This commentary is by Laura Kaplan, a member of the City of Boulder Planning Board and an organizer of the 2024 Airport Neighborhood Campaign ballot measure effort.
The Boulder Municipal Airport saga has a new, alarming twist.
Boulder’s airport is a small, general aviation facility serving private planes, with no regular commercial or cargo flights. It sits on 174 acres of city-owned land, three miles from downtown.
For many years, Boulder voters and elected officials have discussed whether the airport site could serve a higher and better purpose. In the spring of 2024, I helped organize the Airport Neighborhood Campaign (ANC) to put two citizen initiatives on the ballot to decommission Boulder’s airport and repurpose the land. Over 3,400 verified city voters signed the petitions, qualifying the measure for the ballot.
One month later, the City of Boulder announced it was filing a lawsuit against the FAA to clarify the city’s right to close the airport. The ballot measures were withdrawn while this lawsuit was pending. In 2025, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, stating that the case was not legally ripe. This left the door open to refile the lawsuit when the city’s grant obligations expire in 2040.
Shockingly, we now find ourselves at a sudden crisis point. On Thursday, April 23, Boulder City Council will discuss how to fund repairs and maintenance at the airport. This will be a study session with no public hearing and no public comment. Buried inside this study session is a decision that few people understand or saw coming, and the stakes could not be higher.
The FAA recently informed Boulder that the agency’s funding terms (called grant assurances) have changed. In the past, FAA grants were available with assurances that expired in 20 years. But now, FAA grants for Boulder would come with an irrevocable, binding commitment to operate the airport indefinitely — obligations that never expire.
Boulder’s existing lawsuit hinges on the documented fact that the city never knowingly accepted a perpetual commitment to the FAA. Entering into a perpetual commitment now, with eyes wide open, could wipe out the city’s ability to refile its lawsuit. This is a new tactic the FAA is using to entice cash-strapped Boulder to sign away our rights.
This action strikes at the heart of democracy and future flexibility for the residents of the Boulder Valley. What if the city desperately needs that land for something in the future that we cannot even imagine today?
Consider also that being tied to the FAA prevents Boulder from running the airport according to local values that safeguard residents’ quality of life. FAA grant assurances are the reason the city can’t stop selling leaded aviation fuel, which disproportionately impacts people living closest to the airport, including lower-income residents and residents of color. They are why the city can’t institute quiet hours or require quieter equipment, despite thousands of annual violations of the airport’s voluntary noise abatement agreement. They are why the city can’t give preference to electric planes or researchers, or say no to flight schools that use runways for repetitive “touch and go” loops. The FAA considers all of this to be “discrimination” against some aviation users. It also considers the use of DEI criteria to be discrimination. Who knows what the FAA might require or prohibit in the future?
For those who want Boulder to keep the airport but are concerned about these things, please understand that saying no to FAA funding is not a decision to decommission the airport. It is entirely possible to run a locally controlled private airport without FAA funding or grant assurances.
We know that the city is scrambling to identify funding for a huge backlog of deferred maintenance across city-owned facilities. According to a city website, FAA funding has averaged about $250,000 per year. Let’s put that in context: $250,000 is a tiny fraction (.05%) of the city’s $520 million annual budget.
Furthermore, the city has barely begun to explore alternative airport funding options, such as landing fees and bringing artificially low airport rental rates up to market rate. According to the ANC’s review of airport reports, these measures could improve airport revenue by $200,000 per year. The city can also seek grants from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) that do not extend the city’s timeline of obligations. The city received a $450,000 grant from CDOT for repaving just this year.
Finally, while Boulder would be obligated to run an airport in perpetuity, the FAA is not obligated to fund the airport in perpetuity!
Normally, if the people of Boulder do not like council actions, we have democratic means to make corrections. We can vote for new councilmembers or launch a voter ballot initiative or referendum. Even the city’s charter and land-use decisions can be revised. In contrast, FAA grants are binding contracts that would disempower future Boulderites forever.
No sitting city councilmembers ran for election saying they would permanently sign away control of the airport site. City government is sworn to protect Boulder’s residents. It would be egregiously short-sighted to try to plug Boulder’s short-term funding hole by permanently trading away our precious rights to an increasingly unpredictable federal government.
