<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" >

<channel><title><![CDATA[SOS | SAVE OUR SKIES ALLIANCE - LMO Updates]]></title><link><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates]]></link><description><![CDATA[LMO Updates]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2026 18:36:45 -0700</pubDate><generator>Weebly</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Wondering what the ATF is?]]></title><link><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/wondering-what-the-atf-is]]></link><comments><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/wondering-what-the-atf-is#comments]]></comments><pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2026 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate><category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/wondering-what-the-atf-is</guid><description><![CDATA[The ATF is the Adminstrative Transfer Fee. The op-ed below explains what it is and why it matters wrt airport finances and airport sustainability.&nbsp;            [...] ]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="paragraph" style="text-align:left;">The ATF is the <em>Adminstrative Transfer Fee</em>. The op-ed below explains what it is and why it matters wrt airport finances and airport sustainability.&nbsp;<br /></div>  <div><div style="height: 20px; overflow: hidden; width: 100%;"></div> <hr class="styled-hr" style="width:100%;"></hr> <div style="height: 20px; overflow: hidden; width: 100%;"></div></div>  <div><div class="wsite-image wsite-image-border-none " style="padding-top:10px;padding-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;text-align:center"> <a> <img src="https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/uploads/8/8/0/3/8803722/screenshot-2026-10-02-at-6-07-29-am_orig.png" alt="Picture" style="width:auto;max-width:100%" /> </a> <div style="display:block;font-size:90%"></div> </div></div>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[Subject: Do the Work. Be Kind. Fix What's Broken.]]></title><link><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/subject-do-the-work-be-kind-fix-whats-broken]]></link><comments><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/subject-do-the-work-be-kind-fix-whats-broken#comments]]></comments><pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2026 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate><category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/subject-do-the-work-be-kind-fix-whats-broken</guid><description><![CDATA[From Jake Marsing. See entire post here.Here's the part that's relevant to the airport:VANCE BRAND AIRPORT: VISION TO ACTION &#9992;&#65039;: Council has also had two major airport conversations in the last week: a visioning session for Vance Brand Airport and a study session on implementation of the airport noise and management recommendations.I was not able to attend the airport visioning session because of a family obligation, but I submitted extensive written comments ahead of time.My basic  [...] ]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="paragraph" style="text-align:left;">From Jake Marsing. See entire post <a href="https://mailchi.mp/jakemarsing/youreinvited-6455072?e=555298c435" target="_blank">here</a>.<br /><br />Here's the part that's relevant to the airport:<br /><br /><strong><span>VANCE BRAND AIRPORT: VISION TO ACTION &#9992;&#65039;: </span></strong>Council has also had two major airport conversations in the last week: a<a href="https://www.timescall.com/2026/09/26/airport-vision-session/" target="_blank"><strong> visioning session for Vance Brand Airport </strong></a>and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMglXtVlIMA" target="_blank"><strong>a study session on implementation of the airport noise and management recommendations.<br /></strong></a><br />I was not able to attend the airport visioning session because of a family obligation, but I submitted <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qFA1bazm13nGibgeVs3B8BwrzWu1ojupMxNYfVkeL38/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank"><strong>extensive written comments ahead of time.<br /></strong></a><br />My basic vision is this: <strong>By 2046, I want Vance Brand to be a broadly supported, financially self-sustaining, small-scale community general aviation airport that Longmont understands, uses, and is proud of.<br /></strong><br />That does not mean maximizing operations for their own sake. It does not mean trying to turn Vance Brand into something fundamentally different from the community airport it has historically been.<br /><br />It means making it a better airport and a better community asset.<br /><br />I want it to be financially independent and professionally managed. I want it to be a good home for locally based pilots, recreational aviation, appropriately scaled business aviation, emergency and public-service functions, education and workforce development, and cleaner aviation technology as that becomes commercially viable.<br /><br />But most importantly, I want someone who does not own an airplane to be able to answer a simple question: What does the airport do for me and my community?<br /><br />Right now, I do not think enough Longmont residents can answer that. That is part of the problem.<br /><br />The airport needs to feel more like part of Longmont. That means a better FBO, a real public-facing front door, stronger education partnerships with SVVSD, the Innovation Center, Front Range Community College, Civil Air Patrol and others, more community programming, better public data, and a clearer financial model.<br /><br />It also means being honest about impacts.<br /><br />Residents have legitimate concerns about noise, repetitive flight training, low overflights, and whether the City has historically taken those concerns seriously enough. Pilots and airport users also have legitimate concerns about being treated like the airport has no public value, which isn&rsquo;t the case.<br /><br />Both things can be true.<br /><br />The way through that is not more yelling past each other. It is clearer standards, better data, more transparency, and a serious plan.<br /><br />At the September 29 study session, Council started turning some of that vision into more concrete direction. I was proud to support a motion to formalize a new voluntary saturated-pattern policy. When three or more aircraft are conducting touch-and-go operations in the pattern, pilots will be encouraged to perform full-stop landings instead of continuing repetitive touch-and-goes.<br /><br />Council also directed staff to update the airport&rsquo;s AWOS messaging so pilots hear key noise-abatement expectations when receiving airport information. That should include reminders to avoid touch-and-goes when three or more planes are in the pattern.<br /><br />I also pushed hard to accelerate implementation of the higher-impact recommendations from the airport assessment we received this summer. That means better flight tracking, operator-specific data where available, measurable targets against the 2025 baseline, a public dashboard, better complaint tracking, flight school workshops, electronic flight bag integration, and stronger follow-through.<br /><br />I do not want another report that becomes a list of reasons to defer action.<br /><br />The City has studied the airport enough to know the basic direction. Now we need to implement.<br /><br />The other major piece is financial sustainability.<br /><br />The Airport Fund currently receives a 50% waiver of the City&rsquo;s normal Administrative Transfer Fee. That fee is how funds compensate the General Fund for centralized City services like finance, legal, technology, human resources, facilities, and administration.<br /><br />I nearly moved to eliminate that waiver during the budget discussion, but I decided to wait and come back with cleaner language and better modeling. My intent is to bring forward a proposal to phase out the 50% waiver over roughly two three years in either the format of a phased loan or a simple phase out.<br /><br />This is not about taking money away from the airport. It is about honestly accounting for what the airport costs to operate and giving the airport the revenue tools necessary to <em>become genuinely self-sustaining.</em><br />If people are using the airport, they should help pay for the airport.<br /><br />That means rates and charges, fair market leases, predictable lease escalators, appropriate landing fees, fuel-flowage fees, tie-down and ramp charges, commercial revenue, and thoughtful future development.<br />There is still a lot to do. But for the first time in a long time, I think Council is moving from frustration to policy.</div>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[Tuesday 9/29/26 CC Meeting Recap]]></title><link><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/tuesday-92926-cc-meeting-recap]]></link><comments><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/tuesday-92926-cc-meeting-recap#comments]]></comments><pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2026 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate><category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/tuesday-92926-cc-meeting-recap</guid><description><![CDATA[Big&nbsp;thanks to the 2 handfuls of great speakers that spoke on Tuesday night. You were awesome. &nbsp;And, special thanks to the few of you who stayed to the verrrry end of another long CC meeting on the airport (a.k.a. the $750k budget line item in the city's $530MM overall budget). &nbsp;The meeting was great, &nbsp;interesting, and possibly even productive at the council's snail pace. But, the pressure is on the Airport Manager. That was nice to see. Then, after a brief intermezzo on NextL [...] ]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="paragraph" style="text-align:left;">Big&nbsp;thanks to the 2 handfuls of great speakers that spoke on Tuesday night. You were awesome. &nbsp;And, special thanks to the few of you who stayed to the verrrry end of another long CC meeting on the airport (a.k.a. the $750k budget line item in the city's $530MM overall budget). <span>&nbsp;</span><br /><br />The meeting was great, &nbsp;<em>interesting</em>, and possibly even productive at the council's snail pace. But, the pressure is on the Airport Manager. That was nice to see. Then, after a brief intermezzo on NextLight, they were back on the issue of the budget and talking about the airport again. It sounds like they admitted how the Airport Transport Fee works, how it got to be that way, (and we know it's not great as per our FAA grant requirements). Oops. So: glad that's on record.&nbsp;<br /><br />All in all: a great meeting. And our community pressure on council has showed--allbeit, at the snail's pace that council moves at.&nbsp;<br /><br />Without further ado, here is the link for your viewing pleasure:&nbsp;<br /><br /><strong>&nbsp;City Council Study Session - 29 September 2026</strong><br /><span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWMTQj830Ho" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWMTQj830Ho</a></span></div>  <div><div style="height: 20px; overflow: hidden; width: 100%;"></div> <hr class="styled-hr" style="width:100%;"></hr> <div style="height: 20px; overflow: hidden; width: 100%;"></div></div>  <div class="wsite-youtube" style="margin-bottom:10px;margin-top:10px;"><div class="wsite-youtube-wrapper wsite-youtube-size-auto wsite-youtube-align-center"> <div class="wsite-youtube-container">  <iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/fWMTQj830Ho?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> </div> </div></div>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[Op-ed + a good article on airport mismanagement]]></title><link><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/op-ed-a-good-article-on-airport-mismanagement]]></link><comments><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/op-ed-a-good-article-on-airport-mismanagement#comments]]></comments><pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2026 20:08:06 GMT</pubDate><category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/op-ed-a-good-article-on-airport-mismanagement</guid><description><![CDATA[1. a great op-ed today. (see below)&nbsp;2. an article: https://www.plymouthindependent.org/flying-under-the-radar/Flying Under the RadarPlymouth Municipal Airport has for years been run by appointed commissioners who sometimes make decisions affecting their own interests &mdash; with scant outside scrutiny, an Independent investigation has found.This relates to Longmont's airport, too:&nbsp; &nbsp;"The investigation also revealed a troubling lack of documentation on Plymouth airport business. I [...] ]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="paragraph" style="text-align:left;">1. a great op-ed today. <strong>(see below)&nbsp;</strong><br /><br />2. an article: <strong><a href="https://www.plymouthindependent.org/flying-under-the-radar/" target="_blank">https://www.plymouthindependent.org/flying-under-the-radar/</a></strong><br /><br /><strong>Flying Under the Radar</strong><br /><em>Plymouth Municipal Airport has for years been run by appointed commissioners who sometimes make decisions affecting their own interests &mdash; with scant outside scrutiny, an Independent investigation has found.</em><br /><br /><u>This relates to Longmont's airport, too</u>:&nbsp; &nbsp;<span><em>"The investigation also revealed a troubling lack of documentation on Plymouth airport business. In many cases, required meeting minutes are missing, sometimes years&rsquo; worth at a time. Airport officials could provide no records of dozens of hangar subleases at the airport despite their own strict approval and recordkeeping requirements."</em></span><br /><br /><u>Sound familiar</u>?&nbsp;&nbsp;<em>"Since the town owns the land, anyone with a hangar or a business needs a ground lease to occupy the space. Most hangars at the airport are owned privately, even though the land underneath belongs to the town. Lessees are permitted to lease out part of their space to tenants, but only after the sublets are approved in writing by the commission."</em><br /><br />&nbsp;It's a much longer story (link above). But our story here at KLMO is not a unique one. In the 300 page <a href="https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/uploads/8/8/0/3/8803722/meetings3758packet_20260921173502708.pdf">packet</a> for Saturdays's meeting (pages 167-169): Longmont admits they don't have their documentation or approvals in order.<br></div>  <div><div class="wsite-image wsite-image-border-none " style="padding-top:10px;padding-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;text-align:center"> <a> <img src="https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/uploads/8/8/0/3/8803722/screenshot-2026-09-25-at-4-32-08-am_orig.png" alt="Picture" style="width:auto;max-width:100%" /> </a> <div style="display:block;font-size:90%"></div> </div></div>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[FAA Circular, Sept 26 Airport Vision mtg + Superior Mayor Letter]]></title><link><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/faa-circular-sept-26-airport-vision-mtg-superior-mayor-letter]]></link><comments><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/faa-circular-sept-26-airport-vision-mtg-superior-mayor-letter#comments]]></comments><pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2026 17:15:35 GMT</pubDate><category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/faa-circular-sept-26-airport-vision-mtg-superior-mayor-letter</guid><description><![CDATA[Some things you should know about:&nbsp;1.&nbsp;The Sept 26 (yes, a Saturday!) Airport Vision Meeting - Longmont City CouncilAgenda attached. The link to read the full meeting packet is below.&nbsp;It&rsquo;s a 6 hours meting and a 240 page document:&nbsp;https://longmontcolorado.gov/city-clerk/agenda-management-portal/ ... check out page 167-169 for an overview of the lack of rules and regulations / minimum standards related documentation and relevant gaps in enforcement around hangars, tenants [...] ]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="paragraph" style="text-align:left;">Some things you should know about:&nbsp;<br /><br /><strong>1.&nbsp;</strong><span><strong>The Sept 26 (yes, a Saturday!) Airport Vision Meeting -</strong> Longmont City Council</span><br />Agenda attached. The link to read the full meeting packet is below.&nbsp;<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">It&rsquo;s a 6 hours meting and a 240 page document:&nbsp;</span><span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><a href="https://longmontcolorado.gov/city-clerk/agenda-management-portal/" target="_blank">https://longmontcolorado.gov/city-clerk/agenda-management-portal/<span> </span></a></span></span><br /><br /><span><span><em>... check out page 167-169 for an overview of the lack of rules and regulations / minimum standards related documentation and relevant gaps in enforcement around hangars, tenants, required certificates, etc.&nbsp;</em></span></span><br /><br />2.&nbsp;<span>Highly suggest folks <strong>give this FAA Advisory Circular a read over.</strong> It pertains to everything going on with whatever airport concerns you: <a href="https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150-5050-4A-Community-Involvement.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150-5050-4A-Community-Involvement.pdf</a></span><br /><br /><span><span style="font-weight:bold">3.&nbsp;</span><strong>Superior Mayor Mark Lacis posted this on the RMMA FB page</strong><span><strong>. </strong>It is well worth a read. The bold <span>below are mine -- because they relate to Longmont, too.&nbsp;</span></span></span><br></div>  <blockquote style="text-align:left;"><strong>Why Superior Must See the RMMA Case Through</strong><br /><br />As my time as Mayor and on the Superior Town Council comes to an end, I&rsquo;ve been thinking a lot about the issues the next Council will inherit. I&rsquo;m most concerned about issues related to Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport.<br /><br />For many people in Superior, RMMA is the number one quality-of-life issue in our community. Residents deal with repetitive flight-school operations, aircraft circling over the same neighborhoods again and again, persistent noise, and concerns about lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft. For the people most directly affected, this affects the use and enjoyment of their homes and their day-to-day quality of life.<br /><br />As I prepare to leave office, I think it is important to explain how we got here, what the Town has actually done, what the lawsuit is really about, and why I believe the next Town Council needs to see this effort through.<br /><br />We did not start with a lawsuit<br /><br />Superior has been actively working on RMMA issues since at least 2018. We hired aviation noise consultants, commissioned baseline assessment reports and recommendations, surveyed residents, studied flight corridors and potential operational changes, worked with neighboring communities, and helped develop RMMA's voluntary Fly Quiet Program. We met with the airport director and the flight schools to try and come to some collaborative solution.<br /><br />When those efforts failed to produce meaningful change, Superior helped create the Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport Community Noise Roundtable in 2020. I served as its first Chair from 2021-2022. The Roundtable brought together local governments from around the region to discuss flight patterns, landing fees, nighttime operations, noise-sensitive areas, leaded aviation fuel, flight-school activity and other possible mitigation measures.<br /><br />The underlying problem, however, never changed. Superior does not own RMMA. Jefferson County does. We cannot regulate aircraft operations, establish an airport curfew, tell pilots where to fly, direct the FAA, or vote the Jefferson County Commissioners out of office. By 2023, the Town was making increasingly direct requests to Jefferson County, RMMA and the FAA for operational changes, including implementing landing fees, nighttime restrictions, and actions relating to phasing out leaded aviation fuel. But the relationship deteriorated when former RMMA leadership publicly referred to concerned residents as "nut jobs" and brazenly spoke about wanting Roundtable participants to waste their time and tax-payer money. In May 2024, the Community Noise Roundtable voted 5-3 to dissolve.<br /><br />So when people ask why Superior went to court, this history matters. We spent approximately six years using consultants, studies, voluntary programs, direct negotiations, regional collaboration and advocacy before Superior and Boulder County filed suit in March 2024. Litigation was not our first choice. It was a last resort.<br /><br />What the lawsuit is actually about<br /><br />The Town and Boulder County allege that repetitive piston-engine touch-and-go operations originating out of RMMA create a public nuisance through excessive noise and lead pollution.<br /><br />Importantly, no court has yet decided whether the conditions actually constitute a public nuisance. Most of the litigation so far has focused on a threshold question: whether federal aviation law prevents a Colorado court from providing any relief at all.<br /><br />That distinction is important. Superior cannot use its local police powers to adopt an ordinance to regulate aircraft or the airport. But Jefferson County is not simply another local government. It owns the airport, and airport proprietors possess authority over their assets that neighboring communities like Superior do not. And that leads to the central issue in our case: if an airport proprietor possesses authority to address an alleged nuisance but refuses to exercise that authority, can a court ever require it to act?<br /><br />For Superior, that question matters because if the answer is no, it is difficult to understand what remedy an impacted neighboring community actually has.<br /><br />What has happened in court<br /><br />After Superior and Boulder County filed the lawsuit in March 2024, Jefferson County removed it to federal court. We successfully fought to return the case to Colorado state court. The Boulder County District Court later dismissed the case on federal preemption grounds. The court did not decide whether the alleged noise and lead pollution constituted a public nuisance. We appealed.<br /><br />In March 2026, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled against us on the noise claim. The court recognized that Jefferson County, as the airport proprietor, possesses authority relating to airport noise, but concluded that a Colorado court could not compel Jefferson County to exercise that authority. That is the ruling Superior and Boulder County have asked the Colorado Supreme Court to review. Broomfield, Lafayette and Louisville have supported our effort through an amicus brief because the legal question has implications well beyond Superior.<br /><br />The Court of Appeals also reversed the dismissal of our lead-emissions claim, so that portion of the case remains alive. Jefferson County is seeking review of that ruling, while Superior and Boulder County are seeking review of the noise ruling.<br /><br />Despite a perceived lack of progress on the litigation, <strong><span>the proceedings to date have narrowed the issues, clarified the legal authority Jefferson County possesses as the airport proprietor, preserved the lead claim, and brought us to the specific unresolved question about whether neighboring communities have any judicial remedy when an airport owner has the authority to address an alleged nuisance but declines to do so. </span></strong><br /><br /><strong>But it is important to recognize that the litigation has already produced a significant result. </strong><strong><span>We now have two separate courts making clear that Jefferson County, as the owner and proprietor of RMMA, has the authority to take action to address airport noise. </span><span>For years, Jefferson County has tried to avoid responsibility for the impacts of flight school operations by essentially saying, &ldquo;We would love to help, but our hands are tied by federal preemption.&rdquo; That excuse no longer holds up. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals rejected the notion that federal law leaves Jefferson County powerless to act. Whatever happens in the remaining litigation, that is an important and lasting outcome: Jefferson County can no longer credibly claim that there is simply nothing it can do.</span></strong><br /><br />What has it cost?<br /><br />Through 2026, Superior and Boulder County have spent approximately $1.1 million on this effort. Superior's share is about $650,000 and Boulder County's share is about $450,000. Going forward, the legal costs are being split equally.<br /><br />That is a lot of money. Future Councils should scrutinize litigation expenses and continue evaluating whether the case is worth pursuing. Sunk costs, by themselves, are never a reason to keep litigating. But they are also not a reason to quit. The relevant question is whether continuing from where we stand today makes sense. We have an active lead claim, a significant legal question that we have asked the Colorado Supreme Court to review, Boulder County sharing future costs equally, and neighboring communities supporting our position.<br /><br />Superior has also continued trying to engage Jefferson County while the case is pending. But Jefferson County has said it will not meet with us unless Superior dismisses its appeal and waits for a separate lawsuit filed by hundreds of Superior homeowners to run its course. The Town is not a party to that case and has no control over it. Dismissing our own appeal would therefore give up our legal leverage without providing any guarantee that Jefferson County would actually offer meaningful relief. I do not believe that would make sense.<br /><br />Have we done enough?<br /><br />I regularly hear that the Town needs to "do something" or "do more" about RMMA. I understand that reaction. But at some point, it is fair to ask what specifically that means.<br /><br />Over the years, Superior has hired consultants, conducted studies, surveyed residents, pursued operational changes, helped create a regional Roundtable, negotiated with Jefferson County, worked with the FAA, advocated for landing fees and nighttime restrictions, pushed for action on leaded aviation fuel, installed noise monitoring, built a regional coalition through the Northwest Mayors &amp; Commissioners Coalition, and traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet directly with FAA and other federal officials.<br /><br />If there is another viable legal, regulatory, political, or operational strategy we have overlooked, the Town should absolutely pursue it. Litigation should not prevent us from looking for other solutions at the same time. But "do more" by itself is not a strategy. There are real limits on what Superior can accomplish when another government owns the airport and the federal government controls the airspace. Those limitations are what ultimately brought us to court.<br /><br />What I hope the next Council does<br /><br />My time on the Superior Town Council is almost over. After ten years in elected office, somebody else will soon be sitting in my seat, and a new Council will decide how Superior handles RMMA from here.<br /><br />They should ask hard questions. They should review the legal bills, talk to our attorneys, understand the strengths and weaknesses of the case, and continue looking for settlement opportunities and other solutions. Nobody should continue litigation blindly simply because the previous Council started it.<br /><br />But I hope they also understand how we got here and what is at stake before deciding the fight is too expensive, too difficult or has gone on too long. For a substantial number of Superior residents, RMMA is one of the most significant quality-of-life issues they face. We spent years pursuing collaborative solutions before going to court. We now have an active lead-emissions claim, a partner in Boulder County sharing future costs equally, support from neighboring communities, and an unresolved legal question that deserves an answer.<br /><br />I believe we need to see the legal process through.<br /><br />That does not mean litigation should be our only strategy. We should keep talking to Jefferson County, keep working with our regional partners, keep pressing the FAA, and keep pursuing quieter aircraft, unleaded fuel, operational changes and other realistic mitigation measures.<br /><br />But we should not abandon the legal effort simply because the fight is hard.<br /><br />Elected officials are not entrusted with office only to deal with easy problems or inexpensive ones. Sometimes the options are all imperfect, the outcome is uncertain, and the process takes much longer than anyone would like. The responsibility is still to keep pushing for the people you represent.<br /><br />As I leave office, my advice to the next Town Council is simple: Don't get discouraged. Don't give up. See this through. Too many Superior residents have been dealing with this issue for too long. They deserve a Town government that continues to fight for them.<br></blockquote>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[A great Op-ed today; plane crash yesterday]]></title><link><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/a-great-op-ed-today-plane-crash-yesterday]]></link><comments><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/a-great-op-ed-today-plane-crash-yesterday#comments]]></comments><pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 22:34:04 GMT</pubDate><category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/a-great-op-ed-today-plane-crash-yesterday</guid><description><![CDATA[                    [...] ]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><div class="wsite-image wsite-image-border-none " style="padding-top:10px;padding-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;text-align:center"> <a> <img src="https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/uploads/8/8/0/3/8803722/21441_orig.jpg" alt="Picture" style="width:auto;max-width:100%" /> </a> <div style="display:block;font-size:90%"></div> </div></div>  <div><div class="wsite-image wsite-image-border-none " style="padding-top:10px;padding-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;text-align:center"> <a> <img src="https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/uploads/8/8/0/3/8803722/published/21433.jpg?1788820576" alt="Picture" style="width:695;max-width:100%" /> </a> <div style="display:block;font-size:90%"></div> </div></div>  <div><div class="wsite-image wsite-image-border-none " style="padding-top:10px;padding-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;text-align:center"> <a> <img src="https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/uploads/8/8/0/3/8803722/screenshot-2026-09-07-at-6-00-29-am_orig.png" alt="Picture" style="width:auto;max-width:100%" /> </a> <div style="display:block;font-size:90%"></div> </div></div>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[Update from last night's meeting re: Sean McCoy]]></title><link><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/update-from-last-nights-meeting-re-sean-mccoy]]></link><comments><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/update-from-last-nights-meeting-re-sean-mccoy#comments]]></comments><pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate><category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/update-from-last-nights-meeting-re-sean-mccoy</guid><description><![CDATA[Watch:&nbsp;McCoy ethics discussion starts at&nbsp;3:41:09:         Notes as you watch:&nbsp;This was a long and painful discussion.&nbsp;Interesting that Marsing and Popkin both point out that Dan&nbsp;Meester also filed ethics complaints against them.&nbsp;At the end they rejected the reprimand, didn't dismiss the complaint, and asked McCoy to make a formal apology to Levi (which he offered to do). It was Marsing's motion that finally got them there.&nbsp;Marsing was particularly cogent and di [...] ]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="paragraph"><span><strong>Watch:&nbsp;</strong></span>McCoy ethics discussion starts at&nbsp;3:41:09:<br></div>  <div class="wsite-youtube" style="margin-bottom:10px;margin-top:10px;"><div class="wsite-youtube-wrapper wsite-youtube-size-auto wsite-youtube-align-center"> <div class="wsite-youtube-container">  <iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/7OdoRvfRArI?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> </div> </div></div>  <div class="paragraph"><span>Notes as you watch:&nbsp;</span><ul><li>This was a long and painful discussion.&nbsp;</li><li>Interesting that Marsing and Popkin both point out that <span>Dan&nbsp;</span>Meester also filed ethics complaints against them.&nbsp;</li><li>At the end they rejected the reprimand, didn't dismiss the complaint, and asked McCoy to make a formal apology to Levi (which he offered to do). It was Marsing's motion that finally got them there.&nbsp;</li><li>Marsing was particularly cogent and did a good cross with Meester that was hilarious; evidently in a February email exchange, things got so heated that Meester told McCoy he wouldn't be shoveling his sister's walk anymore.&nbsp;</li><li>CC had adopted this ethics procedure back in 2023, is this the correct way we should be doing ethics complaints? Susie points out that they can treat the recommendations by the hearing officer as advisory, like they would an advisory board.<span>&nbsp;</span>Although <span>w</span><span>e</span><span>&nbsp;would have liked to see the complaint dismissed, then what is the frigging point in going through the process then<span>? Gets things on record I guess?</span></span><br></li></ul><span><span><br /></span></span>And, some recent clippings from the Times Call:&nbsp;<span><span></span></span><br></div>  <div><div class="wsite-image wsite-image-border-none " style="padding-top:10px;padding-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;text-align:center"> <a> <img src="https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/uploads/8/8/0/3/8803722/screenshot-2026-08-25-at-3-19-46-am_orig.png" alt="Picture" style="width:auto;max-width:100%" /> </a> <div style="display:block;font-size:90%"></div> </div></div>  <div><div class="wsite-image wsite-image-border-none " style="padding-top:10px;padding-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;text-align:center"> <a> <img src="https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/uploads/8/8/0/3/8803722/screenshot-2026-08-26-at-4-17-51-am_orig.png" alt="Picture" style="width:auto;max-width:100%" /> </a> <div style="display:block;font-size:90%"></div> </div></div>  <div><div class="wsite-image wsite-image-border-none " style="padding-top:10px;padding-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;text-align:center"> <a> <img src="https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/uploads/8/8/0/3/8803722/screenshot-2026-08-25-at-3-18-56-am_orig.png" alt="Picture" style="width:auto;max-width:100%" /> </a> <div style="display:block;font-size:90%"></div> </div></div>  <div><div class="wsite-image wsite-image-border-none " style="padding-top:10px;padding-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;text-align:center"> <a> <img src="https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/uploads/8/8/0/3/8803722/screenshot-2026-08-26-at-4-17-39-am_orig.png" alt="Picture" style="width:auto;max-width:100%" /> </a> <div style="display:block;font-size:90%"></div> </div></div>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[Economic Impact Reports....]]></title><link><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/economic-impact-reports]]></link><comments><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/economic-impact-reports#comments]]></comments><pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2026 16:02:22 GMT</pubDate><category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/economic-impact-reports</guid><description><![CDATA[      [...] ]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><div class="wsite-image wsite-image-border-none " style="padding-top:10px;padding-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;text-align:center"> <a> <img src="https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/uploads/8/8/0/3/8803722/screenshot-2026-08-12-at-5-44-37-am_orig.png" alt="Picture" style="width:auto;max-width:100%" /> </a> <div style="display:block;font-size:90%"></div> </div></div>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[News tidbits worth knowing about Re: landing fees]]></title><link><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/news-tidbits-worth-knowing-about-re-landing-fees]]></link><comments><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/news-tidbits-worth-knowing-about-re-landing-fees#comments]]></comments><pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2026 23:23:35 GMT</pubDate><category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/news-tidbits-worth-knowing-about-re-landing-fees</guid><description><![CDATA[Hi Folks -- an assortment of news that relates to our issue below.&nbsp;From the AAAE&nbsp;(American Association of Airport Executives):&nbsp;https://www.airportscouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/ACI-NA-AAAE-Joint-Issue-Brief-on-Pilot-Privacy-Act.pdfACI-NA and AAAE urge Congress to reject the Pilot and Aircraft Privacy Act. The bill would undermine airport safety, efficiency, and financial accountability &ndash; harming the very users it&nbsp;aims to protect. Airports are public entities an [...] ]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="paragraph" style="text-align:left;">Hi Folks -- an assortment of news that relates to our issue below.&nbsp;<br /><br /><strong>From the AAAE<span>&nbsp;</span>(American Association of Airport Executives):</strong>&nbsp;<br /><a href="https://www.airportscouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/ACI-NA-AAAE-Joint-Issue-Brief-on-Pilot-Privacy-Act.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.airportscouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/ACI-NA-AAAE-Joint-Issue-Brief-on-Pilot-Privacy-Act.pdf</a><br /><br /><em><a href="https://www.airportsunited.com/" target="_blank">ACI-NA</a> and AAAE urge Congress to reject the Pilot and Aircraft Privacy Act. The bill would undermine airport safety, efficiency, and financial accountability &ndash; harming the very users it<span>&nbsp;</span>aims to protect. Airports are public entities and must retain the ability to responsibly use<span>&nbsp;</span>available data to manage operations, ensure safety, and collect fair user fees that keep their<span>&nbsp;</span>facilities and the national aviation system safe and self-sustaining.</em><br /><br />This is framing the pilot's opposition to landing fee as a threat to the airport. It could be argued that pilots who oppose landing fees are threatening the airports long term viability.<br /><br /><font color="#3d85c6">That's an important point to speak to.&nbsp;</font><br />See also<span>:</span> this article by the Kissimmee Gateway Airport Director<span> on the importance of Landing fees for Airport Sustainability</span>: <a href="https://www.flykissimmee.com/post/consideration-to-implement-transient-landing-fees-part-2" target="_blank">https://www.flykissimmee.com/post/consideration-to-implement-transient-landing-fees-part-2</a><br /><br />Here is Part 1:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.flykissimmee.com/post/kissimmee-gateway-airport-strategic-landing-fee-and-technology-use-to-ensure-future-sustainability" target="_blank">https://www.flykissimmee.com/post/kissimmee-gateway-airport-strategic-landing-fee-and-technology-use-to-ensure-future-sustainability</a><br />___<br /><span>A</span>lso interesting<span>, an Op-ed written by a Pilot!</span>&nbsp;<br /><br /><span><strong>The false promise of flight schools and our airport</strong>&nbsp;</span><br /><span>By Larry Westbrook</span><br /><a href="https://www.fernandinaobserver.org/stories/the-false-promise-of-flight-schools-and-our-airport,113062" target="_blank">https://www.fernandinaobserver.org/stories/the-false-promise-of-flight-schools-and-our-airport,113062</a><br />___<br />Want a noise sensor for your house or Neighborhood? Fill out the form here:&nbsp;<span><a href="https://tally.so/r/lb90vN" target="_blank">https://tally.so/r/lb90vN</a></span><br /><br />We are not alone in this issue. It is happening at GA airports across the country.&nbsp;<br></div>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[Meeting link, and other avenues]]></title><link><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/meeting-link-and-other-avenues]]></link><comments><![CDATA[https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/meeting-link-and-other-avenues#comments]]></comments><pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2026 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate><category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.saveourskiesalliance.org/lmo-updates/meeting-link-and-other-avenues</guid><description><![CDATA[Hi Folks,&nbsp;Thanks for rallying last night. There were lot's of blue shirts in the room. Also, thanks to everyone who spoke -- there were some great comments! Thanks, too, to those of you who stayed to the end. It was, indeed, another looong meeting.&nbsp;How did it go? well, between Monday (when I think we kept the attorney on his toes even though it felt like we were talking to a wall) and yesterday evening, I think we've made strides with this council since November '24 when I started putt [...] ]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="paragraph" style="text-align:left;">Hi Folks,&nbsp;<br /><br />Thanks for rallying last night. There were lot's of blue shirts in the room. Also, thanks to everyone who spoke -- there were some great comments! Thanks, too, to those of you who stayed to the end. It was, indeed, another looong meeting.&nbsp;<br /><br />How did it go? well, between Monday (when I think we kept the attorney on his toes even though it felt like we were talking to a wall) and yesterday evening, I think we've made strides with this council since November '24 when I started putting my shoulder to the wheel of this issue.&nbsp;Of course: this issue has pre-dated my involvement, as many folks on this list know first-hand.&nbsp;<br /><br />We got AMS to speak to council, albeit a year later, about what can be done VNAP-and-noise-abatement-wise. And, despite the blunder on behalf of airport and city management last night (wrong numbers!!) we have a rates and charges study that is one attempt at transparency. The oft-touted narrative about the airport being an asset is shifting.&nbsp;<br /><br />Incremental progress that is directionally correct!&nbsp;&nbsp;<font color="#ff0000">but there was a plot twist!</font><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font><br /><br /><font color="#000000">See the article below, and the meeting (airplane presentations start at about 4 hours in... and at 30 mins before the end we learn that the Rates and Charges study didn't have accurate budget data. Ooopsy. <em>(Do you wonder: How does Levi still have a job? me too.)</em></font><br /><br />&nbsp;<span><strong>Here is the link to the meeting</strong>:</span><font>&nbsp;<a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L1AnMLsLwtk&amp;ra=m" target="_blank">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L1AnMLsLwtk&amp;ra=m</a></font><br /><br /><strong>&nbsp;</strong><strong>Here is the Times Call redux on the meeting (and attached):&nbsp;</strong><br /><a href="https://www.timescall.com/2026/07/29/longmont-council-airport/" target="_blank">https://www.timescall.com/2026/07/29/longmont-council-airport/</a></div>]]></content:encoded></item></channel></rss>