The Boulder City Council’s pivotal decision on the fate of the Boulder Municipal Airport, initially expected as soon as this month, has been delayed. City of Boulder officials are conducting a new legal and financial analysis to better grasp the ramifications of potentially closing the airport, according to a city staff memo. This analysis has pushed the council’s decision on the airport’s future to the summer 2024.
The delay follows a year-long effort by the city to gather community feedback on future scenarios for the airport. Options include maintaining the current state of the airport, upgrading facilities, introducing “live/work” areas and community amenities, or closing the airport to build a new residential neighborhood.
To navigate this decision, city officials hired Kimley-Horn, a consulting firm with offices in Broomfield. The consultants gathered feedback from a working group, an online survey and meetings with residents who live near the airport. Their role was to help identify the best airport scenario based on community input. Both the working group and the survey showed a disproportionate representation of airport users compared to the city’s overall population.
The consultant’s final report, “Boulder Airport Community Conversation Final Report,” was released this month by city officials. It summarizes conversations held over the last year and makes recommendations for addressing community concerns. Its purpose was to help city officials and the city council decide which future scenario to pursue.
“Overall, community feedback indicates that the community desires to keep the airport and improve conditions in the near-term, while creating avenues for better coordination and compliance with the community’s desire for less noise and pollution from airport operations,” the report states.
The Boulder Municipal Airport dates back to a dirt landing strip in 1928 in the city’s northwest corner. Today, its primary users are hobbyists, people training to be pilots and visitors. The airport logs approximately 50,000 takeoffs or landings annually.
Operations at the airport have long generated concerns about noise and the potential pollution of lead, which is used in aircraft fuel. Two mobile home parks, San Lazaro and Vista Village, are adjacent to the southern boundary of the airport. Single-family homes are located to the northeast.
In response to those concerns, the consultants recommended in their report that the city conduct a health impact study to assess potential environmental effects on both people and the environment. Additionally, they advised the city’s airport manager to provide regular quarterly updates to the city council. These updates should include essential information such as statistics, revenues, expenses, noise complaints and compliance, maintenance and capital projects, accidents and incidents, as well as lease, rules and regulations violations.
The contract fee for the consultant’s work on the airport project was about $350,000, according to a city official.
City officials had asked for the final report to analyze potential scenarios for the airport, along with providing a high-level estimate of the implementation costs.
The report doesn’t clarify the cost involved with decommissioning the airport to build a neighborhood. It also did not address crucial legal questions related to closing the airport. Additionally, the report did not offer any new insights into the specific details of how the transition from an airport to a residential neighborhood would be executed.
The report ranked decommissioning the airport in order to create a neighborhood as the most “favorable” of the scenarios when accounting for the city’s sustainability, equity and resilience goals. “But doing so involves high financial risk to the city and unknowns associated with FAA grant obligations,” the report states.
The city has contractual obligations under grants provided by the Federal Aviation Administration. Those grants have assurances that require the city to keep the airport operating and maintained, according to an FAA official.
During a meeting in August 2023, several councilmembers said they wanted to know more about the financial and legal implications of decommissioning the airport before deciding on a future scenario. The city’s analysis, prompted by this request, is expected to be completed as soon as July 2024, according to the staff memo. It was originally expected that the new council would make a decision on which scenario to pursue as soon as January 2024.
Shortly after the city posted the report online last week, a group of residents launched a petition calling on councilmembers and city officials to “to decommission the Boulder Municipal Airport as soon as possible, and dedicate the site to a visionary new neighborhood including diverse homes, businesses, and green spaces.”
Laura Kaplan, a member of the city’s Planning Board who served on the consultants’ airport working group, is an organizer for the petition campaign. Kaplan said the working group did not discuss important topics related to noise, lead pollution, emergency response, airport economics, or what a new neighborhood could mean for meeting the city’s affordable housing goals.
“Good process is based on good data,” she wrote in an email. “This process was significantly lacking in important data to support community deliberation.”
Keep the airport !!! we love when we have guests and do glider rides. There is a positive economic impact.
So keep the airport and get rid of the homeless
Which do you feel has a more positive reflection of our city???
will the only option for glider flights and instruction be the Colorado Springs airport?
No there is an entire exclusively dedicated glider port north boulder Boulder and it’s where the state glider association is even located.
A small number of subsidized users of the airport operate without any oversight or restraint. This group of pilots has given themselves the right to fly whenever wherever, increasing operations without any consultation with the City or the neighbors affected by their flying. The FAA refuses to enforce its own rules giving the pilots unrestrained ability to use leaded avgas over neighborhoods that existed before the airport was built. The voluntary rules the pilot groups have written for their consumption are not followed and show no chance of being observed. Like any group of privileged subsidy takers they’ve elevated their privilege to a “right” justifying their loud, low and lead poisoning flights. No other group would get away with undemocratic expansion. This one does because the City is afraid of lawsuits that would restrict the hobbyist and pleasure seekers that use the airport. Parents should understand that the lead poisoning from this group is a serious health threat to their children: search on the EPAs findings of October 2023 and the peer reviewed lead poisoning study carried out by Santa Clara County for their Reid-Hillview Airport. Please see the petition to transition the land at https://www.boulderairportpetition.net/. Any benefits that come from flying could use equipment that is changed to reduce noise and use unleaded fuel, but this position is ridiculed and reason to sue Boulder. Time to make public land a benefit to the public and not a venue for harassment and lead poisoning.
Close the Boulder airport already! In addition to the noise, lead and other contaminants, it comes down to cutting luxury carbon emissions.
If Boulder can’t cut luxury emissions, what can we really do on climate? The airport is used by a tiny fraction of Boulder residents, but it impacts all of us!
These airports are subsidized gas stations and guess who pays? Private jets make up 1/6 of the flights managed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Yet private jet travelers pay only 2% of the taxes that fund the FAA .
To those saying we need to keep the airport for emergency management, I ask you how many airports do we need for that? In Boulder county (or very close by) we have Boulder, Rocky Mountain, Longmont, Erie. The logic seems to be that more airports is inherently better, so should we open another airport in Boulder to be extra safe?
I also find it incredible that people are making the argument that the agreement that the city of Boulder has with the FAA can *never* be broken? So you mean to tell me that the city entered us into a binding agreement with the federal government until the end of time and you are OK with that? This needs to be put to rest, the agreement can and should be terminated.
We need start closing more airports and Boulder should lead the way.
Here is a link to a vision and information on an alternative use of the Boulder Airport acreage.
https://www.boulderairportpetition.net/
I am not a pilot, a fan of the airport. I am not in favor of closing the airport and make more housing. What we don’t need is more housing, more people, more traffic etc.
We are wasting time and money on this issue. I believe that the FAA has to approve of the closing and I seriously doubt they would approve of the closing.
As the article mentions, City staff are currently conducting research on the legal and financial feasibility of closing the airport, which includes discussions with the FAA. City staff plans to present the results of this research to Council in Q3 of 2024 (sometime in July, August, or September). Many people are asking: can we do it, and what would it take? Let’s hear what city staff come back with.
Why are we still enamored of “Bigger is Better”?
Has there been any study of the climate impact of adding a thousand or so houses? House occupied by anywhere from 2 to 6 or 7 people; unknown number of vehicles, needs for heating, air conditioning, water, electricity–as well as paved roads, school buses Amazon deliveries daily. Not to mention the increased need for police, fire and road services.
I live near 28th street; believe me when I tell you the noise is almost constant; exacerbated by the one in 3 vehicles with loud pipes and music blaring. I’d love to lose that nuisance. But the wishes of the larger community win. It is my belief that the larger community prefers the airport to another couple of thousand of folks; most likely folks moving here for a job; not for any interest in the Boulder persona and world view that earned it the fond nickname: People’s Republic of Boulder. I’d rather have the People’s Republic that Levittown West any day.
Joshem – more housing in Boulder would result in less people needing to commute into the City for work. Those that live and work in the City have many opportunities to use public transportation, walk, or bike. You live near one of Boulder’s main arteries, you hear all of these “out-of-town” commuters daily. Not building housing will not decrease the amount of traffic along 28th.
Disappointing to see more of the typical, long-time Boulder resident responses to this issue – “We don’t need more housing, we don’t want more people” while at the same time complaining about the homeless. Seemingly unaware of the housing issue, and unable to consider actual solutions to deal with homelessness. Not sure why it has taken a year to for the City to figure out FAA requirements, but hopefully the City can use this rare opportunity to create more thoughtful housing (something that would very likely benefit more citizens as a new neighborhood, than the current group of hobbyists). Thanks to those that shared the link to the petition.
I don’t fully understand how removing a piece of irreplaceable infrastructure is somehow now a “rare” opportunity that folks are citing. There are massive obligations to the FAA if the airport is closed. What is this supposed window that has opened?
Is there likewise a rare opportunity to repurpose open space for development? Parks? Other infrastructure? The airport is still being used, it’s not as if it’s so decrepit that planes can’t land there.
The entire narrative for decommissioning it now doesn’t hold water, notably a couple years after a massive wildfire that could have left thousands of Boulder residents in need of an emergency staging area — as happened with the floods a decade ago.
City staff is investigating the financial obligations we have to the FAA, which might not be that massive. We’ll hear more in Q3 from staff on this topic.
My understanding is the fire-fighting planes, including those that were used during the Marshall fire and NCAR fires, do not use the Boulder Airport (BDU). Instead, fire-fighting planes in our area use Rocky Mountain Metro Airport in Broomfield.
It is 100% true that there was emergency staging at BDU for helicopters used for evacuations during the 2013 floods. The petition to close the airport calls for retaining a helicopter staging area for this important emergency use.
So the city paid presumably a lot of money to consultants for basically useless data, correct? I could tell them for free that airport users wouldn’t want to close the airport.
My sentiments exactly Julie.
Good money after bad. And I don’t have much left to blow after my property taxes!
The city wastes countless dollars on surveys and studies that are clueless. Also, I think it inappropriate for a Planning Board member to be leading a petition drive.
Spot on Steven.
Hi Steven, thank you for raising this. I am sure you are not the only person to wonder about this.
I am participating in this effort in my individual capacity. I do not represent Planning Board in any activities outside of chambers unless specifically tasked by the Board to do so. People who serve on City boards and commissions do not give up our right to political speech or association.
I have consulted with legal counsel about my obligations and responsibilities as a Planning Board member. On this or any other matter that may come to Planning Board, I will follow the City’s guidelines on ethics and conflict of interest, and the advice of the City Attorney’s Office, which is the practice of all Board members.
The Boulder Revised Code section on Ethics and Conflicts of Interest is Section 2-10-7 I am not a City staff member or elected official, but Board members follow the same code section. https://library.municode.com/co/boulder/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT2GOOR_CH10INFU_2-10-7ETCOIN
Apologies, I linked to the wrong code section. It is section 2-7 Code of Conduct
https://library.municode.com/co/boulder/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT2GOOR_CH7COCO
I understand the city spent maybe $350K to hire an airport consulting company to conduct a project directed and narrated by airport users and supporters. The “data collection” was a joke – sticky notes and dots! The person who places the most stickies wins?!??! Web form inputs, which can be answered by repeats and bots?!?!? Policy decisions are based that?!?! Was this project designed by someone in Junior High School?
Further, the so called “Conversation” did not address any of the negative impacts of the airport. Neighbors, who are dispropotionally affected, had and have no say. Nor were alterantive land uses discussed. Families are moving away because of the airport and also because they can’t afford housing. That’s not a conversation, that’s called “gaslighting.”
Whether for airport purposes or for a neighborhood, that land will be developed. If the airport stays, it will grow and we will have more traffic and pollution. And Boulder will have no say in the matter.
If we take it back now, we can curtail the pollution, serve many more people, and the city generates revenue. The choice is obvious.
“The City” did not spend that money. It’s from the airport funds. This land WILL be developed. Yes there has been climate analysis done on what the best use is for that 179 acres- airport vs housing development. Housing comes ahead. It will be developed to triple flight traffic or for housing. Does 400+ private flight traffic/day, lead tox, carbon emissions, plus that developed plumbing, hangars, tarmac, zero tree canopy, pollinator pockets, electric etc sound environmental or does a 15 minute city which is demonstrating to be quite an environmental way of living sound more like best use for that land.
I love the sentiment for walkable neighborhoods, but the reality hasn’t panned out so well outside of core retail centers like Pearl and 28th. In the recent Gunbarrel Center (City of Boulder) developments you’ll find 70-80% of the storefronts are empty and apparently haven’t had occupants since construction (years). I would love to see a story exploring why it’s a ghost town.
I sincerely hope that East Boulder fares better, but the reality seems to be that a lot of people want to go to dense, vibrant business districts like Pearl even if that means driving. I suspect future occupants of any airport developments, should they come to pass, may experience a similar fate.
It would be absolutely absurd for a city the size of Boulder to not have an airport. They can easily afford to maintain it. Airports are essential during times of natural or civil emergencies.
The airport is upright due to 90-95% of FAA subsidies. It is too expensive to afford it sans subsidies. This airport is not essential, a heli pad is maybe but not the airport. The runway is too small to accommodate tankers. We don’t need 179 acres of an airport. A heli ops facility for emergency only needs 10-15 acres. We just don’t need this airport at the end of the day.
Where do your numbers of 400+ private flights/day come from?
Higher level talks with those involved both on and off airport. The 179 acres will get developed- likely doubling hangars and tripling flight ops. Or it’s converted to enviro mixed use/housing. We can’t leave $358 million worth of 179 acres largely vacant to just for 170 planes/BDU pilots. This land will be developed for a larger hobby airport or housing.
I would like to say that staff and consultants worked hard on the Airport Community Conversation and the final report. It was a tough project that was hampered by a limited scope and narrow focus. I truly appreciate their efforts, their transparent communication, and the good faith they showed to all participants in the working group and community open house events.
It seems to me the cart has gotten ahead of the horse. Why spend time and money planning for future usage before understanding the financial obligations the city has to the FAA and federal government? Mark Wallach seemed to indicate in previous Council minutes that he felt city legal staff already knew these details but were reluctant to discuss them. He recommended not taking further federal funds until this was better understood and discussed. It may be that the city can’t financially afford to close the airport for 20+ years.
Also, no one seems concerned about doing a detailed study of any potential environment remediation that might be needed at the site. Any “industrial” site that has been in use for almost a century may well have environmental skeletons in the closet that can be very costly to remediate.
The city is investigating legal and financial questions regarding airport closure. They’ll report their findings to Council in Q3 of this year.
You raise a good question that the city would need to look into any environmental remediation needs at the site. I’m sure there would be some. There’s the lead issue, and I hear it used to be common practice to dump out fuel onto the bare ground, and there may be other potential sources of environmental contaminants.
That said, if the site needs remediation, in my mind that’s all the more reason to figure it out and do it. We shouldn’t keep polluting just because there’s already pollution.
Other decommissioned airports have been successfully transitioned into neighborhoods, such as the old Stapleton airport sire. We definitely should be looking into this question and looking to learn from the experience of other communitites who have done it.
Then present your findings in a well-documented form. Otherwise they are no better than rumors.
The question comes down to whether Boulder residents want: (a) a threefold increase in training flights every day 24/7 (410+ per day) and no control over when leaded fuel is phased out if ever, or (b) repurposing those 180 acres toward greater community good. There is no in between unfortunately. Keeping the airport means GROWTH. Notably, in the closure scenario the emergency helipad would remain, fulfilling the “but we need emergency services” access argument. Boulder airport can’t accommodate fire tankers – RMMA and LMO are used for those presently.
I am tending to agree with Steven here. Where is all this backroom data coming from? Somehow the proposed closure, the purpose for the closure and the replacement uses have all been pre-ordained by some cabal despite a supposedly “open” public process of discussion. The “no in between”/”either or” choices are completely in the face of all the scenarios presented last year — why is the status quo impossible?
The 4 scenarios: 1 was keep it the same. That has been eliminated because it’s not justifiable or economic. 170 planes on 179 acres- one plane occupies over an acre of city property worth $2mm. It is not the best use of land. Scenario 2 was hybrid. That was eliminated because the FAA will not allow community mixed-use with airport/hangar facilities in that proximity. This makes sense for health and safety instances for both sides anyway. That leaves the remaining two: grow the airport or convert the land for other use.
Who has “eliminated” any scenarios?
> That has been eliminated because it’s not justifiable or economic. 170 planes on 179 acres- one plane occupies over an acre of city property worth $2mm. It is not the best use of land.
Who eliminated it? It’s not the best use of land according to whom? Is open space also not a best use of land according to this group/person? Are agricultural reserves not a best use of land at a dozen cows per $2mm?
Nothing changed in 2023 to suddenly make the airport not viable as a piece of infrastructure; the runway functions, planes still land, we can still use it for emergency purposes.
Re: who eliminated scenarios
Last year, the City conducted the Airport Community Conversation. Staff just issued their final report, which is disscussed and linked in the BRL article we’re commenting on.
The Airport Community Conversation is the process that considered four scenarios. In addition to offering opportunitites for public input (and I have commented previously on how that public input did not have the benefit of important data), consultants and staff evalutated the four scenarios against a set of criteria drawn from the City’s Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience Framework. The report shows that two of the four scenarios are ranked as considerably more favorable than the other two. This could be what the other commenter meant by scenarios being eliminated.
So, it’s a staff and consultant report. No action has yet been taken by City Council. I’m not aware of anyone else doing any eliminating.
Please document your source for this projected increase in use.
No More Housing!!
To be clear, developers come in all shapes and sizes. There are aviation developers chomping at the bit to invest and develop hangars. plumbing and electricity at the airport too. The local flight clubs and businesses are looking to expand. The space is there to expand and develop the land. The airport land will not remain the same one way or another. It’s important to know this coming into the conversation. As it stands there is a lot of valuable expensive land there that is not put to best use, and is suspended for a few in aviation or the hands of the FAA which takes it a next step by removing our ability to govern our own land and pollution impacts. It’s very healthy to objectively evaluate the best use for the land.
Who has “eliminated” any scenarios?
The airport creates pollution and noise that adversely affect many Boulder residents while the airport is utilized by a few wealthy hobbyists; why are we sacrificing the health and well-being of many Boulder residents for these few?
Meanwhile people who work in Boulder cannot afford to live here due to lack of available housing and thus create more pollution and traffic by commuting into the city for work. Most people who live in Boulder don’t actually work in Boulder, yet we need people to fill many vital city services and functions such as stores, schools, hospitals, police and fire, etc. Those who live in Boulder can much more easily use transit, walk or bike to get to work, run errands, etc.
The lack of housing and homelessness are cited as top issues for Boulder residents every single time there is an election; when are we actually going to do something about this? The airport should be decommissioned for the health and well-being of Boulder residents and converted to housing to support the ability for more who work in Boulder to also live in Boulder.
The Boulder Airport actually helps the well being of the many; many folks here seem to have a short memory of when it came in handy during the devastating floods a decade ago. From the Daily Camera then:
> The skies over western Boulder County were alive on the first sunny morning in five days, as the National Guard mounted an airlift operation from Boulder Municipal Airport. Lt. Mitch Utterback believed it to be the largest undertaken on U.S. soil since Hurricane Katrina. (https://archive.is/uYP2P)
Sure, Boulder needs housing; a valuable piece of infrastructure isn’t the place to do it.
Cameron, you raise a good point about the 2013 flood. Emergency helicopters do actually use BDU. The petition organizers agree that we should retain some acreage for a staging area for important emergency helicopter uses.
Helicopters have their place but are incredibly inefficient for others. There are almost never helicopter operations without fixed wing airplanes being used in conjunction. This is especially true in emergency situations. During the floods emergency supplies and personnel are flown in on airplanes while people were rescued with helicopters. The airport is an incredibly valuable community resource which is clearly very poorly understood or respected. By the way the airport is less that 1% of all the land owned and managed by the county. If we are to repurpose any of it, let’s have an intelligent debate about the very significant undeveloped land available for housing. And then there’s the 40 acre vacant lot that’s been for sale for several years right next to the airport independence road which could be purchased far cheaper than demolishing and legal fighting and environmental cleanup which would surely require. I’ve lived in boulder for over 30 years. Our residents do not want the airport shut down for a low income housing project.
Kathryn- What you don’t understand is that more housing in a saturated inelastic market does not make it any more affordable, on the contrary. More folks than ever will be out-commuting and farther distances as time passes.
Lots of misinformation being floated by people. Let’s be clear with facts.
With folks sharing the petition for removing the airport, here is a counter petition for preserving the airport: https://saveboulderairport.com/
This airport was built at a very different time in Boulder’s history. Today, Boulder is a community that exists for residents to live and work and the existing airport and the enormous volume of land it occupies is not congruent with the Boulder of today and the city’s present day needs. Boulder is known for open space, nature and ability of its residents to easily use the city to live work and play. The airport’s presence does not represent any of this.
This airport will be closed and the City Council will vote for it to be converted to align with the direction Boulder has taken, not priorities of the past or of the select few. Once closed, this land and its new evolution will bring enormous value to North-Central Boulder and I personally cannot wait to see the finished product! Remember the closure of Stapleton? Out of that came a wonderful community and the necessary commercial and residential resources that were needed. Open space, walking/biking trails….Stapleton did it on a much larger scale so Boulder will easily make this even more beautiful and of higher quality.
Cheers to the future of the new Boulder that will thrive and we can all enjoy!!!