The Boulder City Council on April 23 directed city officials to keep the city’s airport open “indefinitely,” effectively paving the way for the city to seek federal funding that could permanently restrict its ability to repurpose the facility.
The unusually narrow 5-4 informal vote was the first time the council has weighed in on the airport’s future in recent years amid intense debate between those who want to close it and repurpose the land for housing and those who see it as a valuable community asset. Located in northeast Boulder, the facility primarily serves private pilots, flight trainees, gliders and researchers.
The decision was made through a “straw poll” taken during a study session, which the council typically uses to gather information from city officials and provide general guidance. The informality of the vote added some ambiguity to exactly where councilmembers stand.
Councilmembers directed city officials to draft a resolution capturing the council’s position to be voted on at a later meeting.
Supporting indefinite airport operations were Mayor Aaron Brockett, Mayor Pro Tem Tara Winer and Councilmembers Taishya Adams, Matt Benjamin and Rob Kaplan.
Voting against committing the city to perpetual operations were Councilmembers Tina Marquis, Ryan Schuchard, Nicole Speer and Mark Wallach.
Proponents said they were concerned the cost of maintaining the airport without federal help could impact other city services, such as recreation centers. City officials estimated it would cost roughly $600,000 per year for the next 14 years if the city declined to seek grant money from the Federal Aviation Administration. Some of this money would come from the city’s general fund, which is used to pay for a wide range of city services, according to city officials.
“I’ve been really intrigued by the possibility of the airport repurposing,” Brockett said. But he said pursuing this plan would mean waiting until 2040, spending millions of dollars from the city’s general fund on the airport and filing another lawsuit with the FAA. “It might well come to nothing. In the meantime, the airport will be gradually deteriorating, the deferred maintenance would be piling up. And so my concern is we’re putting an important city facility at real risk.”
Councilmembers who opposed locking the city into perpetual operations said they were concerned about making such a significant decision through an informal vote without a public hearing, and about encumbering the city’s 179 acres for the foreseeable future. City officials estimated the land at the airport is worth up to $203 million.
“For a decision this consequential, I cannot believe we’re using a straw poll at a study session for guidance. This really requires community input, it requires a hearing,” Wallach said. “Continued operation for the airport without grants is temporary and can be changed. Applying for the FAA grants is permanent and forever.”
The city filed a lawsuit in July 2024 against the FAA, seeking a ruling that would allow it to close the airport by 2040, when the city estimates its most recent federal grant obligations expire. The case was dismissed on procedural grounds without prejudice, meaning the city could refile. The city chose not to appeal.
During that litigation, the FAA reiterated its position that federal grants the city has accepted require it to keep the airport operating in perpetuity unless the FAA approves its closure. Any decision to resume accepting federal funding could therefore bind the city and limit its ability to make future decisions about the airport’s fate.
In 2024, residents with the Airport Neighborhood Campaign gathered signatures for a ballot measure to close the airport and repurpose the land for affordable housing. The group collected more than 3,000 signatures before pulling the measure, citing the city’s litigation against the FAA.
