Jan Burton, a former city councilmember and supporter of the Boulder Municipal Airport, has filed a code of conduct complaint against Planning Board Chair Laura Kaplan, an outspoken advocate for repurposing the airport, arguing that her advocacy creates “a serious appearance-of-impartiality concern.”
The complaint, dated June 23, calls for Kaplan to recuse herself from airport matters while serving on the Planning Board. It also requests that the city remove a recent amendment to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan regarding lead pollution and noise impacts from the airport. The city is reviewing the complaint.
Burton’s complaint cites a provision in the city’s code of conduct stating that public officials shall “serve the best interests of the city regardless of his or her personal interest” and perform duties with “impartiality.” Burton does not claim Kaplan has any financial interest in closing the airport.
Kaplan was an organizer with the Airport Neighborhood Campaign, a 2024 ballot measure committee that advocated for closing the city’s airport and repurposing the land for affordable housing. She said Thursday she had read the complaint.
“I understand the city’s code of conduct as well as my role and obligations as a Planning Board member, and that I have faithfully adhered to the code,” Kaplan said. “I am cooperating fully with the City Attorney’s Office evaluation of the complaint.”
The complaint comes as the Boulder City Council debates the future of the city’s airport. Some residents want to close it and repurpose the land for housing. Others see it as a valuable community asset. Located in northeast Boulder, the facility primarily serves private pilots, flight trainees, glider pilots and researchers.
In 2024, the Airport Neighborhood Campaign collected more than 3,000 signatures before pulling the measure, citing a City of Boulder lawsuit against the Federal Aviation Administration. The city said the lawsuit sought clarity on when the city could legally close the airport. The case was dismissed on procedural grounds and the city chose not to appeal.
Earlier this year, the Boulder City Council informally voted to keep the airport operating indefinitely. The decision was controversial because it was made at a study session and would have allowed the city to accept FAA grants requiring it to operate the airport in perpetuity. But council later voted to revisit the decision, committing to hold a public hearing and directing the city attorney to report back on whether it could play a more direct role in deciding whether to accept FAA grants.
The council has tentatively scheduled a public hearing on the airport for July 23.
The complaint stems in part from a June 16 Planning Board meeting during which Kaplan proposed amending the draft Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan to include language identifying “inequitable impacts of airport operations” on neighboring communities. Dozens of homes sit within a half-mile of Boulder Municipal Airport, including the Vista Village and San Lazaro mobile home communities, which researchers have identified as disproportionately Latino and low-income. Kaplan and others have been particularly concerned about lead pollution from the airport.
A 2024 state analysis found that lead emissions from aircraft had a small but statistically significant effect on children’s blood lead levels statewide. Health officials say there is no known safe blood lead level in children, and even low levels of exposure can affect brain development and learning.
The update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, a long-range land-use planning document shared between the city and the county, has been in development since about October 2024.
The language Kaplan proposed was added as a condition of approval, meaning it will trigger negotiations with the Boulder City Council before the comprehensive plan is adopted. On Thursday, a majority of the council rejected the proposed change and sent it back to the Planning Board.
Burton criticized Kaplan for proposing the amendment late in the process.
“I’m not saying they can’t have their own personal views on things,” Burton said of members of boards and commissions. “She has advocated so strongly on a position and then she brings that to bear on the very last night that the Planning Board is talking about the Boulder Valley Comp Plan.”
Burton’s complaint also asks the city to review whether the June 16 meeting complied with Colorado’s open meetings law regarding public notice and transparency. It also asks the city to preserve emails and other communications among Planning Board members, city officials and advocacy groups regarding the airport’s closure.
In addition to Burton’s complaint, the city has received at least 15 code of conduct complaints against councilmembers and members of boards and commissions since 2023, a sharp increase compared with the prior decade. Nearly all resulted in findings of no violation or were deemed without merit. A special counsel found that two 2023 complaints had merit, later resulting in the Boulder City Council’s decision to remove a member from the Police Oversight Panel.
“primarily serves private pilots, flight trainees, glider pilots and researchers.”
The Boulder airport also serves emergency medical helicopters, especially fully loaded ones at Boulder’s high altitude when it’s hot out. I’m told that a (medical or Flight for Life) helicopter that is fully fueled and that has a crew often cannot take off purely vertically. It needs a runway to use forward motion for some of the needed initial lift.
Not true.
Why Helicopters Can’t Always Perform a Pure Vertical Takeoff
Weight and Power Limitations
A helicopter’s ability to hover and climb depends on whether its rotors can generate enough lift to overcome the aircraft’s total weight (the helicopter itself, fuel, crew, and any cargo). When a helicopter is fully fueled with a full crew, it approaches or exceeds its maximum takeoff weight. At this point, the rotor system may not have enough excess thrust available to accelerate vertically from a standstill.
The key distinction is between hover power (the power needed to stay stationary in the air) and excess power (the additional power available for vertical acceleration). A fully loaded helicopter might have just barely enough power to hover, leaving zero or negative excess power for climbing. In this case, a pure vertical takeoff is impossible.
How Helicopters Solve This Problem
Rolling Takeoff or Running Takeoff
The most common solution is a “rolling takeoff” or “running takeoff,” where the helicopter moves forward while ascending. This allows the rotor blades to generate translational lift—additional aerodynamic efficiency gained from forward airspeed—which reduces the power required to become airborne. Once airborne and moving forward, the helicopter can then gain altitude more easily.
Reduced Load
Alternatively, the crew might reduce weight by:
Burning fuel in flight before taking off (for transport helicopters)
Carrying less cargo or fewer passengers
Using a lighter crew configuration if possible
Slope Takeoff
In mountainous terrain, helicopters can take off from a slope, which effectively gives them an initial “head start” in terms of rotor disk angle and airflow dynamics.
For medical helicopters specifically, this constraint is particularly relevant because they often operate in confined spaces (hospital helipads, clearings) where a rolling takeoff may not be possible, which is why weight management and fuel planning are critical operational considerations.
Laura Kaplan has long been warned by fellow planning board members that her advocacy about the airport while serving on Planning Board gave an appearance of a conflict, at the very least, and quite possibly an actual conflict. Her response was always: city attorney tells me I can do this because of my first amendment rights. Of course she has that right…but the issue is that her right and her Planning Board responsibility are in conflict and leave her actions vulnerable to the very charges leveled by Jan Burton. Worse, her actions put the entire Planning Board and its input under a shadow. This has been an issue for at least 4 years (since I served on Planning Board) and it saddens me that Laura has yet to recognize the implications of her failure to choose EITHER advocacy for her airport plan OR her responsibility as a Planning Board member. I say this as a person who generally agrees with Laura’s hopes for the airport.
How is this different, though, than city council members advocating during meetings for keeping the airport open – like Matt Benjamin as a former pilot? If he had a current license would that make a difference? Would Jan have to recuse herself from these discussions and votes if she were still on city council?
Yes
Sarah, you are brave to speak out as a former Planning Board member. It must be difficult to push back on a fellow board member, but thanks for attempting. The city should be more active on educating and implementing their own codes of conduct:
Boulder’s Code of Conduct 2-7-8 Expectations:
1. Strive at all times to serve the best interests of the city regardless of his or her personal interest.
2. Perform duties with honesty, care, diligence, professionalism, impartiality and integrity.
3. Strive for the highest ethical standards to sustain the trust and confidence of the public they serve, not just the minimum required to meet legal or procedural requirements.
4. Use sound judgment to make the best possible decisions for the city, taking into consideration all available information, circumstances and resources.
5. Act within the boundaries of his or her authority as defined by the city charter and code.
Laura clearly did not follow this code, and she used the immense power of her position as Chair of the Planning Board to push her personal agenda. That’s the problem.
Laura attempted to remove all recognition of the airport as a critical element of emergency response from the Plan. It’s recent use as an operations area when dealing with floods and wildfires was critical in community safety. The airport is a unique multi-purpose area that needs to be preserved. When not supporting community safety, it is a site for businesses that contribute to the financial well being of the city. It could contribute even more if he city would commit to actively supporting the airport instead of constantly trying to threaten it’s existence.
Another interesting twist to your piece on the Boulder airport is that Jan Burton parks her plane at the Boulder Municipal airport.
Kent, why is that a twist? I’ve been very open about flying out of the Boulder Airport. However, I attended two meetings on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan like all other citizens and had no more consideration than any other attendee. That’s not true of Laura, who used her power as Chair of the Planning Board to position her verbiage on the very last night, with no public involvement. That’s why the City has a Code of Conduct…to prevent that kind of bias from disrupting normal public process. Thanks.
This is seems a like another attempt to silence anyone who questions the need of the Boulder Airport or even wants to have a more thoughtful discussion about it’s future.
I’ve worked with public institutions and with public funds for decades, though I’m certainly not an expert on this part of the city code. These accusations are vague and I don’t see the conflict at this point. I suspect Kaplan will be cleared here.
There is some important context missing here which is that Burton is a pilot that keeps her private plane at the public airport. It is my understanding this was also the case when she was on council. Further she made several decisions related to airport during that time. Has that ever been investigated?
Matt Benjamin is also a pilot. His connections to the airport and the airport community raise much bigger concerns for me.
Jan Burton filed the complaint. She was on CC and sits on committees while influencing and making decisions about the airport as she owns a private plane at the airport. This is the wealthy trying to hush grassroots. Folks need to see the pattern with our leadership, staff, and our airport.
Anyone can file a complaint…if he/she believes that there is an injustice. We expect integrity out of our elected officials and their associates. We need to have faith in our government. How can an airport opponent like Laura K or anyone (in her personal capacity) give trusted, objective input to our elected leaders (in her professional capacity) as a Planning Board member? This just smells rotten. She should recuse herself, and let all the remaining Planning Board members continue their work for us citizens of Boulder. An outcome of several Community Conversation sessions indicated that 84% of Boulder supports the airport.
Problems with the CO Department of
health study on airplane fuel and lead emissions.
While the study revealed “that lead emissions from aircraft had a small but statistically significant effect on children’s blood lead levels statewide” the study did not provide specific or conclusive details that the activity at Boulder Municipal airport contributed a statistically significant effect. Moreover, the dept of health study extrapolated data based on emissions from DIA and Jeffco as well as other larger airports. The idea that we should close the airport to build more housing defies logic since we will loose a facility that benefits many and can never be regained. Further, if Laura Kaplan and her ilk what to live in a suburban community move to Louisville or back to California. The idea that we need to build houses for everyone who might want to live in Boulder is pure nonsense. Let’s see what the University does with CU South. There is always the reserve land which rivals the airport land. In addition, the city should have annexed out to 75th street or 95the street. Why haven’t we?
There are many the options better than loosing a gem like our municipal airport.
As of July 2026 (essentially now), Boulder airport will begin selling unleaded fuel and some major buyers of fuel like the Soaring Society and the flight training facility have committed to using it. Pilots prefer to use unleaded as well because it reduces lead fouling and extends oil life. Leaded fuel is scheduled to be totally banned 4 years from now. So the lead emissions issue should become mute soon.
The problem with the CO Dept of Health study is that they did not control for other sources of lead. Boulder kids are slightly higher than the state average, but well below any threshold considered dangerous. Maybe that is because Boulder has older housing stock with lead paint, or maybe it is because Boulder kids have more access to dark chocolate (see Consumer Reports https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-cadmium-are-common-in-chocolate-especially-organic-a1042224604/),
or South American cinnamon (https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-contaminants/high-lead-levels-in-cinnamon-powders-and-spice-mixtures-a4542246475/),
or maybe it is because there are thousands of abandoned mines, including lead mines in the Boulder watershed. Not all lead comes from aviation uses, and it is misleading to suggest that a small statistical difference in Boulder kids is because of aviation activity.
Lead from aviation is a straw man argument used as leverage by the anti airport folks, when in reality it is not an issue that is anywhere near the top 10 list of sources of lead that concerns the CO Dept of Health.
If we are worried about lead, we have to prioritize the real sources.
Great cities have airports. Want to kneecap Boulder from being as great as it can be? Go ahead and shut down the airport. Then crowd thousands of more people into the property, along with the additional traffic and congestion, and pollution that will bring. Our little airport is not a significant source of lead pollution, and it has been there for a very long time. Way before housing developments, which were built and sold to consumers who knew they were buying property near an airport. If Jan Burton is cool and polished enough to own and operate an airplane then she is the kind of neighbor I would prefer to have, along with the airport that supports her flight activities. This long time resident of Boulder is feds up with the unrestrained condo development that has choked our little town with three story buildings and parking lots for all the new cars on the road. Maybe folks should consider the proposition that not everybody can live in Boulder. Sorry, sad but true! We cannot just expand endlessly and retain our towns character. It is already “progressed” very far from the chill little town it once was. And yes, I have mine, you go get your’s. Not everyone can live in Newport Beach or Central Park West either. Welcome to the USA! The FAA is not easily going to allow the airport to be shut down. It is their job to defend the airport, and they will! It will be costly and disruptive to battle them, just to jam more people into our once peaceful and uncrowded town. NOPE!