[BoulderCouncilHotline] Re: Recent Airport Questions

From: Bailey, Blythe <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 1:25 PM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] [BoulderCouncilHotline], Re: Recent Airport Questions
To: Schuchard, Ryan <[email protected]>, Wallach, Mark <[email protected]>, Marquis, Tina <[email protected]>, HOTLINE <[email protected]>
Cc: Vences, Eric <[email protected]>, Davis, Pam <[email protected]>, Rivera-Vandermyde, Nuria <[email protected]>, Tate, Teresa <[email protected]>, Toro, Luis <[email protected]>, Watson, Valerie <[email protected]>

Good Afternoon, Council and HOTLINE followers,
 
Thank you to Councilmembers Marquis, Wallach, and Schuchard for your input and questions. We have consolidated the questions staff were able to respond to in advance of the meeting below, and for purposes of efficiency and in some cases, we have shortened the language of the questions. We look forward to additional discussion and answering further questions at this evening’s study session. Condensed questions are italicized below for reference, with each staff response immediately following.
 
1. The last two of the three questions council is being asked to provide feedback on could feel as if they are in conflict. If enough council members don’t feel that they have enough information to provide direction on whether or not to accept grants (Q2), will we provide direction (Q3) at a later time or would staff like direction this Thursday? 
 
Staff agrees that the wording of questions in the memo is overly complex and plan to replace the three questions in the memo with the two below to focus on the specific direction sought:

1. Does Council have any questions regarding the information presented on the current or future state of the airport?
2. Does Council have feedback to support scenario one (indefinite operation of BMA) or two (maintain closure opportunity)?

We note specifically that we are not asking city council whether the city should apply for state or federal funding. Those decisions are administrative in nature and we would not place city council in that position. Rather, the question revolves on whether the current site at the airport should remain designated for airport use. If the answer is yes, then staff would consider a variety of funding sources including the receipt of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funds to minimize the impact on existing city funds. If not, we would continue to ensure the current airport site meets our minimum compliance requirements while looking to alternate funding sources that do not obligate us to maintain airport operations past 2040.  We do not expect such alternatives to fully meet all of our capital needs and want to be clear we would need to consider subsidizing with other existing city funds depending on needs and urgency.
 
2. Is there a third option to commit to continue to operate the airport indefinitely but consider not taking federal grants in the near future? Are there alternative ways to fund our airport and provide little to no subsidy as described in Scenario 1? In addition, I am curious if there is an option to run the airport independently and create a better relationship with our airport users and broader community.
 
Staff did not analyze a scenario in which we maintain airport operations indefinitely without FAA grants.  Tradeoffs with this approach include either further delaying deferred maintenance projects or seeking financial assistance as early as 2027 from another city fund. Additionally, there are disadvantages to prolonged uncertainty about the long-term future of the airport. Development and leasing opportunities have been hampered by the current uncertainty and we have heard from many existing and potential tenants at the airport that individuals and companies are unlikely to expand or invest at the airport without certainty of the airport’s future. In addition, some impacts are tangible already—this uncertainty has led to vacancy of two large hangars which is negatively impacting existing revenue streams.
 
Staff have been, however, looking at a variety of available funding options. We have already begun taking CDOT grants that have more limited time assurances. Many of CDOT’s larger grants, however, carry grant assurances that span up to 20 years, so we have not availed the city of those opportunities. As scenario 2 shows, operating without federal grants is very difficult, and the level of fee increases that would be required to avoid running a deficit would likely push users to other airports, exacerbating the vacancy issue. Staff have also considered such possibilities as landing fees, discussed in more detail below. In 2025, Longmont City Council rejected an ordinance to establish landing fees at $5 per 1,000 pounds of landing weight.
 
We have addressed the question about enhanced city autonomy over the airport in a below response.
 
3. What are the current fees or other expenses that we charge airport users and how do they compare to other amenities in the city, like golf course fees and recreation center passes? I realize they are not apples to apples comparisons but would like to learn more. Also, are fees different if you are just touching down/visiting at our airport?
 
Lease Rates
 
The city conducted a rent study in 2025 informing a rent increase that went into effect in January 2026 for our T hangars (airplane storage units that are available for lease at the airport). Our rates are comparable to other airports locally, and for some tiers of T hangars, higher than those charged nearby at Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport (RMMA). Table of those compared fees is here
 
BMA T Hangars RMMA T Hangars 
Type 1 40’ doors     $350     Tier 1      39’ doors$364.07
Type 2 40’ doors    $400     Tier 2     41’ doors$372.45
Type 3 40’doors     $450      Tier 3     55’ doors$702.86
 
For more perspective on city fees, as requested, additional information on parks and recreation fees can be found at this link, https://bouldercolorado.gov/parks-and-recreation-fee-schedule. Relatedly, Parks and Recreation fees are set based on the 2023 Fee Policy. Fees are established based upon the actual cost of delivering the service and degree of community benefit. Services that provide community benefit, such as open access to parks, are subsidized. Services that are more individual in benefit, such as private lessons, have fees that support full cost recovery. Airport leadership endeavors to follow the same theoretical model in compliance with grant assurances.
 
Landing Fees
 
The last part of this question refers to the option of landing fees—a fee airport users would pay for every individual touchdown. A typical landing fee in Colorado is $1.85-$9.09 per 1,000 pounds, and typically exempt aircraft below 6,000-8,000 pounds and in some cases, like Alamosa, CO, are waived for general aviation entirely. Colorado Pilot Association has collected all for quick glance.
 
BMA has greater than 95% of based aircraft below the weight thresholds listed above. If we self-perform the administration of those landing fees, it is likely the cost for staff time to administer the process approaches the same value of the fee revenue. Non-based flight training aircraft are also below those weight thresholds. It is also common for airports to receive less than 100% of the fees, due to difficulty identifying certain aircraft for billing purposes. Landing fees were studied as part of the June 2024 analysis and had $35,000 revenue projected with assumptions called out in the footnotes ($2.50 per operation and ¼ capture of total operations per year). Currently pending legislation, the Aircraft and Pilot Privacy Act, would disallow the use of ADSB (automatic dependent surveillance broadcast) data in collecting fees on aircraft, making the effort and administration of landing fees more time intensive and outweigh the potential revenue presented in the original analysis. Vendors that offer landing fee collection systems base their systems on a mix of ADSB data and FlightAware data, but FlightAware does not capture all flights as flight plans are not required for VFR (visual flight rules) flights.
 
4. Is the Transportation Maintenance Fee revenue being considered to be used for the airport or roads accessing the airport?
 
No, the TMF specifically is directed to transportation assets within the public right of way, primarily street pavement maintenance.
 
5. The FAA now takes the position that if we take grants they do not burn off in 20 years; they are a commitment on the part of the municipality to operate the airport in perpetuity.
 
As staff shared in the discussion with City Council in 2024, the FAA asserted this position on grant assurances beginning in 2022. They reiterated this position again in 2025. We do not currently have a grant contract with the 2022 or 2025 grant provisions. Given this condition, staff awaits council direction on the intended long-term use of the airport prior to pursuing FAA grants or any other grants that have grant assurances beyond 2040.
 
6. One of the main concerns with BMA is lead pollution over the surrounding area. But please note that they are not spewing lead on Mapleton Hill or Lower Chautauqua. Rather, it is being sprayed over Vista Village and San Lazaro, manufactured home parks largely occupied by people of lower income and people of color. And despite our efforts to encourage the use of unleaded fuel, there is nothing we can do to compel that usage, and there is nothing to prevent lead-generating planes from other airports from landing and taking off at BMA. Page 9 of the staff memo describes the equity analysis that was conducted in connection with this subject but does not describe the conclusions reached by that analysis. What were they and do they reflect concern for this problem?
 
The engagement work described in the Equity Analysis section of the memo was performed during the 2023 Airport Community Conversation. Through those efforts community members participated in two citywide open houses, two citywide online and in-person questionnaires in English and Spanish, a Community Working Group, bilingual community meetings, and individual interviews, alongside targeted outreach to directly impacted and historically underrepresented populations such as the nearby communities of San Lazaro and Vista Village. To that end, staff created materials in Spanish and provided dual language meetings for the Airport Community Conversation to ensure inclusion of those communities' perspectives. Their input helped shape the full range of airport future scenarios that were presented in 2024, as well as our near-term efforts, particularly around unleaded fuel.  As for conclusions, the process did not produce a single unified position from these nearby communities.  Some participants emphasized the airport’s value as a community asset—supporting business activity, emergency response, and aviation services—while others raised significant concerns related to aircraft noise, the continued use of leaded fuel, and the opportunity cost of maintaining approximately 140 acres of land in a high-demand housing market. Further information on the engagement efforts were provided as an information packet that is available in the meeting materials for the Feb 1, 2024 council meeting.

We did hear concerns about lead exposure. Attached to this email is information (lead messaging.pdf) from the State of Colorado and Boulder County about lead that were shared with community during the Community Conversation. In summary, the information indicates that lead-based aviation fuel can be a source of lead exposure for residents, particularly children, who live near airports, but describes it as one of multiple potential sources. The information also offers remedies for reducing exposure and encourages blood lead testing as the best way to determine if or how lead is affecting one’s family.  While the City of Boulder doesn’t have the authority to ban the use of lead-based fuel for aircraft, we are committed to achieving the goals of our unleaded transition plan which commits us, upon federal regulatory approval of a fleet-wide drop-in, to full unleaded transition by the end of 2030.
 
7. 15-minute neighborhoods. This is a major policy of our prospective Comp Plan, but where are those neighborhoods going to go? It is at least worth noting the potential of this property for developing precisely that type of neighborhood, a potential that can only be reached if we decline to take federal grant funds; and
8. Middle-income housing that is not in Aurora. We have built almost no for-purchase middle income housing in Boulder. The core purpose in potentially converting the BMA to residential is to do precisely that. Is that not one of the tradeoffs we must consider?
 
Staff have not yet received clear direction to pursue studying the viability of alternative land uses. If council wished to consider this site for different land use in the future, and specifically one aimed at additional housing, staff would need to do more analysis in this area. Airport funds and staff could not be used for this effort and a new workplan item would need to be resourced differently.
 
9. The funding gap. At last week’s meeting we were given a written analysis of ways to reduce the projected funding gap through increased fees if we do not pursue FAA grants. Has there been any review of this document? Has there been any independent analysis by staff as to how we might reduce our financial gap through any other measures? Of the anticipated expenditures, how many are discretionary vs. required? And if we do nothing creative and realize a $9MM gap over 15 years, that amount represents .0012% of the total funds we are likely to budget and spend over that time (assuming an annual budget of $500MM/year). In addition, that $9MM represents .0025% of the value of the land at $2MM/acre, a figure that is likely to be far higher by 2040. 
 
Staff was recently provided with the written analysis provided by a community member, but have not been able to yet thoroughly review. A cursory read-through suggests some complexities and elements that staff disagree with, for example, the assertion that implementing landing fees poses no cost to BDU.  
 
Regarding land value, staff asked the Colorado Group to perform a Broker Opinion of Value which was produced late last week. This updated professional opinion will be presented at the study session.  
 
For information on the rent study and T hangar lease charges see the lease rates section, as well as landing fees, listed earlier in the response.
 
10. Environmental remediation. The staff memo states that in the event of a potential change of use of BMA, remediation of the property from prior contamination is estimated to be $10-30 million, but it could go as high as $100 million. I point out that when Stapleton Airport was deconstructed and remediated it was done for $120 million. But Stapleton was 4700 acres, not 179 acres, and had 6 runways handling large jets. And I want to note that in February of 2025, in response to a question from a Council member, the then-Director of Transportation noted that Chandler Airport in Arizona, a facility of 500 acres and the 6th busiest airport in that state, would incur a $7 million remediation expense and further noted that “staff believes this would exceed remediation costs for Boulder Airport.” And this number has changed why?
 
While difficult to predict this far in advance, national comparisons suggest mitigation costs could range widely. The staff memo uses a preliminary assumption of $10–30 million, which was itself intended to reflect wide variability across different unknowns and is slightly higher than the Kimley Horn conclusion from the 2024 study, of $7 million.  Staff used publicly available information for other airport redevelopment projects and concluded, while it seems reasonable that our site could be simple and low-cost relative to other bigger and more complicated sites, there are too many unknowns to be certain of a range. From staff research, the range of remediation costs could be as low as $50k/acre but as high as more than $500k/acre, with some examples citing a number higher than that. Since detailed environmental analysis has not been done, staff felt it was helpful to give a representation of the possibility of the range but calling out a reasonable and low-end initial assumption.  
 
11. The 2-runway conundrum. A former airport manager told me in no uncertain terms that the second runway at BMA was non-compliant with FAA standards and that the easiest way to deal with this condition would be to shut the runway down for safety reasons. Is this option available? If not, why not? Have we even examined the possibility? Would it not diminish the funds required to operate the facility? 
 
There are operational and safety impacts in keeping or removing the glider runway. FAA has reviewed and permanently authorized current airfield layout including separation distances of both of Boulder’s runway and taxiway centerlines. Staff cannot at this time definitively quantify the revenue or expense tradeoffs of a single runway closure.
 
12. Airport Economic Impact Study. It is a 2025 study produced by CDOT purportedly measuring the economic impact of BMA. Except it does not measure the economic impact of BMA on Boulder: every category is based on alleged impacts in the State of Colorado; it has nothing to do with Boulder. So if the airport provides payroll of $10MM, but 2/3 of the employees live elsewhere, the payroll impact is listed as $10MM and then escalated upwards based on multipliers that are entirely obscure. The point is that this survey does not reflect the economic benefits of BMA to Boulder and is almost certainly not an accurate picture of BMA’s economic impact on Colorado.
 
The economic study conducted by the State of Colorado was based on direct inputs from the City of Boulder. Slides 9, 10, and 11 of the attachment are all Boulder-specific.  When preparing for this study session, staff also reviewed the inputs for this study and discovered that Shotover, headquartered at 5660 Airport Blvd., with a based aircraft at BMA has 100 employees worldwide with 50 local employees, and were not included. In the future, staff hope to partner with the Chamber of Commerce when collecting data to ensure accurate reporting at the time of the next update in 2030.
 
13. What is the estimated funding we are counting on from the FAA in Scenario 1 (continue the airport) through 2040, and what needs would it cover?
 
$26M in grant funding assumptions were made to fund pavement replacements and maintenance, aviation navigation infrastructure replacements, and projects such as airport road and fuel facility replacement.
 
14. What is the estimated funding we would need to seek from sources other than the FAA in Scenario 2 (discontinue the airport at 2040) through 2040 — to replace what we would have otherwise sought from the FAA — and what needs would it cover?
 
Staff assumed differences between Scenario 1 and 2 that eliminated pavement replacements for Scenario 2, reducing capital program costs. The remaining projects were deemed necessary improvements for basic grant assurance requirements through 2040. The cost of combined remaining capital projects in Scenario 2 is $12M that would need to be funded by other means. Staff notes that if the city were to try to maintain an airport past 2040 without FAA grants, they would need to re-assess these assumptions as the intensity of deferred maintenance challenges would likely have increased.
 
For both scenarios, staff used the financial projections from the 2024 study, updated figures per the actual budget in ’24 and ’25, and removed some additional capital projects that were deemed non-critical. As a result of this updated analysis, staff projects a total deficit of $14.7m for scenario 2 by 2040, funding for which would be sought from other sources. Our projections also include the same revenue assumptions for hangar development and lease revenue from the ’24 study.
 
15. Beyond the FAA, what alternative funding sources have been considered for a potential capex gap? CDOT, user fees, and direct investment from the electric aviation industry, for example?
 
Consultant led analysis in 2024 studied landing fees and administrative fees among other revenue and operating assumptions. See landing fees section above for details. For administrative fees, the analysis notes that administrative fees could include document preparation for lease development and updates, performing hangar safety inspections, and similar. Unfortunately, the amount of revenue that could be generated from administrative fees is relatively small compared to the overall airport budget. Although several thousands of dollars could be generated annually, it is an insignificant amount and would not change the overall budget outlook. Additional creative funding opportunities staff identified include the Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance Fund and other State programs that are not aviation-specific for advanced industry such as aerospace which could be used to offset some capital expenses and achieve community goals of meeting spaces or incubator space on airport.   
 
16. My understanding is that existing FAA grant agreements (through 2040) and any future agreements restrict our ability to impose our own environmental regulations, such as phasing out leaded fuel or establishing our own noise requirements — and that outside those agreements (i.e., after 2040 if we sign no more FAA grants), we’d be free to enact our own rules. Is that right?
 
Regardless of whether the city took additional federal funds, if we operate an airport we are subject to FAA regulations.  They have sole authority over civil aviation activity and are responsible for developing air traffic rules, assigning the use of airspace and controlling air traffic. As such, the city does not now have, nor would it have, jurisdiction over noise and fuel regulations. Operating an airport after 2040 without federal resources would not free us from federal requirements.
 
By way of example, the FAA has recently promulgated rules about unleaded fuel. As they are looking to move forward to what they have termed a “lead-free aviation system,” they have explicitly said airports cannot ban leaded fuel until suitable alternatives are more widely available and in no case would that be earlier than December 31, 2030. Even after our grant assurances, the city would likely need to seek FAA approval for certain modifications such as with regard to noise and types of aircraft.

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

Sincerely, Blythe Bailey
Director
he/him/his


C: 720-762-3525
[email protected]
Transportation & Mobility Department
1101 Arapahoe Avenue | Boulder, CO 80302
bouldercolorado.gov



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