordance with Federal aviation regulations.

Where can residents find the mapped noise-sensitive areas that pilots are asked to avoid?
During the community meeting on May 7, the AMS consultant indicated that there are identified and mapped noise-sensitive areas around Vance Brand Airport, however, that is not the case.

Flying lower than 1000 feet above ground level (AGL) over the city or outlying residential areas is against FAA guidance. Are some airplanes flying lower than that?
Typically, online flight-tracking tools display pressure altitude, which does not represent the aircraft’s height above the ground or what pilots see on their altimeters. Pressure altitude is determined based on a standard barometric pressure. From day to day, or even hour to hour, an aircraft's actual altitude can vary by hundreds of feet for a given pressure altitude.

The pilot's instruments, set to local pressure, will reflect the correct altitude throughout the flight. Tracking apps simply don't apply the same correction which can cause confusion. View this video for more information on the differences between pressure altitude and actual altitude.

It’s important to note that as pilots approach and depart the Airport, they will be flying at lower altitudes and operating in accordance with Federal aviation regulations.

Lead Fuel and Environmental Health

Are there any studies available showing how much lead from aircraft fuel is affecting residents in surrounding neighborhoods?
While some general research studies have been conducted on aircraft and lead pollution, none have been able to quantify the impact of lead emissions from small aircraft on surrounding communities. Additionally, no such studies have been conducted that is specifically related to Vance Brand Airport or the Longmont community.

What are the future plans related to aircrafts transitioning to unleaded fuel.
The Colorado Department of Transportation approved the city’s Unleaded Fuel Transition Plan at the end of 2025. The City is moving into the implementation stage of the plan with the goal of eliminating its use by 2030. The plan is available online.

Airport Benefits to Longmont Residents

How does the Vance Brand Airport benefit residents?
Vance Brand Airport is a community asset that supports Longmont’s economy and ability to respond to emergencies.

Economic Benefits
According to the 2025 Colorado Aviation Economic Impact Study, activity associated with Vance Brand Airport generated approximately $73.6 million in total economic activity in 2023. This includes:
  • $44.7 million generated by businesses and services located at the Airport
  • $28.9 million generated by visitors who fly into Longmont and spend money in local restaurants, hotels, and shops

Vance Brand also provides access to Longmont and surrounding communities without needing to use large commercial airports, helping Longmont remain competitive and attractive to employers and business developers.

Emergency Response
Vance Brand Airport protects Longmont residents and property by providing critical infrastructure and a base of operations during local and regional emergencies and disasters. It enables aircraft to deliver personnel, equipment, and supplies quickly when roads may be congested or inaccessible. Specifically, the Airport supports wildfire training and response, medical emergency transport and organ donation flights, law enforcement aviation operations, and disaster relief and search-and-rescue operations.

Additional feedback and questions can be directed to the Airport noise project managers at VanceBrandFeedback@airportmonitoring.info
]]><![CDATA[AAB is dissolved]]>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 07:00:00 GMThttps://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/aab-is-dissolved TL;DR: Longmont's AAB DISSOLVED. Prieto and Crist voted against; it was 5 to 3.

WATCH: 
At 38:40 the CC comments start about passing the ordinance. At 15:57 hear comments from 5 great people on the ordinance.
 Longmont City Council votes to dissolve Airport Advisory Board
5-2 majority says city needs to reset how it handles airport oversight
By London Lyle | llyle@prairiemountainmedia.com
PUBLISHED: April 15, 2026 at 8:26 AM MDT

https://www.timescall.com/2026/04/15/longmont-city-council-votes-to-dissolve-airport-advisory-board/

The Longmont City Council voted 5-2 Tuesday night to dissolve the Airport Advisory Board, removing the citizen board from city code and leaving the council to take on its responsibilities for now.

Councilmembers Crystal Prieto and Diane Crist voted against the ordinance. The rest of the council said the city needs to reset how it handles airport oversight and public concerns tied to Vance Brand Municipal Airport.

The ordinance repeals the section of city code that established the Airport Advisory Board. Under that section, the board consisted of six voting members appointed by the council and one nonvoting council liaison. Supporters of the change said the current structure was no longer working and that the city needed to step back before deciding what kind of airport advisory body, if any, should come next.

Councilmember Alex Kalkhofer, who had not initially supported the idea when it first came up earlier this year, said Tuesday that his vote was not about shutting down the airport or ignoring the public. “It’s a vote on how we organize ourselves so we can better support the airport going forward,” he said. He also encouraged current and former board members to stay involved as the city works through what comes next.

Councilmember Matthew Popkin framed his support in similar terms, saying the issue was structural rather than personal. He argued that the city still needs technical airport expertise but that the current structure has not effectively served the city, residents or airport users. He said he saw value in having some type of advisory body focused on the airport, but not in keeping the current model.

Mayor Susie Hidalgo-Fahring and Mayor Pro Tem Sean McCoy also described the move as a reset rather than a permanent rejection of the board. Hidalgo-Fahring said the goal was to compel the council to take a closer look at airport policies and practices rather than continue sending issues back to the board. McCoy said the city had reached a point where it needed to step back from a structure he believed had not worked for years.

Councilmember Jake Marsing also backed the move, saying, “It is not a punishment. It is not quitting. It is a way to step back, get the structure right and come back stronger.”

Even with the vote, council members across the dais thanked current and former Airport Advisory Board members for their service. Numerous council members stressed that the airport’s current controversies should not be pinned on board volunteers, but that the onus was on the council for poor management of the board. As an example, they said, for years, AAB members didn’t receive packets ahead of their board meetings, a standard practice for citizen advisory boards so members can review materials prior to their meetings. It was only in the past year that staff started to regularly issue packets to the board.

While Prieto said she was in support of the majority of the statements made Tuesday, she said she was sticking to her “no” vote due to the original spirit of the ordinance and “how everything unfolded.”

The motion for staff to bring back the ordinance was initially made following an AAB meeting in which one member, Matt Gibson, criticized the City Council’s liaison, Mayor Pro Tem Sean McCoy, in a way that appeared to mock his stutter. The council directed staff on Feb. 24 to prepare the ordinance to dissolve the board. Some council members described Gibson’s conduct as unprofessional and Mayor Susie Hidalgo Fahring, who made the motion, said she believed the AAB needed a reset.

But on Tuesday, the majority of the council appeared eager to distance themselves from any isolated situation; instead, opting to frame the dissolution as a step back that would help the airport in the long term.

Prieto referred during the meeting to an email from AAB Chairwoman Melinda Jordan describing the airport’s contributions to the community.

The email, which the Times-Call reviewed, mentioned volunteer trash pickups at the airport; flying rescue animals; and, in 2020, delivering critical COVID supplies to remote towns across Colorado.

Crist unsuccessfully tried to delay the vote, saying she was uncomfortable dissolving the board without first agreeing on a replacement structure. She proposed an amendment tabling the ordinance until the council had more discussion about possible alternatives, such as a citizen assembly or task force.

Public comment before the vote came largely from residents who supported dissolving the board. Several residents tied their frustration to aircraft noise and said they felt the advisory board had not meaningfully addressed neighborhood concerns.

Only one speaker, former City Council candidate Steve Altschuler, spoke in favor of the airport, saying despite his living near it, he was not bothered by the noise.
]]><![CDATA[Airport Advisory Board - October 23, 2025]]>Fri, 24 Oct 2025 15:39:58 GMThttps://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/airport-advisory-board-october-23-2025
]]><![CDATA[Longmont City Council Pre Session - October 21, 2025]]>Thu, 23 Oct 2025 21:27:27 GMThttps://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/longmont-city-council-pre-session-october-21-2025
]]><![CDATA[Unequal Skies: How “Home-Based” Landing Fee Discounts Violate Federal Law and Fairness]]>Wed, 22 Oct 2025 22:19:47 GMThttps://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/unequal-skies-how-home-based-landing-fee-discounts-violate-federal-law-and-fairnessLongmont airport, like other GA airports across the country, is in a fight to become financially viable. One proposed solution is the adoption of landing fees. Across the country, some airports are adopting landing fee policies that offer discounts or exemptions for “based” aircraft — those that are tied-down or hangared at the airport — while charging higher fees to “transient” aircraft.

At first glance, this may seem ‘fair’. After all, based operators contribute to the airport through hangar leases and fuel purchases. But in reality there is a serious legal and ethical issue: such fee structures are discriminatory, distort competition, and violate the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) grant assurances that every publicly funded airport must uphold.

The Legal Foundation: FAA Grant Assurances

When an airport accepts federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds — which virtually all public GA airports do — it signs a binding contract with the U.S. government. The FAA’s Grant Assurance 22, “Economic Nondiscrimination,” is explicit: airports must make their facilities “available for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activities.”

A landing fee discount that favors “based” aircraft over transient visitors is a textbook case of unjust discrimination. Both aircraft are engaged in identical aeronautical use — landing, taxiing, and departing — yet are treated unequally based solely on where they are stored. The FAA has repeatedly affirmed that such distinctions are impermissible unless they are based on objective, cost-justified differences in service or facility use.

Landing fees are meant to recover a portion of the airport’s operating and maintenance costs attributable to aircraft operations. These costs are incurred equally whether a plane is based or transient. Offering one group a discount doesn’t reduce those costs; it simply shifts the financial burden unfairly.

Moreover, these policies create economic favoritism. Transient pilots would be effectively subsidizing based operators and creating an unequal playing field, discouraging visiting aircraft from using the airport, buying fuel, or patronizing local businesses. 

The FAA’s own guidance reinforces this point. In the Airport Compliance Manual (Order 5190.6B), the agency warns that “fee differentials must reflect reasonable and nonarbitrary distinctions” and that unjustly favoring based users over transients “may constitute prohibited discrimination.” Several FAA compliance decisions — including City of Pompano Beach and Santa Monica Airport — have found that preferential treatment of certain users violates the airport’s federal obligations.

The Myth of “Local Loyalty”

Airport managers often defend these discounts as loyalty rewards for those who “support the airport year-round.” But this logic collapses under scrutiny. Based operators already pay rent for hangars or tie-downs and purchase local services — those are separate, voluntary transactions. Landing fees are not a reward system; they are user fees for use of a federally funded airfield.

By accepting federal money, the airport agreed to serve the entire flying public — not just its tenants. The moment an airport accepts federal grants, it ceases to be a private club.

The Broader Consequences

Discriminatory landing fee policies erode trust between the aviation community and local authorities. Visiting pilots may choose to avoid airports with unfair pricing, diverting fuel sales, maintenance revenue, and goodwill to neighboring fields. Over time, this can undermine the economic viability of the very airports these policies were meant to protect.

Equally important, they expose airport sponsors to FAA enforcement risk. A single complaint under 14 CFR Part 16 can trigger a federal investigation, and if the FAA finds noncompliance, the airport can face penalties, including suspension of future AIP funding — a devastating outcome for small communities reliant on federal dollars for runway maintenance and safety upgrades.

A Better Path Forward

Airports that wish to reward loyalty have lawful alternatives: they can offer volume-based fuel discounts, long-term lease incentives, or other options that don’t involve discriminatory airfield charges. These approaches maintain equity while encouraging based-operators to invest in their home airports.

The FAA’s grant assurances exist for a reason: to ensure that every taxpayer-funded runway serves the public fairly and uniformly. Landing fee discounts for based aircraft may seem harmless, but they strike at the heart of that commitment. The law — and the City of Longmont — should demand better.]]><![CDATA[Asset or Liability: Getting Real Numbers to Assess the Airport]]>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 19:11:13 GMThttps://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/asset-or-liability-getting-real-numbers-to-assess-the-airportMost people in Longmont don’t see what all the fuss is about. Having been told for years that the Longmont airport is an asset to the city, it seems fitting that the city should quantify those claims. The majority of things I’ve learned show that the airport is more of a liability than an asset. The airport is being run like it is too big to fail.

If you're not under the pattern, you're not going to get what the fuss is about. And, since the airport drains your tax dollars, you should know what’s going on. 

Given its proximity to bigger general aviation airports--Loveland, RMMA, Centennial--is the Longmont airport truly an economic driver for the city or simply a play thing that is subsidized by the greater community? Is the city receiving the true value of the airport to the community?

Longmont is not alone in this hand-wavy narrative. Sadly, this is the case for a lot of GA airports across the country.

Not only is Longmont’s airport not an economic driver, it's a subsidized plaything for a few, and we're also a patsy of greedy parties that do not reside in Longmont, let alone Boulder County. The Jefferson County flight school take-over of Longmont is a game-changer. Not only did they move their touch-and-go operations to LMO, they created their own training areas out of thin air that are mostly using Boulder County Open Space lands, without approval of the FAA, without taking it to the Boulder County Commissioners, or the Boulder County public. There are also unauthorized training areas in Larimer and Weld Counties. 

The flight schools use Longmont's airport, and Longmont's land, at no charge, without the citizens' approval, for their profit. And yet, the airport operates hand to mouth, with no plan for a sustainable future without government subsidies. What kind of sense does that make?

Glenwood Springs did an opportunity cost study with their airport that was quite eye-opening, and they don't have five other airports within spitting distance. The report notes the FAA and aviation driven economic driver estimates are based on the state's commercial airports, like DIA, which then use cost multipliers for every municipal airport. That's like someone saying, my local software business is worth $200MM because Google is worth $1 billion. It's time we called out the nonsense.

These economic impact report numbers are bloated, at best, and contribute to a narrative that isn’t true. County commissioners, city councils, airports and pilots treat the mystical and outlandish figures in these reports as gospel simply because the numbers come from CDOT (through a subcontractor, Kimley-Horn). As seen with the Town of Glenwood study, an accurate and local estimate is where real numbers exist. 

CDOT claims that lowly Nucla, CO, airport (AIB) adds $907,000 to the local economy. You could buy the entire town with that amount and have money left over.

CDOT’s report says that Longmont airport supposedly adds nearly $74MM to the local economy. Yet the airport has to live on grant money to survive. The airport manager is paid with transferred city money because the airport isn't self-sufficient. It's a good bet that $74MM is more than the top three industries in Longmont combined. 

Every single airport in Colorado, and especially the smaller ones, have ridiculous estimates based on assumptions (that aren’t locally based) and “multipliers.” Airport Managers can’t back these numbers up. 

Nucla has no employees at all--just a runway and a tank of fuel. But their study still maintains that there are 10 employees with a payroll of $287,000, which somehow equates to $546,000 “total value added,” coupled with the imaginary figure of $684,000 of “visitor spending.”  Perhaps five people a year actually fly into Nucla to “visit.”  

It's way easier to see the glaring discrepancy in the CDOT numbers when looking at rural airports. The larger airport's impact is equally flawed. Real unbiased studies are needed.

Perhaps we need a real economic impact study done by a third party that doesn’t have a conflict of interest. Or, we can continue making real life decisions on fantasy and spin.

Citations: 

Vance Brand’s Economic Impact Report
https://www.coloradoaviationsystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/LMO_Vance-Brand-Municipal-1.pdf

How the CDOT reports were made: 
https://www.codot.gov/programs/aeronautics/studies-plans-reports/2025ceis 
We don’t know what happens in Kimley-Horn (the consultancy that makes these reports)’‘s black box of assumptions and multipliers. It seems that the crafting of such reports is based on the premise to maximize fantasy numbers to the extent possible using gross assumptions that aren't locally based. LMO’s numbers were based on regional numbers -- since our region includes DIA, those numbers are quite larger than they appear in reality at the local level. 

Individual Airport’s Impact Reports
https://www.coloradoaviationsystem.com/2025-ceis-deliverables/

Nucla’s Impact Report: 
https://www.coloradoaviationsystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AIB_Hopkins-Field-1.pdf 

Glenwood Springs Airport back on the radar with recent Colorado aeronautics study
https://www.postindependent.com/news/glenwood-springs-airport-back-on-the-radar-with-recent-colorado-aeronautics-study/
]]><![CDATA[Good Reading: The Collection of Op-eds on the Airport Issue]]>Sun, 12 Oct 2025 16:44:21 GMThttps://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/good-reading-the-collection-of-op-eds-on-the-airport-issueFirstly, let me remind you: if you do not live within the city limits of Longmont, your voice still matters. Please read up, write to the council, and call the TC line on this matter and explain why it matters to you. They are listening.

As for the City Council (CC) and AAB meetings: If you are outside the city limits, you may speak at both meetings. You get 3 minutes at CC and 5 minutes at AAB. Some CC meetings allow "Longmont City Residents only" to speak at the top of the agenda, but this is not the case for every CC meeting. (Last week's CC meeting exemplified this, and we had great representation.)

This group has received significant press coverage, including op-eds, regarding the airport issue over the past year.   For those who want to know the issues and how to address them, here is a bundle of information for your reading and activist pleasure. 

Check out the Op-eds below.

Below are some links and light commentary to notable past CC meetings. In case you want to track this issue across the past year.

November 19, 2024 City Council Meeting

Listen to the Public invited to speak. And, Kaplan Kirsh also speaks in this meeting. Here's what you need to know:

The counsel for airport issues is Kaplan Kirsch. They represent the aviation industry, not those affected by aviation impacts. They also represent Jefferson County in the BoCo vs. JeffCo suits. Also - at minute 20:53, Dan Leftwich told the Council about the Reserved Powers Doctrine and said the FAA grant conditions requiring them to seek approval from, and grant a veto to, the FAA before enacting any noise regulation was void and unenforceable. The Mayor Pro Tem (Susie Hildalgo-Fahring) built on Dan's earlier comment and asked Peter Kirsch during the Q and A whether the grant conditions prevented protecting public health and safety. Kirsch said "Of course not" then he changed the subject.

Council has obligations to follow Colorado Supreme Court law regarding the Reserved Powers Doctrine (which states the City Council does not have the authority to agree to a contract that gives another agency a veto over its power to protect public health, safety, and welfare). This is reason enough to demand new legal counsel.

June 3 City Council Meeting discusses the airport finances.

The Airport Manager's presentation starts at 3:48 followed by City Council questions and discussion.

There were a few omissions and mis-representations in this presentation. For a while it looked like Landing Fees went out the window. But the community intervened, and rest assured: they will be voted on Nov. 3. 

Sept 23 City Council Meeting discusses Airport Budget

The Airport Fund Budget Summary was presented to City Council. The presentation begins around 2:58 of the video. "For those who say the airport isn't fully paying it's way, that is technically true" - Sandi Seader
]]><![CDATA[10/10/25 - UPDATE FROM WARD 2 COUNCIL PERSON MATTHEW POPKIN]]>Sat, 11 Oct 2025 21:50:40 GMThttps://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/101025-update-from-ward-2-council-person-matthew-popkinGood afternoon residents and neighbors, 

Below is another update for those of you following closely and interested in airport-specific issues:
  1. This past Tuesday, City Council specifically discussed multiple topics:
    1. First, Council discussed the proposed saturated pattern policy limiting touch and gos when 5 or more planes are in the pattern. Following AAB's initial input in August, City Council voted 5-2 to advance this and begin discussions with the FAA about implementing a saturated pattern policy limiting touch and gos when 3 or more planes are in the pattern. You can watch this part of the meeting here. 
      1. Note: This neither limits touch and gos in general nor is this the only policy and operational issue being evaluated this month.
      2. As a clarification, contrary to the note in the Council Communication for this meeting, the Airport Operators and Pilots Association has since clarified that they oppose this.
    2. Second, Council discussed the Voluntary Noise Abatement Program communication and strategies. You can find this part of the meeting here. 
    3. Then, Council discussed leaded fuel concerns. In line with the state of Colorado, the City is developing a transition plan to unleaded fuel and is pursuing grants from CDOT to accelerate this transition. The plan is expected to be developed by January 2026, and the City is actively planning for electric charging infrastructure for electric planes as those become more common. You can find this part of the discussion here.
    4. Staff also shared an updated complaint portal, which you can find here when you scroll down to the large blue button on the bottom right
  2. Coming Up:
    1. Financial updates that include 7-year capital plan and 90-day reserve policy
    2. AAB meeting on 10/23, which includes the topics I previously flagged below in September (because that meeting was canceled), plus landing fee options and the airport emergency plan)
      1. For those interested, this packet should be available online about a week before the 10/23 meeting.
    3. City Council meeting on 11/3 (this is a MONDAY night), expected to include a landing fee proposal for City Council, airport emergency plan protocol, and hangar lease updates


As always, you can find past materials, recordings, and upcoming agenda/packets (typically 5 days before the meeting) online here.

Hope this is helpful, 
Matthew
Electric Planes Will Not Solve the Immediate Airport Issues 

Could electric planes solve our noise and lead pollution problems from planes flying over our homes, schools, parks? Maybe, if you live long enough to see it happen. 

Don’t be fooled by those that say that electric planes are the solution to today’s noise and pollution issues with planes. The reality is, replacing these planes is a long way out--like, 50 years out. 

Let’s focus on the small, private piston engine planes using Longmont’s airspace over our neighborhoods, which are the cause of most of the nuisance and frustration by residents today. Some aviation advocates, public officials and aspiring local politicians point to the promise of electric planes as the solution to this issue, but such an assertion is simply incorrect. 

Electric sounds good, but when we look at the technology advancements and many millions needed to get infrastructure in place, combined with the airport’s current budget shortfalls and inability to generate revenue, Longmont won’t see electric planes taking over the sky anytime soon.

Technology adoption rates are almost always significantly overly optimistic and the adoption of electric planes is likely much slower than most other technologies. Can you guess how many full electric cars are on the road today? 1.4%, and that's with significant government subsidies and 35 years of evangelization to get them adopted. 

The average age of non-electric general aviation planes (including prop driven planes) in the US is over 50 years! Most private planes are for recreation, and owners have no real incentive to get rid of their old hobby airplanes. The love of old airplanes and the cost of new ones will be a slow changeover. 

Plane noise is a function of propellers as much as it is engines, so unless these electric planes use three or four blades instead of the standard two, it won't make much of a difference to those of us on the ground.

Imagine if there was a high adoption rate for electric planes… if there's only chargers at LMO, and the current flight time on a charged plane is 60-90 minutes, they will only have enough time to fly around the airport, which only compounds our problems. Without a network of infrastructure they won't be able to go anywhere else. 

Longmont can’t tolerate the nuisance, pollution and safety risks that flight school planes continue to have on our growing community. 

(But it does make you wonder: Who stands to benefit from the installation of electric infrastructure at Longmont’s airport? I’m not sure it’s the residents of Longmont.)
]]><![CDATA[Airport Fund Budget Summary Update]]>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 13:44:43 GMThttps://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/airport-fund-budget-summary-update
]]>