This is not what democracy looks like

On July 23, City Council will decide whether to make a legally-binding, irreversible commitment to keep Boulder Airport in perpetuity by taking FAA grant money, thereby agreeing to operate the airport under restrictive FAA covenants forever.

The city fought a lawsuit in 2024 to avoid exactly this perpetual binding to the FAA, so it is shocking that some council members are even considering this about-face. That lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality. It could be refiled when ripe.

The alternative is to assemble funding for the airport without FAA grants, working toward release from FAA grant obligations. This path keeps all options open, including future possibilities for better airport management under local control.

How did we get here? It’s ugly. And it’s not democratic.

On April 23, a bare majority of five City Council members tried to force through a fast-tracked decision to take FAA funding, despite unanswered questions and concerns from the other four members. The public had never been informed nor asked their opinion about accepting a commitment in perpetuity. This session did not allow for public comment, and did not include a formal Council vote even though it was clearly a commitment. Not democratic.

An independent legal opinion found that this meeting potentially violated Colorado open meetings law.

The April 23 study session was based on biased, incomplete, and misleading information. Concerned community members compiled an extensive Gaps and Errors Report documenting its flaws. To name some:

• no budget was provided to justify claims about expenses and revenues;
• substantial revenue streams recommended by airport consultants in 2024 for airport self-funding – such as landing fees, bringing airport rents up to market rate, and developing commercial uses – were omitted; and
• staff made the false claim (rebutted by CDOT) that state funding would not be available unless Boulder signaled an intention to operate the airport in perpetuity.

If there ever was a time for a joint fact-finding process, this is it. But staff has ignored invitations to meet with report authors to correct errors on either side and establish an agreed-upon baseline of facts. Not democratic.

Under extreme public pressure and dissatisfaction with the study session, Council agreed to a public hearing before making their official decision. Still, the situation remains deeply problematic.

Despite Council's request for other funding options, the staff memo for the July 23 public hearing doesn’t provide a good faith analysis. An analysis of airport self-funding mechanisms is still absent, ignoring input from vendors and consultants who have done it elsewhere. Staff have not researched the dozens of Colorado airports that operate without FAA funding.

Remarkably, staff now claim that airport land analyzed in 2024 for commercial development is designated open space. How did that happen? Who decided? Was there compensation to the airport fund for loss of land and future revenue? Further, it seems staff have not actually spoken with CDOT yet to clarify funding availability.

This skewed staff memo seems designed to push the city into the arms of the FAA. Not only undemocratic, but bad faith!

It is disturbing to hear a councilmember assert, “the community’s been heard and we’ve got a pretty clear understanding of where the community wants to go.” Utterly false! Public input to date has been fiercely mixed with no clear consensus. In 2024 over 4000 individuals including 3400 registered city voters signed petitions to put the future of the airport to a vote. The petitioners, signees, and indeed all current and future city voters would be forever prevented from voting on this issue if the city takes FAA funds.

The public needs honest, complete information about the true costs of this perpetuity decision. The city would be signing away 175 acres of public land whose value is at least $375 million. Boulder’s past average annual grant from the FAA is $250,000, which is .05% of the city’s annual budget. There is no guarantee of perpetual funding from the FAA. Is this fiscally prudent? Voters deserve a say.

FAA obligations prohibit meaningful local control. There is no protection from noise or other pollution, no quiet hours, no limit to looping “touch and go” flights. There is no ability to require quieter equipment, such as quieter propellers or mufflers. The only noise abatement tool is a voluntary protocol that some pilots break daily. The city would lose future land use flexibility to meet city needs. Do city voters accept these trade-offs? Council doesn’t know! Not democratic.

How can five councilmembers, three of whom may be voted out in November, make this consequential and controversial forever commitment in this manner, over strong community objection, using a hasty and shoddy process based on woefully incomplete information? Not democratic.

There is no urgency. Council should not rush into this drastic, irreversible step, sticking all future councils and residents with the fallout. This is plain bad governance.

How many Boulderites want Council to reject FAA funding and preserve the opportunity for local control? If councilmembers truly care about honoring the will of the people, they will put the decision about FAA funding on the ballot for a public vote.