July 22nd, 2026

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Benjamin, Matthew <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 2:41 PM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] CORRECTION: Re: 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,

A quick correction ahead of tomorrow’s airport hearing. Since yesterday’s hotline, I’ve reviewed additional documents and information, and spoken with the City Attorney’s Office, and I have a more concrete picture of the perpetuity question than I did.

The key language, from the FAA’s standard grant assurances:

“There shall be no limit on the duration of the terms, conditions, and assurances with respect to real property acquired with federal grants.”

Unlike development grants (pavement, taxiways, equipment), which carry a 20-year term, this one never expires. Once FAA money has been used to acquire real property, that property is bound in perpetuity. Boulder: Decades ago, the city used FAA grant funds to acquire a small piece of land at the airport. The federal government’s position is that Boulder is bound in perpetuity today, based on a transaction that happened long before any of us were on Council, independent of whatever we decide tonight. Meaning all FAA grants further reinforce the operation of the airport in perpetuity, if they’ve used past FAA money to acquire land (like Boulder did).

I erred in thinking that Longmont’s grant offered us a middle ground to seek FAA funds without triggering a separate binding action of perpetuity. I was wrong in that assertion, and I’m sorry if anyone got their hopes up that there might be a middle ground. 

The main question for tomorrow: Does Council want to reaffirm its commitment to operating the airport for the foreseeable future?

If yes, we need to give staff direction on what conditions we want attached to that long-term operation. If we wish to pursue FAA funds, we’d simply be using available federal funding for an obligation that, per the FAA’s position, already exists regardless of whether we take the money.

Longmont is in the exact same position. Their airport is also already encumbered in perpetuity from historical land acquisitions. That’s why their debate was never about avoiding perpetuity; it was already settled by history, same as ours. Their actual question was simply: given that they’re committed to the airport long-term, what’s the least costly way to fund it without pulling from the general fund and their community’s other priorities? They concluded FAA grants were the best answer, and took the money.

I think that’s the right lesson for us: keep this simple. We don’t need to solve the perpetuity question tomorrow; it’s already resolved by history. The real question in front of us is narrower: does Council want to reaffirm operating the airport for the foreseeable future, and if so, what’s the most responsible way to fund it? I’d argue we should follow Longmont’s lead, make a straightforward decision to fund the airport with the resources that least burden our general fund and other priorities, and then work with our community and partners to build the best airport we can.

If Council instead wants to contest the FAA’s underlying perpetuity claim, that’s a separate, harder legal fight, the same one that was the premise of our prior legal case, and it remains open. But it’s not something we need to resolve to act tomorrow.

Looking at what Longmont did is very relevant and should be an example for us to follow. 
Again, my apologies for my previous HOTLINE. 

With gratitude,

Matt Benjamin
Boulder City Council Member
(303) 453-9896
Pronouns: he/him/his