The Boulder City Council last week decided to hold a public hearing on the future of the city’s airport, setting the stage for councilmembers to publicly debate the issue and potentially reconsider a controversial decision to continue operating the airport indefinitely.
During a study session last month, a majority of councilmembers informally voted to keep the airport operating indefinitely. Unless reconsidered, such a decision could lead the city to accept federal grant money that comes with obligations to operate the airport in perpetuity.
Several councilmembers said they were frustrated by the decision, in part because it occurred during a study session without a formal public hearing and came amid unanswered questions about how to finance airport operations without federal funding. The decision to hold a public hearing is also partially a nod to pushback among some residents who have advocated for redeveloping the airport into affordable housing.
“I feel like the least we could do is offer a public hearing so that people do feel like they have been heard,” Councilmember Nicole Speer said last week. “Whatever the outcome of that decision is, at least people would have had a chance to speak to us publicly.”
The only member to oppose the public hearing was Councilmember Matt Benjamin, who has supported keeping the airport operating. He said a public hearing was unlikely to meaningfully add to the factual record because the city had already spent months gathering community feedback through townhalls and other outreach efforts.
“We did almost a year’s worth of outreach and engagement at quite a high level to get a lot of feedback on this,” he said. Referring to a public hearing, he added, “I just think it is important for community to be aware that it may not dramatically change how people think of this.”
Councilmembers also directed the city attorney to analyze whether the council should be able to weigh in more directly on whether the city accepts grants like those from the Federal Aviation Administration that come with a long-term encumbrance.
Generally, whether the city accepts grants falls under the purview of the city manager, not the city council, according to City Attorney Teresa Taylor Tate. But Tate acknowledged the city has not accepted a grant that would encumber city land in perpetuity and said it will require analysis to determine whether this would fall under the council’s purview.
If the council ultimately gains authority to weigh in on whether the city accepts FAA grants, it could reshape the earlier 5-4 decision to keep the airport operating indefinitely. Some councilmembers may support keeping the airport open for now but oppose accepting grants that would tie the city to operating it forever, preserving more flexibility over the airport’s future.
The timeline for the public hearing has not been set.
It will come at a time when residents are questioning assumptions about how to fund the airport without federal grants.
City officials said operations would require about $600,000 per year for the next 14 years, likely drawn from the general fund or transportation fund, at a time when sales tax revenue has leveled off, federal funding is uncertain, and the city faces a significant backlog of capital projects.
During the April study session, city officials told councilmembers that the Colorado Department of Transportation was unwilling to provide grant money without the city first signaling an intention to operate the airport indefinitely.
Residents with the Airport Neighborhood Campaign, which gathered signatures for a ballot measure to close the airport and repurpose the land for affordable housing, said that claim was inaccurate, according to a 46-page report detailing what the group called “substantial information gaps and errors” in the study session. City Manager Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde later apologized to the council for “misspeaking about what we understood to be CDOT’s position.”
The report also questions city officials’ projected FAA funding needs and said the financial forecasts are based on assumptions of aggressive private hangar development that could roughly double the airport’s plane capacity. The city has not stated an intention to pursue such expansion.
The group also released a memo from a Denver law firm arguing the April 23 study session likely violated Colorado’s Open Meetings Law by making a major policy decision in a format closed to public participation. The memo said the council should avoid acting on the airport without a public hearing or “risk exposing the City to potential litigation.”
The Boulder Municipal Airport dates to a dirt landing strip in 1928 in the city’s northeast corner. Today it is primarily used by hobbyists, student pilots and visitors. Some see it as a valuable community asset that should be protected.
Others see its 179 acres of city-owned land as an opportunity to build badly needed affordable housing. In 2024, residents collected thousands of signatures to place a measure on the ballot to decommission the airport and repurpose the land. They withdrew the petition after the city sued the FAA, seeking clarity on whether it could shut down the airport by 2040, when it believes its federal grant obligations expire. The case was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the city did not appeal.
