The Federal Aviation Administration is reaffirming its stance that the City of Boulder must keep its municipal airport open indefinitely, as a condition of having accepted federal funding decades ago, according to a recent legal motion filed by the agency.
The FAA’s motion to dismiss, filed Nov. 1, responds to Boulder’s lawsuit against the agency, which seeks a court ruling allowing the city to close Boulder Municipal Airport by 2040. The city also claims that the FAA’s actions related to contractual agreements violate constitutional protections.
City officials say they aren’t necessarily seeking to close the airport through the lawsuit but instead want legal clarity on whether closure is even possible.
They want this clarity in part to guide a long-term plan for Boulder’s airport. After spending over $400,000 on consulting, the city last summer recommended two possible paths for the city council to consider: keeping Boulder Municipal Airport open indefinitely with private investment or eventually closing it — if legally allowed.
Meanwhile, a high-profile advocacy effort has been building to close the airport for housing, which intensified this election cycle when residents gathered enough signatures for ballot measures on the plan — though they later withdrew them. The outcome of the case will significantly impact this issue.
The FAA’s motion marks its first formal legal action to oppose Boulder’s challenge, suggesting a prolonged legal battle over the airport’s future.
At the heart of the lawsuit is whether the federal grants Boulder accepted decades ago require the city to keep the airport open indefinitely.
The city argues it received FAA grants for land purchases in 1959 and 1977, each with 20-year obligations, and that other grants do not obligate the city to operate the airport in perpetuity.
The FAA disagrees. In its motion to dismiss, the agency argues that the city accepted a 1991 grant for about $650,000 to acquire an easement for a project related to realigning a taxiway. According to the FAA, this grant obligates the city to keep the airport open unless the agency approves its closure.
The city has argued that the 1991 agreement was for a “construction easement” — not the acquisition of land — and therefore was not subject to the perpetual land purchase obligation. The FAA, however, states the 1991 agreement amounts to the purchase of “real property.” By signing the agreement, the city agreed to assurances that have “no limit,” preventing the city from closing the airport without FAA approval.
“When the City accepted the grant to acquire that property right, it also accepted certain conditions that require the City to seek FAA approval before closing the airport,” the lawsuit states. “The 1991 grant agreement specified that ‘there shall be no limit on the duration of the . . . assurances with respect to real property acquired with Federal funds.’”
The FAA is also seeking to have the case tossed out on several procedural grounds, including that the city lacks standing, the court does not have jurisdiction over the case, and the city’s constitutional claims fall outside the statute of limitations.
Boulder Municipal Airport, located in the city’s northeast corner, primarily serves private pilots, flight trainees, glider pilots and researchers. As momentum has built to close the airport and repurpose the land for housing, a counter-effort to keep it open has also gained traction. Supporters of keeping the airport cite various reasons, including avoiding an expensive legal fight with the FAA.
The legal response from the FAA is consistent with prior statements by the agency. In a letter to city officials, the FAA stated that “grant assurances associated with land purchased with Federal aid do not expire and the land must be used in perpetuity for its originally intended purpose.” The agency also indicated that while it could release Boulder from these obligations, such a release was “highly unlikely” given the airport’s ongoing value to civil aviation.
In the meantime, Boulder has stopped accepting federal grant money for the airport as the legal battle unfolds. The city’s most recent FAA grant, accepted in May 2020, came with a 20-year obligation, potentially allowing the airport to close by 2040, according to city officials. The city’s airport director resigned last month to take a job at Northern Colorado Regional Airport.
If the judge grants the FAA’s motion to dismiss, the lawsuit would be resolved in the agency’s favor. If denied, the case will likely proceed to trial.
$400K of our money down the drain on the FAA and no hotel rooms for the increased volume of homeless turned away in extreme weather this year.
Lynn – Is is a lot of money to spend especially when you consider that the city council got us into this mess, however we’re talking about unlimited use of public land and unlimited pollution until the end of time, so when you think about that way it doesn’t sound like too much to me.
Your article makes it sound like there was substantial support from the community for closing the airport, including the ballot measures. In fact, based upon their financial filings, the “airport to neighborhoods” movement was only funded by four individuals, two of whom don’t even live in the City of Boulder, and they didn’t raise any money after May of 2024. They spent most of their funds of professional petition signature gatherers who mis-represented the ballot measure by simply asking if signers were in favor of affordable housing, and not even mentioning that the petition included closing the airport. Political campaigns run on money, and the fact that they didn’t raise any funds after May indicates that they really were not planning on running a campaign, no yard signs, no postcards, no advertisements, not social media spend, no PR consultants, nothing. No wonder they withdrew their ballot measures, they realized that they were going to be crushed at the ballot box, and chose the more graceful exit. By and large, the Boulder community, and that includes those in the western part of the County who are beneficiaries of disaster evacuations and fire suppression, supports the Boulder airport by a wide margin. This is supported by the City’s own survey during the airport Community Conversation Project where 84% of the respondents expressed support for keeping the airport, and only 16% expressed an interest in closing it.
Everything about your little hobby is just gross. BDU is a dump and GA is for dirty selfish people who don’t care about anything or anyone but themselves. You should be ashamed of your life choices McKenna. Your legacy in Boulder is one of pollution and harassment.
And yet in all their wisdom the city wasted another $400k of taxpayers money on yet another lost cause…
Your movement was entirely astroturfed, I met real people who were trying to get it shut down and I only saw anonymous internet users supporting it. Furthermore, the Boulder airport is not being used for disaster evacuations and fire suppression. This was a talking point that the pro-airport campaign crafted, and according to members of our city council, this was a flat-out lie. The pro-airport campaign ran entirely on disinformation and a lot of good folks were tricked by you guys.
Lastly they withdrew their ballot measure because of this lawsuit. If the city loses the lawsuit, then the ballot measure would be futile and all their work would go to waste. If the city wins, expect a new ballot measure to be drafted. Your airplanes are poisoning our community.
Andrew McKenna – I think it’s quite telling that you wouldn’t identify yourself as someone uniquely positioned to directly benefit monetarily from the airport staying open. In addition, your campaign directly violated city rules.
https://boulderreportinglab.org/2024/08/01/boulder-city-clerk-rules-pro-airport-campaign-violated-election-rules/
Also, just for anyone who missed it Andrew McKenna has directly stated that the flight schools have no intention of switching to unleaded fuel or electric planes until we give them even MORE subsidies to do so.
https://boulderreportinglab.org/2024/07/09/as-boulder-considers-closing-its-municipal-airport-to-address-housing-shortage-lead-concerns-also-emerge/
Lastly, I would point out that the hobbyists using Boulder Airport are flying around in toys that cost $500,000 or more. Despite this they would rather spend money to keep the FAA agreement that pollutes our community everyday then switch the less polluting options.
$400K for consulting on whether to close airport. Nice! Right up there with the $23M Boulder spent to try to establish a municipal electric company.
We will do what it takes to liberate our town from pollution and selfish obnoxious behavior. Period.
Having an airport in our community is an example of a hobby and career in our midst. It brings home skills other than being engaged by telephones for our youth. It exemplifies and fleshes out realities in living life to the fullest. I expect City of Boulder to see the value of their airport and expand the city’s Role to show how lucky we are with the benefit and forsight of our heritage to establish our facility, instead of focusing on development. If you want to expand a tax base and affordable housing pick on someone else. And by the way: Learn to fly. Or at least please don’t remove our place of learning, joy, and essential business. I dont see any slow down in development without it.
G lovell- On the contrary, Municipalization was and will be a gain for BO! Watch what’s coming in ’25.
Doesn’t seem Boulder is smart enough to figure it out. Millions down the drain and nothing accomplished with municipalization. They city is incapable of even sheltering the homeless by implementing even the most minor of policy changes to address the actual problems. Too much entrenched bureaucracy preventing or undermining needed changes. But they always seem to have hundreds of thousands for feel good consultants to tell them what is already clear to those who pay attention. Maybe just use that money to hire people who have already done those things well to figure out how to do those things here. Every city council in Boulder since I’ve been here has been paralyzed when it comes to action. They like to “set things up” on paper for future councils to try to make it easier to achieve some better imagined future instead of actually getting more impactful things done in the present. The bigger the problems get the smaller the thinking.
Close Boulder Airport! General Aviation is gross pollution and obnoxious noise from dirty inconsiderate people who think their dirty little hobby is more important than your quality of life or the health of your children. Little goofy planes are the most disgusting thing on the front range bar none and serve ZERO purpose. General Aviation harasses and assaults the communities of Superior, Louisville, Lafayette, Broomfield and Westminster all day/everyday to the point that people are fleeing just to get away from the obnoxious noise that come from those dopey little lawnmower planes. General Aviation is absolute dirty garbage and its time to clean our skies once and for all!!
This is probably the funniest thing I have seen all day. I’m sorry you bought a home right next to an airport that has been there for almost 100 years, long before you.
Larry who doesn’t have the guts to share his full name – sounds like you need to move. Likely one of those people who move in by an airport, knowing full well that it is there, and then try to shut it down. What’s next, the train? Good luck.
And yes, I live in the flight path, knew so when moved there 20 years ago.
Hey “No One Cares,” I do. Obvious and relevant comment.
I hope they get the airport shut down. The leaded gas being dropped all over our community and noise pollution are not worth it to allow a few rich dudes fly their planes. I have never seen a more astroturfed movement than the pro-airport campaign. They had Google, and Facebook ads, and Reddit bots galore. Suddenly everyone on the Boulder subreddit’s favorite hobby was to watch planes all day. Seems like a weird hobby to me given all the better things to look at here, but what was weirder is that all the accounts who loved the airport so much were created within a month or two. Especially knowing that <200 people use the airport every year.
Didn’t it come to light that this whole “airport closure” movement reflects only a few houses in the surrounding area trying to boost their real estate value?
Why on earth are we still doing this — my son just took a flight lesson there and Boulder Airport is a valuable resource.
Most GA airplanes don’t cost 300k. In fact, I’d guess the value of most privately owned aircraft at that airport are under 100k
There hasn’t been a single study that shows increased levels of lead due to proximity to airport facilities.
These are the belligerent arguments of a crybaby that bought a house near a pre existing airport.
Before calling for the closure of Boulder Municipal Airport, let’s make sure we’re working with facts, not assumptions. The concerns about leaded fuel and noise pollution are understandable—but they’re already being addressed at the national level. The FAA is actively transitioning general aviation to unleaded alternatives, and Boulder Airport is expected to follow suit. This isn’t a permanent problem—it’s one that’s being solved.
Noise is another valid concern, but it should be weighed against the utility of the airport. Boulder’s airport supports wildfire response, emergency medical flights, search and rescue operations, flight training, and scientific research—not just recreational flying. Closing it would mean eliminating a critical public safety and transportation asset.
As for the narrative that it’s just wealthy elites flying around in “toys,” let’s set that record straight. Most of the aircraft based at Boulder are older, small piston planes—many valued between $50K and $100K. With aviation loans stretching 15–20 years, owning a plane can cost less per month than a new car. The average Boulder salary of $85K can absolutely support this, especially among flight instructors, engineers, first responders, and others who use these planes for practical and professional purposes.
If we’re serious about climate and equity, let’s support thoughtful modernization—not knee-jerk closures that remove infrastructure without understanding its full value to the community.