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

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

Dear Colleagues, staff and community members,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


With gratitude,

Matt Benjamin
Boulder City Council Member
(303) 453-9896
Pronouns: he/him/his
_______________________________________________
bouldercouncilhotline -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]