Hi Folks, 

Thanks for rallying last night. There were lot's of blue shirts in the room. Also, thanks to everyone who spoke -- there were some great comments! Thanks, too, to those of you who stayed to the end. It was, indeed, another looong meeting. 

How did it go? well, between Monday (when I think we kept the attorney on his toes even though it felt like we were talking to a wall) and yesterday evening, I think we've made strides with this council since November '24 when I started putting my shoulder to the wheel of this issue. Of course: this issue has pre-dated my involvement, as many folks on this list know first-hand. 

We got AMS to speak to council, albeit a year later, about what can be done VNAP-and-noise-abatement-wise. And, despite the blunder on behalf of airport and city management last night (wrong numbers!!) we have a rates and charges study that is one attempt at transparency. The oft-touted narrative about the airport being an asset is shifting. 

Incremental progress that is directionally correct!  but there was a plot twist! 

See the article below, and the meeting (airplane presentations start at about 4 hours in... and at 30 mins before the end we learn that the Rates and Charges study didn't have accurate budget data. Ooopsy. (Do you wonder: How does Levi still have a job? me too.)

 Here is the link to the meeting: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L1AnMLsLwtk&ra=m

 Here is the Times Call redux on the meeting (and attached): 
https://www.timescall.com/2026/07/29/longmont-council-airport/

It's really important to remember and to know: the airport issue is multifaceted. Learning all the pieces of the larger issue is like drinking from a firehose. However, There are 2 main issues on the table right now: 

Thing 1: getting the airport financially sustainable, and 
Thing 2: dealing with the nuisance

the city has the power to take care of both items.

Landing fees takes care of Thing 1. And, landing fees could take the place of FAA grants if the city chose to do so. And, if the city chose to be free of the FAA grants, it could have much more control over it's airport. 

Re: Thing 2, there are many ways the city can tackle this, and there are other airports that have done this well, like Naples Airport in FL.

Here is just a brief little redux for you on the airport issue, a little overview, with some resources. It's not too much, but it's focused on things that can be done. To give you some hope.

The City of Longmont's airport issue. 

Data to see what’s happening:

• Traffic hot spots map: https://airbornehotspots.org/v2/conus.html?airport=KLMO
• SuperiorSkies.org tool to see traffic and lead impacts on the front range: https://superiorskies.org/ 
• Superior Air Tracker has a live map, heat map, historical data, and KLMO specific data https://superiorairtracker.com/operations/live 
• Circlejerks.live shows the traffic in our area. https://circlejerks.live/?window=today 

So what would actually work? Here are a handful of things, and each has a real-world precedent:

An enforceable agreement, not promises. Santa Monica fought its airport for decades and lost the same battles we're seeing here. What finally worked was a binding consent decree. 

Contracts and consent decrees can do what lawsuits and ordinances can't, because the airport is agreeing rather than being regulated. 

Jefferson County has acknowledged in court that it has the power to reduce the noise -- which means Longmont can too. 

So let's negotiate a binding agreement. It should include 

• a firm unleaded fuel transition date, 
• enforceable limits on repetitive touch-and-go training written into flight school leases, 
• a change to the calm wind runway configuration, 
• and a funded mitigation program. 

These are landlord powers the airport already has and has simply chosen not to use.

• Adherence to the VNAP disappeared from the lease template in 2016 (ish). Can that be put back into the lease template as mandatory? Should all leases since be re-issued, or amendments issued by the city?

Shrink the problem at its source. Roughly 80+% of LMO operations are touch-and-go training loops. 

That traffic is here because it's cheap and convenient for flight schools, not because it has to be. 

Lease terms can require more simulator training, incentivize quiet modern aircraft, and move repetitive pattern work to less populated satellite airports such as Colorado Air and Space Port that are not surrounded by dense residential area, schools, and parks. 

Other regions have done all three.

The bottom line:

The airport doesn't need to close, and flight training doesn't have to end. But peaceful coexistence, one that existed for decades prior, requires commitments our communities can enforce in court, not promises we can only complain about. Every piece of this solution is already working somewhere in America. What's been missing is the will to sit down and make real, binding commitments.

More below! 

What the City of Longmont can do. 

Get financially sustainable!

The FAA can't force a city to lose money. The city needs to be financially viable.

The airport is like a black hole: 
You can put money into it and you do have to put money into it, but none ever comes back out across the event horizon. And every time you take money and let the black hole grow, you're stuck with 20 more years of the black hole.

Stop taking money as soon as possible and use commercial solutions
 …to get you out of the problem while raising your costs to the aviation community to a reasonable level to cover the cost of aviation.

• set rents & rates to match market rates 
• establish landing fees
• stop taking FAA grants
• keep taking state grants

Landlord powers

Council can approve leases and has landlord powers. 

It's worth it for council to learn what that entails in much more detail so that council knows what it can do (like vote on leases - or not!) and what City Staff can do.

Noise abatement is the city's responsibility 

What can be done? Here are just a few examples:

• Establish time based landings. Van Nuys Airport is just one (of many!) examples. 
• put limits on touch and go operations in certain the hours/days/holidays, and limit no more than 4 take offs and landings in a 4 hour period, like Monterrey’s Airport.
• Create a fund to subsidize conversion costs to use unleaded (~$150 or less per piston engine plane)
• Create a fund to subsidize mufflers and installation on all based aircraft. The same could be done for quieter propellers. 
  • establish a muffler incentive program for all of the based aircraft, especially the non-stage piston engines that fly low all over this city. These pilots who lease their planes to flight schools/flight schools could outfit their planes with city-subsidized mufflers for or quieter propellers, at no cost to the plane owners. 
• Get a noise monitoring app -- like Superior Air Tracker -- that shows airport data in real time, and allows community members to download an app that makes filing a noise complaint easy. 
• Get software like Superior Air Tracker, or use Airport Monitoring Systems system (which the airport currently has) to set up a GeoFence and automate tracking VNAP violations. 
  

Hi Folks, I've got a few things for you here. Do be sure to scroll towards the end to read some good sense... 

 And, before we jump in, check out the Ledger that has been built into Circlejerks.live 
https://ledger.circlejerks.live/ 

It shows in real time, all of the money council could have made from landing fees. In the words of Beth Dutton: that cheered me up.

________

July 14 pre-session: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvgKpEz3Xts

July 14 Longmont CC meeting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_QnXidI7eQ

Council voted for the FAA grant. All but one Council Member voted yes. 

See also: the update that the city just emailed out below below.

What to make of all of it? 
A possible take: The city would really really really really really like us to STFU. Kaplan and Kirsch will tell us on the 27th our hands are tied on anything we can do. The July 28 meeting? This email says it's a VNAP update, but it's supposed to be about the looooooong awaited rates and charges study.

Thank you all for showing up last night at the open forum! It's great that we had new faces for council to hear from. And, everyone made great points. 

Thank you! Thank you! 

Watch the replay:

In the headlines: 
Six months later, airport concerns again dominate Longmont City Council open forum
Fifteen speakers urged changes at Vance Brand Municipal Airport as residents renewed complaints about noise, safety and flight training

_______________

 If you want a great tool for tracking planes and communicating noise complaints... 
https://circlejerks.live/

_______________

At the Meeting Next Week:
Council will be voting on the grant and the vision for the airport.

Council Pre-Session - Airport Vision -- July 14, 6 pm study session room. 
Open to the public, note that seating will be limited, oftentimes people will be out in the hallway. It will be live-streamed.

Regular Council Session - FAA Grant Resolution Vote - July 14, 7pm
Note: Anyone wishing to speak on this topic has to be a Longmont resident and needs to sign-up before the meeting and speak during regular public invited to be heard. 

_______________

In other news: Boulder Municipal Airport to offer unleaded fuel starting this week
City providing incentives for airport operators to transition
dailycamera.com/2026/07/07/boulder-municipal-airport-unleaded-fuel-2/

_______________

Here are some TC Line comments and an opinion from the pilots for your viewing pleasure... 

Hi All -- We keep hearing from council that the pilots out-number the rest of us. So, here are some ways to show up in droves for this issue in the next few weeks: 

Open Forum - July 7, 7pm, council chambers
Open to the public, public comments are not limited to Longmont residents, can speak for 5 minutes. 

Council Pre-Session - Airport Vision -- July 14, 6 pm study session room. 
Open to the public, note that seating will be limited, oftentimes people will be out in the hallway. It will be live-streamed.

Regular Council Session - FAA Grant Resolution Vote - July 14, 7pm
Note: Anyone wishing to speak on this topic has to be a Longmont resident and needs to sign-up before the meeting and speak during regular public invited to be heard.

July 23 - Public Hearing - Boulder 
Council Chambers - Penfield Tate II Municipal Building - 1777 Broadway St.
You can help by: 

• showing up in the council chambers to pack the room
• one of the speakers can ask for a show of hands of folks who came to say don't take the FAA funds
• you can sign up to speak but pool time with another speaker, so that you don't have to speak but someone else can get an extra minute. People who pool time do have to be present in the meeting, either in person or virtually, when the other speaker has their turn. 

If you are interested in any of these roles (speaker, time pooler, audience member) I will connect you with the folks coordinating that night who can provide some talking points for speakers. 

Invite all of your friends, take up space, make a night of it! :)

______

If you are bothered by this issue, please show up, speak up, or at the very least email council and let them know where you stand.

Hi Folks, 

hope you're staying cool out there today. The good thing about the heat is that it's harder for those planes to get off the ground, so we benefit with (slightly) less air traffic. 

In this episode of airplanes among us, we have a new op-ed printed on Friday (below), along with a handful of great TC line comments (also below). (Thank you and keep 'em coming). 

Let it be known that we are not the only community in the US struggling with the flight school problem. Many communities are. Ours, however, is leading the charge with our own communications in the local papers and council meetings. Our Op-eds are really knocking it out of the park, and giving other communities a how-to.