Fwd: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Airport HOTLINE Responses

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Bailey, Blythe <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 5:43 PM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Airport HOTLINE Responses
To: HOTLINE <[email protected]>
Cc: Rivera-Vandermyde, Nuria <[email protected]>, Tate, Teresa <[email protected]>

Good Afternoon, Council and HOTLINE followers,
 
We have consolidated questions from Hotlines from Councilmembers Marquis, Schuchard, and Wallach below.  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 tomorrow's council meeting.

Condensed questions are below for reference, with each staff response immediately following in italics.

CM Marquis Hotline Question about Emergency and Natural Disaster Capabilities

Question: Could staff describe the current and projected/anticipated uses of the airport that are for response to natural disaster (fire, flood, etc) and emergency medical uses at the airport.

Answer: The Boulder Airport has been used as a staging and support location for major incidents such as the CalWood Fire and the 2013 flood, providing space for helicopters, command functions, and other incident management needs because of its Fixed Base Operator (FBO) type services (fuel, internet, maintenance, etc). While regional wildfire response primarily relies on resources based at Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport (RMMA), which is already set up to provide the aviation services and infrastructure needed for firefighting operations, the Boulder Airport provides additional local staging that can be leveraged when needed.
 
As for projected/anticipated uses, staff can foresee additional functions for these purposes if supported within our availability of resources:

• stationing of firefighting helicopters or single-engine air tanker 802s,
• development of emergency power back-ups for enhanced resiliency for critical systems and infrastructure supporting airfield lighting, fuel systems, and hangars that store emergency-oriented equipment and helicopters
• the airport terminal is equipped to be an emergency warming shelter
• for future scenarios in which there is demand for passenger service at the airport which is possible through Electric Vertical Takeoff/Landing (eVTOL) vehicles, such service development could require additional emergency response capabilities by the FAA and if so would be FAA funding-eligible
• backup emergency operations center with direct city fiber to support this function in the future.

CM Ryan Schuchard’s Hotline Questions

Q1. Perpetuity liabilities. Accepting FAA funds will newly obligate the city to a permanent encumbrance on the airport's ~180 acres and an ongoing commitment to operate and maintain the airport in perpetuity. The FAA, for their part, is not obligated to ensure Boulder can do that cost-effectively over time. Their commitment is to offer the possibility of grants that we may apply for one at a time, subject to the evolving federal budget. At the April 23 and May 28 meetings, councilmembers raised the idea that a perpetuity issues assessment, meaning a rigorous, objective evaluation of Boulder’s financial exposure, with accounting for uncertainty in future federal partnership and economic conditions, is necessary before council can responsibly decide to make such a far-reaching obligation of resources. What has staff done to evaluate our exposure to such a large, open-ended commitment, and what unforeseen liabilities, if any, have been identified and addressed?

Answer: While the FAA has asserted that a 1991 grant received by the city along with any post-2022 grants would carry perpetual airport-use obligations, the City continues to disagree with the legality of that position. Just as predictions of future grant availability are subject to change in the future, so are the potential policies of future administrations or the result of future litigation.
 
Notwithstanding the above, staff have evaluated future liabilities relative to whether FAA grants are accepted or foregone and those differences are quantified in the scenarios presented in the memo and upcoming presentation on July 23. That is the extent of the financial evaluation that has been completed by staff alongside confidential information shared with city council by the City Attorney.
 
Some liabilities exist around the inevitable uncertainty. Neither FAA nor CDOT grant funding is guaranteed, and the likelihood, timing, and amount of future awards cannot be predicted with certainty.
 
The financial scenarios presented in the July 23 memo are intended to illustrate the financial consequences of different funding assumptions relative to one another to assist in policy decisions that impact the long-term certainty of airport operation. Without specific policy direction, this is a thorough evaluation of the liabilities related to long-term, possibly perpetual, obligations for airport operation.
 
Q2. Scenario assumptions and severity. The memo's most favorable financial outlook, which combines FAA and CDOT funding, is Scenario 3A. This scenario assumes CDOT support brings the local project share down to roughly 5 percent when paired with FAA funding, but the elevated match behind that assumption is only guaranteed through fiscal year 2026. Has staff modeled what Scenario 3A looks like if the match reverts to its prior, lower level after that? Relatedly, does Scenario 3B1, the zero FAA, zero CDOT case showing a $26.6 million shortfall over 18 years, represent the most severe downside staff evaluated, or was a harder case considered but left out of the memo?  

Answer Q2a: We can’t guarantee future CDOT participation, but it is relatively standard for CDOT to provide 5% of project cost against an FAA grant. There was a COVID-era 95% authorization which resulted in funding that does expire in 2026, but we still expect the standard 90/5/5 arrangement that is typical CDOT support for FAA grants. However, if CDOT were to discontinue that practice then our local match (i.e., cost to City of Boulder) would increase from 5% to 10% which, based on a quick calculation of modified State Grant Discretionary & State Match (5%), would be about $1.25M of cost between now and 2040 that would be a local burden.

Answer Q2b: Yes, practically, 3b1 is the most severe scenario. Theoretically, with worsening future inflation, unforeseen future capital project needs, or other circumstances, a more severe scenario could be possible, but holding all basic assumptions constant, 3b1 is intended to be the most financially severe of the scenarios presented.

Q3. Compliance cost projections.  Beyond capital costs, the airport carries compliance costs, including leaded fuel phase-out, PFAS remediation, and environmental review. What does staff project for these costs, and what risk management has been applied to account for uncertain future conditions in the figures presented?
Answer: Staff have not completed additional research around future compliance costs for the items listed or risk management for the same. There are many cost considerations scenarios that staff would need to evaluate depending on the policy direction. We expect that we would fully explore remediation for any activities that might have happened on the property such as for PFAS, lead or other circumstances that would require further study.  Additionally, staff has not undertaken a full cost of closure and remediation analysis were the airport to close in the future as such analysis would be premature at this stage, nor have staff included future costs of litigation.

Q4. Federal funding concentration. The scenario comparison shows Scenario 3A (FAA plus CDOT) with an average annual deficit near $80,000. Scenario 3B1 (no FAA and no CDOT) shows a deficit near $1.8 million. That's roughly a twentyfold difference tied to federal participation alone. Can staff confirm this is the right way to understand how dependent the airport's finances are on federal funding, and describe what would need to be true for the city to absorb the loss of that funding?

Answer: Airports in the U.S. are majority funded through federal grants by design, and the noticeable difference is mostly tied to federal participation but does also include a small amount of CDOT participation. Council requested that we equalize the capital plans in our scenarios so they could be compared apples-to-apples. If the policy decision leads us towards a scenario 3b1 or something similar which would provide very little, or zero, outside state or federal grant sources, staff would develop a long-term capital project plan that is very tight, similar to what was presented in the April presentation for Scenario 2, enabling a reduction in cost exposure associated with the capital plan. Minimal capital investment will be necessary through at least 2040 to maintain current grant assurances. Additionally, as with all scenarios, once there is more certainty on the future of the airport, staff will pursue any new revenue opportunities that are feasible given the timeline expectations of airport operation. As for the right way to understand the projections as we have developed them, our intention has been to show a scenario which is able to use FAA and CDOT assistance compared to one that is able to use CDOT assistance alone. As with all of our assumptions, they are not guaranteed but are intended to highlight the fundamental differences in the scenarios.  

Q5. Alternative funding sources and responsiveness to council’s direction. Council directed staff at the May 28 special meeting to provide a side-by-side comparison of FAA and non-FAA funding sources, building on requests from multiple council members at the April 23 study session and May 28 special meeting. That direction requires a full alternative-funding picture, covering every category of source considered, what each realistically contributes, and why any were set aside. The July 23 memo provides CDOT-specific scenarios but no accounting of other potential sources, including landing fees, new kinds of building leases, or other business partnerships or investments, nor an executive-level summary tying all sources together in one place. Does the July 23 memo, as submitted, satisfy council's May 28 direction for a complete, side-by-side accounting? If yes, where is the summary of alternative funding sources? If not, please say so directly.

Answer: Staff have worked earnestly to develop a memo and attachments that respond to Council direction as of the May 28 meeting. The direction from the May 28 discussion was to present two scenarios, one which utilizes FAA funding and one which does not. At the previous meeting, some council members posed inquiries around alternative revenue potential like solar development, staff indicated we’d be able to share some possibilities at a high level at the upcoming meeting but it would not be timely (nor would it have fit in the current workplan) to take a deeper dive to provide a full accounting of revenue generating possibilities as some of what staff might consider would be dependent on the policy direction. Some of the additional research, particularly around funding sources used by airports outside of our jurisdiction, would require more extensive consideration and effort by staff that was not feasible within the timeframe between when the June 15th CAC meeting established the public hearing date and when the July 23rd memo and materials were due. Additionally, some of the revenue-generating work staff might pursue could warrant consulting capacity, and we have been deliberate to avoid at this time in our efforts to not incur additional costs to the already tight airport fund. 
That said, staff have researched and compiled high-level information related to landing fees, new kinds of building leases, or other businesses and partnerships within the available capacity and will present this information on July 23.

Q6. Transportation Fund rationale and impact. The memo identifies two dedicated Transportation Fund sales-tax streams as the first resort if FAA and CDOT funding fall short, ahead of General Fund dollars. Our outcomes-based budgeting approach is meant to guide tradeoffs like this one, where limited funds have to be allocated across competing needs. What criteria led staff to select this fund first over other options, and how does that selection hold up against our outcomes-based budgeting principles? Separately, should council go this route and approve staff’s recommendation, what specific transportation programs, projects, or outcomes would likely see reduced funding or delayed timelines as a result, and at what scale?

Answer: Staff looked at the different possible uses of the revenue streams that feed into the Transportation Fund and determined the 2 identified could be used for general transportation purposes. Consistent with past practice, the city looks to all available sources of funding before increasing the burden on the General Fund.

Staff does not know yet what specific programs or services would be impacted as that determination is dependent on council’s policy approach. Depending on how council decides, staff would then evaluate funding options based on project priorities and funding availability for all transportation projects. This analysis would be part of the annual budgeting process that would include outcome-based budgeting principles as well as any legal requirements the city needs to adhere to, including compliance with grant assurances attached to the airport.

Q7.  Alternative repurposing approaches. Repurposing funding within the city budget, including to cover a shortfall from not accepting FAA funding, is a council decision made through the normal budget process, not a staff determination. What are one or more alternative approaches staff would bring to council for that decision, should this scenario play out? 

Answer: Certainly, staff acknowledge final approval of the City Manager’s Recommended Budget falls to City Council. It is precisely the need to budgetarily account for the airport that staff has brought forward this conversation so that appropriate fiscal planning can be brought forward as part of the budget process.  It would be premature at this moment to put forward funding alternatives as the proposals will be dependent on the policy direction provided to staff, but staff would endeavor to take council’s direction and then start to look at project criticality and available funding to bring the recommended budget to council for review and approval in September and October.

Q8. Responsiveness to requests for due diligence. Across the April 23 study session and May 28 special meeting, multiple councilmembers, including me, asked for two things that go to the core economics of the decision in front of us: a defensible assessment of the long-term financial liability created by perpetuity obligations, and a complete accounting of alternative revenue and funding sources beyond FAA grants. I do not see these issues addressed in the memo. Why have these questions not yet been answered? I am not asking for the analysis itself here—I want to know the reason that these specific, repeated requests have not been addressed and the due diligence is still not available.

Answer: Staff appreciates the difficulty of this decision and the tradeoffs associated with the possibilities being discussed. There are inherent limitations in prognostics of finance or in predicting the city’s exposure for an indefinite period of time. Staff may know, for example, what funding opportunities could be available from the FAA or CDOT, but funding acceptance is not guaranteed, so staff plans for funding and project alternatives each year or funding cycle to fully determine what projects could move forward and thus what financial impact that would have on our fiscal resources. The FAA has asserted perpetual obligations for any grants we accept while the city has disagreed with the legal validity of that position.  

Staff has understood the primary policy question before Council to be how the City should plan for the future of the airport and have focused our work on creating a comparison between scenarios that we think provide necessary background for direction on that fundamental question.  Once staff has that direction, we can focus our resources on specific scenario alternatives more thoroughly.   We intentionally did not procure additional consultant expertise to undertake a broader financial or business-planning analysis, in part to avoid additional expense to an already constrained Airport Fund. We have developed what we thought was the most appropriate approach to help with the policy decision and respond to what we’ve heard from the public.

Q9. Good-faith engagement with petitioners. In 2024, community members gathered thousands of signatures to qualify a ballot measure on the airport's future, then withdrew it, explaining that they wanted the city's litigation against the FAA resolved before voters weighed in on the airport's future. That litigation concluded last year. How much advance notice was this group given ahead of meetings to decide on restarting a process to pursue FAA funding with perpetuity covenants?

Answer: Generally, staff’s communications with those seeking to put an item on the ballot is limited, and that was no different as we prepared for this meeting. Notice of council meetings in which this topic would be discussed were shared publicly and not with any particular coordinated groups. For context, staff, previously during the Airport Community Conversation project, did not engage formally with the group petitioning. Staff and council have received hundreds of emails on the topic of the airport, both in favor of, and opposed to, continued operation. We understand that many of the petitioners have engaged with us directly and thoroughly, and staff have tried to be responsive and objective in providing answers to questions and requests for information.

CM Wallach Hotline #1 Questions

Question: What would that strategy look like? What expenditures can be delayed? What can be eliminated? What funding sources can be maximized? We already know that not taking FAA grants will provide less revenue. We are asking for an analysis – a strategy - of how we can do this, and what are its implications. I do not see that analysis.

Answer: Scenario 2 as presented in April offered a strategy for how to pursue a capital plan within the context of a lack of availability of federal funding sources (the apples to oranges comparison). After the Council’s discussion on May 28, we were asked to bring forward a scenario that presumed equal expenditures – the apples-to-apples scenario 3 that is included in our memo and will be discussed in more detail at the session on July 23rd. If the Council direction results in continued foregoing of FAA grants, staff would move back towards the direction of a very tight capital plan to minimize cost. The implications of this strategy likely include deferred maintenance risk which could have cost implications in 2040 based on the process and time required to develop a strategy for reuse of the land at that time. Staff would evaluate the options based on criticality and funding options, and would present that to council as part of the budget process.

Question:   i) On page 2 it is assumed that in the years 2041 and 2042, if we decide not to pursue FAA grants we will owe the government a fee of $11.07MM for a “land reimbursement fee” and a “real estate fee for remaining land” of $25.03MM. What is the basis for these fees and in these amounts? Is this an FAA calculation? Does it apply even if we continue airport usage after those dates? And are we assuming that we cannot obtain a mortgage or certificate of participation against a property whose value will then approach $500MM to pay those fees? At a loan to value ratio of about 7%, I do not think this would be a heavy lift.
   ii) Frankly, this appears to be an effort to gross up our liabilities in the event we decline to take up FAA grants. There needs to be a narrative explanation for this $36MM liability, which I do not believe has appeared in any previous document.

Answer: This requested narrative is located in the July 25, 2024 meeting packet on page 116 or Section 2.5 of the Aeroplex produced Financial Analysis. In short, scenario 2 assumed all airport land will be sold at future market rates, requiring real estate commission transactions fees at 4%, environmental review, legal fees, and remaining payback on unamortized values from new development. The City will also need to repay the FAA for 37.93 acres of land originally purchased with federal support at the future fair market value at the time of sale. The preceding section 2.4 Boulder Colorado Land Value Assumptions outlines value assumptions and recommends a formal evaluation to determine values..
 
Question: There are airports in California that have managed to free themselves from their FAA grant obligations. They have instituted robust noise control ordinances, banned or controlled stop and go landings and basically run their airports as the community desires, not what the aviation community desires. They also appear to do so profitably, something that appears to have escaped our analysis. Why is this not discussed?

Answer: The issue of local control is extremely nuanced. There are a lot of misconceptions about this topic and staff caution comparisons to other airports whose individual circumstances are different. For example here are some complexities we are aware of:

On noise abatement the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) of 1990 requires a public airport operator to obtain FAA approval of any “noise or access restriction” that would affect “stage-rated” aircraft (i.e., all modern jets). The courts have found ANCA applies to all public airport operators, not just those receiving or that had received federal funding. Santa Monica had a noise ordinance in effect in 1984, prior to ANCA.  They were also able to shorten their runway to prevent certain aircraft from using the airport, but that was only after a substantial amount of costly litigation and eventually reaching an available consent decree.

On touch and go legislation, Torrance has attempted to implement touch and go prohibitions but there are some follow-up questions around validity or permissibility by the FAA as suggested in this referenced letter.

Question: It is important to remember that we are not discussing closure and an alternative use of the airport; that subject has been resolved for at least the next 14-20 years. We have an airport, and we will continue to have an airport well beyond the time when every member of this Council has exited the stage. Thus, the staff memo, which only discusses the preservation of the right to close the airport, and not the benefits/detriments of local control, is seriously incomplete and fails to properly present the issue. Currently, the FAA does not permit us to operate the facility in accordance with our local values. We cannot institute an enforceable noise ordinance or ban the use of leaded fuel. Where is this discussed?

Answer: Both issues of local control for noise and leaded fuel have been discussed previously. Regarding noise regulations, see answer above. Regarding leaded fuel, per the FAA’s Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) program, during the transition to unleaded which has the stated goal to be complete by 2030, our grant assurances with FAA do restrict our authority to discontinue the sale of leaded fuel at the airport. We are committed to transitioning fully to unleaded fuel once a fleet-wide drop-in is approved for all piston-engine aircraft. Also, as the Council is aware, through a grant with CDOT, we deployed unleaded fuel at the airport this summer to expand those offerings and additionally, the FAA approved more than 1200 aircraft for unleaded fuel within the last week.

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