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

Colleagues and Staff,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully, 

Rob Kaplan
[email protected]

_______________________________________________
bouldercouncilhotline -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

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

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

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

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

Attached, please find that letter which speaks for itself. 

Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde
City Manager

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

O: 303-441-3090
[email protected]

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

From: Schuchard, Ryan <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, May 22, 2026 at 1:14 PM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Way forward with the airport
To: HOTLINE <[email protected]>


On May 28, Council is scheduled to discuss how to proceed with the airport. That discussion follows the April 23 study session, where five councilmembers indicated support for staff to prepare a proposal for official Council action to conclude the multiyear community conversation and provide long‑term direction for the airport.
 
As we prepare for that next step, please let me highlight a few things.
 
First, I have heard councilmembers and staff offer diverging interpretations about whether concluding the process in favor of long term airport operations and acceding to grant covenants from the FAA (which obligate Boulder to the use of land and operate airport services in perpetuity — covenants strengthened in FAA’s favor in 2022 and which Boulder has not yet pursued) represents the status quo, and hence does not require rigorous or even any council action, or rather it is something that merits a thorough formal action by council. Setting aside the different arguments, this question is still open, and council needs to settle it.
 
Second, there is a key policy question that we did not fully address on April 23: what level of local control do we want to strive to retain over the 179 acres of city‑owned land that make up the airport? This is a local control question, and it is foundational to any long‑term airport decision. Because the April 23 discussion moved quickly to the topic of federal funding, we did not have the opportunity to consider a local control pathway alongside other options.
 
And third, since April 23, we have received new information that appears to indicate state aviation funding is in fact available even if the city does not take new FAA grants, per written correspondence from CDOT’s director of aeronautics. This state funding does not involve perpetuity requirements. This would seem to materially improve the feasibility of a local control option, which was not presented or explored at the study session, and warrants an evaluation. 
 
It also means that Boulder now potentially has at least two long‑term funding models available that could support fiscal stewardship:

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

 
Both models appear to be viable, and Council has not yet had the opportunity to consider them side by side.
 
For these reasons, at the May 28 meeting I intend to ask my council colleagues to support the following:

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

 
This approach will allow Council to choose among a hopefully full set of fiscally responsible options at a public hearing.
 
If Council proceeds with a hearing, I will also request that staff provide information on:

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

 
For transparency, here is my current thinking about the airport itself: I am inclined to support a long‑term commitment to the airport that provides a clear, stable investment environment and aligns with Boulder’s excellence in long‑range planning. At the same time, I want to ensure we strive for local control and avoid long‑term or even perpetual federal obligations on city‑owned land unless they can be shown to fully be in our community’s interest.
 
I look forward to a good discussion on May 28!
 
Ryan
 
Ryan Schuchard (he/him)
Boulder City Councilmember
 

1777 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80302
[email protected]
 
Office hours and newsletter:
www.ryanwithboulder.com

_______________________________________________
bouldercouncilhotline -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

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

From: Rivera-Vandermyde, Nuria <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, May 27, 2026 at 10:48 AM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Airport clarification
To: CouncilMembers <[email protected]>, HOTLINE <[email protected]>
CC: Bailey, Blythe <[email protected]>, Davis, Pam <[email protected]>, Vences, Eric <[email protected]>, Tate, Teresa <[email protected]>


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

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

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

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

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

O: 303-441-3090
[email protected]

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________
bouldercouncilhotline -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

From: Laura Kaplan <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, May 24, 2026 at 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: Did CDOT say that Boulder airport will not receive future grants without "signaling an intention to operate the airport indefinitely" ?
To: Nuria <[email protected]>
Cc: Winer, Tara <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Brockett, Aaron <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Benjamin, Matt <[email protected]>, Wallach, Mark <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Ryan Schuchard <[email protected]>


Hi Nuria, 

Thank you for your response to my testimony at council last Thursdsay night. I hope you've had (or will soon have) a chance to review the meeting video around the 21:30 mark and verify the quote from staff that I mentioned. As Dave Ulane noted in his email to me, this statement that CDOT will not provide grants "without the city signaling an intention to operate the airport indefinitely" is inaccurate, and an indefinite commitment is only required if CDOT funds are used for land acquisition. I am grateful to Dave Ulane for his speedy clarification; he answered my email within about 2 hours despite his out of office responder saying he was on vacation. 

If this misperception is the reason why staff did not analyze available CDOT funding, hopefully that can be corrected in staff's next steps. Fiscal responsibility was a major rationale cited by several council members for their straw poll (now "non-binding nod of 5") preference on April 23.  

It has not yet been demonstrated how the city could pursue Scenario 2 in the most fiscally responsible way possible, including CDOT grants and other on-airport funding mechanisms. This is necessary for council to make a wise decision when one of the options has perpetual, irreversible consequences. 

Boulder's staff's amazing resourcefulness and creativity should be brought to bear to develop the most workable plan for funding pursuit of Local Control in scenario 2 with no FAA grants, avoiding reliance on the city general fund, and minimizing any extension of grant commitments. When the alternative is a commitment in perpetuity, some extension of the grant obligation timeline is a reasonable option for the city to consider. 
 
CDOT funding can be a major source of revenue. Per the CDOT grants table copied below, grants the city would pursue for Scenario 2 come with obligations from 0 years for temporary fuel infrastructure to 20 years for pavement reconstruction or other construction projects. 

Looking at the detailed inventory of airport project needs provided in the 2024 Financial Report for Scenario 2 (see below), it looks like:

• Roughly $6 million of the airport's needs between now and 2040 are periodic seal coating/crack sealing that comes with a 3 year obligation timeline from CDOT. This is the same grant CDOT provided to Boulder this year for $450K. 
• About $2 million would be a fuel farm that Eric emphasized needs to be constructed soon. A fuel farm comes with a 15 year obligation timeline from CDOT, which would put the city slightly past 2040. 
• About $1.15 million is one pavement reconstruction project scheduled for 2029 that would have a 20 year timeline until 2049. Of course, the city could bank other funding for that reconstruction need, or decide it's worth it to push out the obligation timeline, without committing to perpetuity. 
• I believe some of the equipment listed has already been acquired, but equipment and vehicles come with a 10 year obligation. 

Nothing here looks prohibitive for pursuing Scenario 2 and avoiding a perpetuity commitment. The project types and amounts are typical of CDOT Discretionary Aviation grants.

The financial outlook would be even further improved by considering other airport-specific funding sources. CDOT and the Colorado Aeronautical Board who administer the grants consider it a plus in a grant application if they see a local sponsor is maximizing on-airport revenue. These methods could include: 

• bringing airport rates and charges up to present market rate and instituting landing fees (estimated revenue increase of about $100K-200K+/yr), and 
• either selling or leasing the airport land west of Hayden Lake for non-aeronautical commercial uses as described in the 2024 financial report. This use is not dependent on the main airport. 

The airport property west of Hayden Lake is physically disconnected from the main airport's runways and roads. In the photo below, these parcels are out of view to the left. The 2024 financial report estimated these parcels could bring in about $267,273 in lease revenue per year in 2024 dollars, starting in about the year 2030 (July 25, 2024 council meeting packet,  https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/edoc/187418/07.25.24%20City%20Council%20Special%20Meeting%20Agenda.pdf?dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2 , page 407). Presumably investors would need extended ground leases of 20-30 years, but this type of non-aeronautical commercial use west of Hayden Lake presumably could be continued even if the main airport land use changed at some unspecified point in the future.

It's worth noting that the analysis provided by staff regarding landing fees and airport rents appears to also have some unfortunate information gaps and inaccuracies. I'll send more information in a separate communication. 

It's also worth revisiting the confusing assertion that a big bill would come due to the city if the city performs no pavement reconstruction through 2040 and subsequently learns in court that the FAA's claim to perpetuity is upheld. Why would that bill for pavement reconstruction then fall solely upon the city? Is there a reason why the city would not simply pursue FAA grants (and possibly also CDOT grants) for pavement reconstruction at that time, if the pathway to ending FAA grant obligations is clearly closed by the courts? 

Thank you for reading. Hope you've had / are having a good holiday weekend.

REFERENCES

The figure below is from the 2024 Financial Report p. 357 prepared by the previous airport manager, John Kinney, and consultants. Staff did not provide an itemized accounting of what was changed to update the scenarios for the meeting in April but the total dollar amount staff projected for Scenario 2 ($9 million) was reasonably close to the 2024 projections ($9.9 million, some of which has been accomplished since 2024), so I'm using the 2024 itemized list for reference. p. 357 https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/edoc/187418/07.25.24%20City%20Council%20Special%20Meeting%20Agenda.pdf?dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2 

and the CDOT grants chart below from Dave Ulane's email, which surely the city is familiar with since Boulder received two grants from CDOT within the past year. 

From: Schuchard, Ryan <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, May 22, 2026 at 1:14 PM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Way forward with the airport
To: HOTLINE <[email protected]>


On May 28, Council is scheduled to discuss how to proceed with the airport. That discussion follows the April 23 study session, where five councilmembers indicated support for staff to prepare a proposal for official Council action to conclude the multiyear community conversation and provide long‑term direction for the airport.
 
As we prepare for that next step, please let me highlight a few things.
 
First, I have heard councilmembers and staff offer diverging interpretations about whether concluding the process in favor of long term airport operations and acceding to grant covenants from the FAA (which obligate Boulder to the use of land and operate airport services in perpetuity — covenants strengthened in FAA’s favor in 2022 and which Boulder has not yet pursued) represents the status quo, and hence does not require rigorous or even any council action, or rather it is something that merits a thorough formal action by council. Setting aside the different arguments, this question is still open, and council needs to settle it.
 
Second, there is a key policy question that we did not fully address on April 23: what level of local control do we want to strive to retain over the 179 acres of city‑owned land that make up the airport? This is a local control question, and it is foundational to any long‑term airport decision. Because the April 23 discussion moved quickly to the topic of federal funding, we did not have the opportunity to consider a local control pathway alongside other options.
 
And third, since April 23, we have received new information that appears to indicate state aviation funding is in fact available even if the city does not take new FAA grants, per written correspondence from CDOT’s director of aeronautics. This state funding does not involve perpetuity requirements. This would seem to materially improve the feasibility of a local control option, which was not presented or explored at the study session, and warrants an evaluation. 
 
It also means that Boulder now potentially has at least two long‑term funding models available that could support fiscal stewardship:

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

 
Both models appear to be viable, and Council has not yet had the opportunity to consider them side by side.
 
For these reasons, at the May 28 meeting I intend to ask my council colleagues to support the following:

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

 
This approach will allow Council to choose among a hopefully full set of fiscally responsible options at a public hearing.
 
If Council proceeds with a hearing, I will also request that staff provide information on:

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

 
For transparency, here is my current thinking about the airport itself: I am inclined to support a long‑term commitment to the airport that provides a clear, stable investment environment and aligns with Boulder’s excellence in long‑range planning. At the same time, I want to ensure we strive for local control and avoid long‑term or even perpetual federal obligations on city‑owned land unless they can be shown to fully be in our community’s interest.
 
I look forward to a good discussion on May 28!
 
Ryan
 
Ryan Schuchard (he/him)
Boulder City Councilmember
 

1777 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80302
[email protected]
 
Office hours and newsletter:
www.ryanwithboulder.com

_______________________________________________
bouldercouncilhotline -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]