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.
Editor’s note: The April 23 straw poll did not emerge in a vacuum. It was the latest chapter in a yearslong debate over whether Boulder Municipal Airport should remain a small general aviation airport or eventually be redeveloped, with housing often cited by closure advocates as the most valuable alternative use. Find more background on the straw poll here, along with our coverage of the issue dating to 2023.
This BRL article failed to mention that the Boulder Municipal Airport has played critical rolls in emergencies, especially fires and floods.
Mark Wallach wrote that the City should fund the airport for the next 14 years, sue the FAA again and then, if the City wins, ask the population to decide what to do with the airport. Why wait 14 years? Because Mark Wallach does not like the answer the City received from the $500K Community Conversation study, which overwhelming voted to continue operating the airport.
I agree with Mark Wallach: it is insane that this city council decided AT A STUDY SESSION to bind us permanently to the airport and FAA. How is this democracy? This is cowardice. (And an incredibly stupid decision by the city.)
I applaud the City Council for making a decision to preserve a valuable Boulder Asset. Making a long-term commitment to its airport, Boulder now has the opportunity to be a leader in airport management and a model for forward thinking in aviation practices: providing essential emergency services for flood and wildfire disasters (especially critical in these times of exponential wildfire threat), research and education programs, outreach to underserved members of the community providing aviation career options, education opportunities for youth working with senior aviators, sustainability including utilizing unleaded aviation fuel (starting this summer) and in the future electric airplanes as well as renewable energy for example setting up solar arrays over the parking lot to provide the community with renewable power. And with regard to housing, Boulder has much less expensive and more immediately available options than the airport. I have been told that there are already 17,000 additional housing units already approved in the City of Boulder.
The characterization as the airport as a part of “housing options” has always been really odd to me. It’s a fully functioning and utilized piece of infrastructure. Viewed through the lens that any infrastructure in the city is up for grabs for redevelopment it could also be “datacenter options”, “watershed options” or “casino options”.
The airport serves multiple important functions. We should take available Federal funding to support those functions in the same way Federal grants pay for a significant amount of our other transportation infrastructure (e.g. the bikeway on 119).
Horrible decision. It’s amazing to me that all the business leaders involved in this discussion can’t think of any thing except to receive more tax payer hand outs and giving away our land to the federal government until the end of time.
It’s not giving away anything, Mike.
Aircraft pay a fuel tax in every gallon of fuel which goes into the FAA trust fund to be used for airport improvements. Why not apply for funds that will improve the airport? It makes sense.
The fuel tax has been coming up again in this discussion so let’s break it down. Fuel taxes on avgas make up about 1-2% of the FAA trust fund. Where as these flights make up more than 40% of operations. There are obviously different ways to look at operations and flights, but the bottom line is that once again these pilots don’t pay even close to their fair share.
From the first part of the meeting I viewed this morning, Nuria and Theresa are not sure whether city council even should be making a decision on the perpetuity question because it could be considered a purely operational decision made by staff since it involves contracts. In her intro, Nuria alluded to that situation saying that this study session will help determine what direction “staff wants to move in.” The inability or unwillingness of city council members to get a firm grasp on how to direct policy is clear once again. Staff’s will generally carries the day.
Why isn’t there an unbiased, credible, in-depth study being done on this (with no connection to city staff) and then let the voters decide in November?
The City can preserve its right to sue the FAA again in 2040 by spending $9-10M to carry the airport costs without grants. Then a few more milluon for the lawsuit and carry cost over a few years of litigation. There is no indication the lawsuit will get any further in 2040+ than it did in 2024. The FAA (with unlimited funds) will constest and appeal for decades if Boulder happens to win after 2040. Choosing not to take FAA grants is fiscal insanity.
City council knows the Boulder Airport is an asset that will only serve us more as Sundance is here to stay for the next 10 years – at least. Let’s get some more FAA money, and figure a way to build housing elsewhere.
YIKES…i can’t even imagine what happens if the celebs coming to Sundance start arriving in their private jets. Boulder will have officially become Aspen. If that becomes the case, then let’s just stop pretending to care about housing affordability.
Not taking the FAA money means the City can decide what it wants to do with the airport rather than the federal govt telling us what we must do with it. How many people actually use the airport? 100? 200? In a city of 100,000? If ever there was an indicator of how the federal govt helps the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, this would be it.
How many Boulder residents actually use the airport? I’d guess it’s less than a few dozen, but some of them seem to have an outsized influence over the council…
With that said, I look at it this way. There are essentially 4 airports in the county alone. People can drive a few more minutes and do all these activities. The idea that BDU is somehow essential is ludicrous.