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]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Schuchard, Ryan <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 4:50 PM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Airport questions
To: HOTLINE <[email protected]>


A few questions ahead of Thursday’s airport discussion:

Q1. 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?

Q2. 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?

Q3. 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?

Q4. 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?

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]

From: Marquis, Tina <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 11:28 AM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Airport questions
To: HOTLINE <[email protected]>


Dear Staff,


I am looking forward to our study session this week regarding the airport. I have some clarifying questions. 

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? 

2. The information I am looking for is whether there is a third option to commit to continue to operate the airport indefinitely but consider not taking federal grants in the near future. I believe that an over reliance on federal grants might not be in our community’s best interest at this time. I read that Longmont is pursuing a revenue and fees study and curious if there are 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.

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?

4. Is the Transportation Maintenance Fee revenue being considered to be used for the airport or roads accessing the airport?

Thank you in advance!

Tina Marquis

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

From: Wallach, Mark <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 10:39 AM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Airport Redux
To: HOTLINE <[email protected]>

For those of you who have yearned for another Hotline from me, your wishes are hereby granted. For those who would rather not hear from me at all, my sincere condolences.
After reading the materials for this week’s study session on the future of Boulder’s airport (“BDU”), I have a number of comments and questions. I am troubled by several things contained in this week’s presentation and will set out those concerns in this Hotline.
Let me start by saying that there are substantial disagreements within the community as to the future of BDU, and I completely understand that. It is possible to place an entirely different value on the airport than I do, and everyone is entitled to their view. This is a divisive issue. But if Council is to do its job correctly we need to be operating from a common set of facts and assumptions, and I do not feel that this week’s materials lead us to that common understanding. 
My initial concern is that I believe the presentation is skewed towards encouraging the Council to resume taking FAA grants, with little or no discussion of the factors that argue for operating the airport without such grants until 2040, and at least preserving the option for converting it to an alternate use at that time. The decision we are being asked to make extends far beyond the expense we will incur if we do or do not take federal grant funds. Some of those factors are as follows:
1) No Going Back. This decision is irrevocable. It is not merely an extension of 20 years if we take FAA grants. The FAA now takes the position that if we take such 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. If we take their money we no longer have any possibility to go down a different path. Forever. The staff memo should have detailed what is clearly a major change in FAA policy, one that is critical to the decision we are called upon to make. The choice described in the memo is not the choice this Council is actually confronted with.
2) Equity? What equity? One of the main concerns with BDU is that the planes spew 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 BDU. 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?
3) 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.
4) 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 BDU to residential is to do precisely that. Is that not one of the tradeoffs we must consider?
5) 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). I think we can handle it. 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. 
6) Environmental remediation. This one is problematic. With essentially no analysis presented, the staff memo states that in the event of a potential change of use of BDU, remediation of the property from prior contamination is estimated to be $10-30 million, but it could go as high as $100 million. Really? 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. Unless the Iranians have been storing their nuclear fuel at BDU, a number of $100 million for cleaning up the airport makes no sense at all. 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?
7) The 2-runway conundrum. A former airport manager told me in no uncertain terms that the second runway at BDU 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? 
8) Airport Economic Impact Study. This is as misleading a supporting document as I have ever come across on Council. It is a 2025 study produced by CDOT purportedly measuring the economic impact of BDU. Except it does not measure the economic impact of BDU on Boulder: every category is based on alleged impacts (and I emphasize the term “alleged”) 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 remotely reflect the economic benefits of BDU to Boulder and is almost certainly not an accurate picture of BDU’s economic impact on Colorado. This study really has no place in this presentation.
To summarize (yes, you are almost done reading), there are good reasons to preserve our options to forego federal grants and reinstitute our lawsuit in 2040. If we are then unsuccessful in our legal challenge and are required to operate BDU in perpetuity, we can go forward and grab every available grant with both hands. But if we are successful in our legal challenge, we will have obtained control over an asset that will probably be worth $400-$500MM in 2040 and be free to discuss with the community its best and highest use, even if that use is to continue operations as an airport. But none of that is possible if we return to taking grants, particularly under the FAA’s new policy that doing so automatically requires us to maintain BDU as an airport forever and for always.
 
_______________________________________________
bouldercouncilhotline -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

From our friends at the Airport Neighborhood Campaign in Boulder:

This Thursday, Boulder City Council could take action to lock the airport in place FOREVER

The need for action has never been more critical.
WRITE TO CITY COUNCIL TODAY, or by 3 PM Thursday April 23 at the latest
If you already wrote to Council, write again because the situation has changed!  
You do not need to be a city resident.

Write to Boulder City Council at this link

The threat is enormous

In a shocking development, the ANC just learned a few days ago that the FAA has changed the terms of the grant agreements that it is offering for Boulder airport funding. Up until recently, most FAA grants came with 20 years of obligations to run the airport. That’s what we at the ANC knew when we last wrote to you.

But now, if Boulder takes any more FAA grants, this will contractually obligate the city to run the airport on Boulder’s land IN PERPETUITY. It is a sneaky tactic to lock up control over Boulder and ensure that the city must maintain an airport on the current site “in perpetuity”.
City Council is under intense pressure to find money. Many city facilities have deferred maintenance and the bill is coming due.

The aviation community from far and wide is coming out in droves telling Council to take the FAA money. Many of these pilots do not even live in our area or use Boulder airport.

Dear supporters, many of you were among the thousands of city of Boulder voters who signed petitions to put the airport’s future to a vote of the people of Boulder. Even more of you were among the county residents who also have made your voices heard and would love to vote on this issue if they could.

However, if the city signs new FAA grants contracts, it’s immediately game over. The perpetual contract obligations cannot be undone by electing a new council and cannot be undone by citizen vote or referendum.

Action and key messages

Here’s the link again to write to Council

Tell City Council:
Do not take any FAA funding!

Boulder must not take a permanent action to give up control of city land to a hostile federal agency without citizen approval. This would be an egregious, undemocratic, and unacceptable betrayal!

No sitting City Council members ran for election saying they would permanently sign away control of the airport site to the FAA. Nobody voted for Council Members to lock the airport in place forever. What if the city desperately needs that land for something in the future that we cannot even imagine today?

Do not try to fix a short-term funding problem by permanently signing away the rights of all current and future citizens of Boulder!
The are many alternative sources of funding that haven’t even yet been explored. The City MUST make every effort to develop non-FAA sources of airport funding such as landing fees, bringing artificially low airport rents up to market rate,
and seeking grants from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) that do not extend the city’s airport obligations. All of these options are legal, common sense, and used by many other airports in Colorado.


Further background and additional talking points:


On April 23, City transportation staff will be giving a presentation about airport funding at a City Council study session. Staff will be asking Council whether to take FAA funding and plan to run the airport indefinitely.

The city is obligated by past grant agreements to run the airport until 2040 (twenty years from when we last signed an FAA grant agreement with 20-year obligations) but the city has NEVER signed a contract that stated an obligation to run the airport in perpetuity.

The citizens of Boulder deserve the right to decide what to do with the airport site after 2040.
The city's lawsuit against the FAA is still very much alive! That lawsuit is designed to clarify the expiration date of the city’s obligations to maintain the airport. Boulder says our obligations expire in 2040; the FAA says there is no expiration date. This dispute remains UNRESOLVED. The judge said the case was not legally ripe yet, but that the city can pursue the case in the future. The FAA knows how weak their existing legal case is, so they are trying this new tactic to make Boulder sign new contracts with a clear perpetual obligation.


Here are some additional talking points you can use if you choose:

• Average FAA grants to the city in the last decade were about $250K per year. This is less than .05% of the city's annual budget which was $521 million in 2026. This is an insignificant amount of money and is not worth tying the hands of future residents and leaders!
  
  
• The city should make airport users pay their own way through reasonable hangar rents, landing fees, and other appropriate and legal charges. According to analysis of airport data, this has the potential to improve airport revenue by $200K/yr.
• The city can also explore other creative funding and financing options that do not require grants with strings attached nor airport expansion. Just this year, the city got a $450K repaving grant from CDOT without the strings attached.  
  
  
• The people spoke loud and clear in 2024. Within a few short months, over 3400 verified city voters signed an initiative to put the issue of repurposing the airport on the ballot so that Boulderites - not the FAA - can decide the future of the airport site. Innumerable County residents wanted to sign but were not eligible under city rules. Taking the option for repurposing off the table and disregarding the voice of these voters would be an unacceptable violation of public trust.
• There is no public hearing and no open comment at the April 23 study session where Council is being asked whether to sign Boulder up for the burden of running a noisy, polluting, and inequitable airport forever. To make this decision without public deliberation would be a smack in the face to Boulder's democratic values.
• Tell your story about how the airport impacts YOU.
• You can find more talking points about the negative impacts of the airport, and the promise of future repurposing, at the Airport Neighborhood Campaign website FAQ.

 
Thank you, dear friends and supporters, for your partnership!
We at the ANC can be the watchdog, but we need YOU to amplify the message.
We need to unite all of our voices to head off this threat.

Also, please share this message with your friends and neighborswho are also negatively impacted by Boulder airport's operations, or who care about preserving the option for a different future for the airport’s 174 acres of precious public land. Invite them to join you in speaking out and to sign up for our mailing list.


Together, we are keeping the path open for airport closure!

- Your friends at the Airport Neighborhood Campaign

From: Wallach, Mark <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 2:52 PM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] The Airport
To: HOTLINE <[email protected]>


As lengthy and detailed Hotlines are now becoming increasingly popular, I thought I would switch things up and write a relatively brief one.

I first want to state that I am entirely in favor of the proposal to take a CDOT grant to accelerate the transition from leaded to unleaded fuel at the Boulder airport. This is a terrific first step, and I hope that it will be supported enthusiastically by Council.

Notwithstanding that enthusiasm, I note that the City’s Avgas Transition Plan, a supporting document for the grant, extensively relies upon a 2025 Colorado Aviation Impact Study to argue for the great economic impact of the airport on the local economy. This is an industry report and states figures that are highly questionable. The concept that the airport supports 281 full-time jobs is unsupportable; one only need visit the facility to know that this is not true.

I would also be delighted to better understand the calculation that the airport generated $78.3MM in economic impact in 2023. How was that figure arrived at? Where has that money gone? It is clear that those revenues have not accrued to the airport itself, and I am eager to be informed as to the premises of that calculation.

To put it another way, if we have 50,000 pilots traveling to Boulder each year (do we?), each one would have to stop in Boulder and spend $1,560 during their visit to generate $78MM  in revenues for this community. That is a lot of dinners at Frasca. 
 
To paraphrase the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. The airport and its ultimate use is a highly controversial subject, and this is not the moment for a detailed debate on that topic. But when we discuss the operations of the airport and its role in this community, is it too much to ask that we not rely on industry-generated studies that exaggerate its financial benefits and stick to those facts that can be fully documented?

And can I get one of those dinners at Frasca?

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

Boulder’s airport debate has become less about airplanes and more about honesty. In the past year, city officials and airport advocates have repeatedly made public claims that collapse under even the lightest scrutiny. When our public discourse abandons factual grounding, it’s not democracy that wins—it’s disinformation.

Consider Bob Yates’ August 2024 newsletter, in which he claimed that Santa Monica’s municipal airport is closing in 2029 “because the skies over the area have grown too crowded” and that the FAA shut it down for “public safety.” That’s false. As Santa Monica’s Airport2Park campaign leader John Fairweather—who has fought the FAA for 15 years—explained, “The closure of SMO had nothing whatsoever to do with safety or crowded skies… The FAA manages congestion by redesigning flight paths, not by closing airports.”. Yates declined to correct his error when confronted.

Councilmember Matt Benjamin has followed a similar pattern. At an August 15, 2024, planning meeting, he warned that building affordable housing on the airport site would “deliberately put our lowest-income people on a contaminated site.” When asked if he meant that housing would be built without remediation, Benjamin doubled down, claiming that’s what petitioners proposed. They did not. He extends his hypocrisy by remaining silent on the health effects from keeping the airport.  He recently misrepresented a federal court ruling, telling constituents that “This decision to close the airport does not lie in the hands of City Council as this was a decision by a federal judge.” In fact, Judge Nina Y. Wang dismissed the case without prejudice—meaning the court didn’t rule on the merits at all.

When misinformation enters the official record, it distorts democracy.

The problem extends beyond City Council. Airport advocates Jan Burton and Adrian Nye have each written Daily Camera op-eds falsely claiming that the FAA or EPA will “ban leaded aviation fuel by 2030.” That’s not true. The FAA’s EAGLE program merely aims to eliminate leaded fuel “by the end of 2030”--if safe, unleaded replacements are “commercially” available. There is no EPA order. Burton, a pilot who stores her aircraft at the airport, has also written that lead “can’t be found in detectable levels near the airport.” That’s scientifically indefensible.

Peer-reviewed studies prove otherwise. In 2011, Marie Lambert and colleagues found that children living near airports had significantly higher blood lead levels. A decade later, Santa Clara County’s Reid-Hillview study confirmed that airborne lead from piston-engine aircraft was poisoning nearby children. These are not fringe findings—they’re mainstream public-health science. The idea that fiberglass filters “prove” clean air is absurd; lead particles from aviation exhaust average just 13 nanometers—hundreds of times smaller than the pores in such filters.

When public figures misrepresent science, they’re dangerous. They enable a status quo that poisons children for another generation while claiming to “wait for the FAA.”

Meanwhile, city-paid consultants like Kimley-Horn, who assert that the airport contributes over $60 million in economic benefit, refuse to release the methods behind their study—calling them “proprietary.” How can taxpayers trust economic claims that can’t be audited?

This pattern, misrepresentation, selective citation, and concealment, reflects a deeper problem. FAA grants make the agency the de facto regulator of local land use while shielding general aviation (GA) interests from accountability. Pilots know that as long as the FAA calls the shots, local noise rules, altitude enforcement, or public health oversight remain toothless.

The EAGLE program’s slow walk toward unleaded fuel shows how industry pressure stalls reform. GA groups insist on keeping leaded fuel available until it’s cheaper to switch—no matter the cost to children’s health. As one parent put it: “Six more years of lead exposure isn’t progress—it’s negligence.”

Across Europe, local airports operate under strict noise and curfew rules. In the United States, pilots claim those same standards are “impossible”—not because they are, but because the FAA won’t allow local control.
This debate isn’t about being “anti-pilot” or “anti-airport.” It’s about truth, transparency, and justice. Boulder deserves a public conversation rooted in verified facts—not in fear or fabrication. Whether the future of the airport becomes housing, a park, or mixed use, one thing should unite us: our demand for honesty from those who claim to lead.
 
About the author: Hep Ingham is a Boulder County resident, researcher, and community advocate for environmental justice and transparent public policy.


Citations:
https://airport2park.org/city-files-lawsuit-regarding-airport/
https://www.faa.gov/unleaded
Miranda ML, Anthopolos R, Hastings D. A geospatial analysis of the effects of aviation gasoline on childhood blood lead levels. Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Oct;119(10):1513-6. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1003231. Epub 2011 Jul 13. PMID: 21749964; PMCID: PMC3230438.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Options for Reducing Lead Emissions from Piston-Engine Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26050.
Jack D. Griffith, Electron microscopic characterization of exhaust particles containing lead dibromide beads expelled from aircraft burning leaded gasoline, Atmospheric Pollution Research, Volume 11, Issue 9, 2020, Pages 1481-1486, ISSN 1309-1042, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2020.05.026.

From the Airport Neighborhood Campaign:

Boulder City Council race - Prevent a pro-airport takeover!

Dear friends,

The race is on for control of Boulder’s City Council.
Eleven candidates are vying for four seats.
YOUR VOTE MATTERS!

Three of the most viable candidates are in our corner.
Three would work against us.
Which are which??

The ANC sent out a questionnaire. 10 candidates responded.

READ ALL ABOUT OUR ENDORSEMENTS HERE

Who to vote for
Who NOT to vote for
and why…