Opinion: The Boulder airport decision needs more complete analysis

I’ve been following the council’s process around the Boulder airport and have been frustrated by the lack of good background info regarding the options. So, I did a bit of research. Thanks to all who helped me, including a long-time climbing partner, who is a pilot and an attorney and was involved in the Aspen airport fight.

Regarding the “straw poll” that the council took at a recent study session: Some attempted to treat this as a decision to accept a grant from the FAA, which, per the FAA’s terms, would require continuing the airport operations indefinitely, and under FAA jurisdiction.

The council should read its own rules. Charter Section 16 states, “The council shall act only by ordinance, resolution, or motion.” The Boulder Revised Code Sec. 2-2-8 requires a council motion to approve the city manager’s signing of any lease of three years or longer. And the council is only empowered to make such motions at official meetings, not study sessions.

The reason that FAA jurisdiction is an issue is that the FAA sees these local airports as part of a nationwide system; it then uses Federal funding (our tax money) to promote its goals. So, the FAA might oppose local desires, e.g., to limit the times of use and/or size of planes, etc. And the FAA has dragged its feet on ending the use of leaded gas, now saying by 2030. (The U.S. officially ended it for cars 30 years ago.)

The FAA now requires, in exchange for grants, a commitment to run the airport under its jurisdiction for an indefinite period into the future. This commitment used to be limited in time; Boulder’s was to expire in 2040.

But … there is one easement Boulder purchased in 1991 for $5,800 that is a bone of contention. The city sued to clarify its obligation because FAA money was apparently involved in this purchase, and the FAA is claiming that this pittance created a perpetual obligation to keep the airport open under the FAA’s terms. The court dismissed the case without prejudice; the judge found that the city’s current FAA obligations remain in effect for another 15 years anyway, so the case was not “ripe” for a decision.

Given the current craziness in the federal government and the federal courts, waiting to re-litigate until this insanity recedes makes sense to me.

So, what are the alternatives if the city does not want to incur further obligations to the FAA and be subject to their rule? According to one City document I read, the airport has been receiving about $250,000 per year from the FAA and state government to subsidize the airport. Other than that, it is financially self-sustaining, from revenues from hangar rentals, etc. The question then is: How could the city replace that $250,000? (By the way, this is only about 0.05% of the city budget.)

My immediate thought was to charge the planes that use the airport what are called “landing fees.” Collecting landing fees is easy. I talked to Vector Airport Systems, the biggest company that does this. They charge between 10% and 20%, depending on account size and service levels.

The Boulder airport (KBDU) has something over 60,000 “operations” per year (takeoffs plus landings). To get $250,000 plus a 20% fee comes out to $10 per landing. Boulder charges $15 to go to a rec center, so $10 per landing doesn’t seem that burdensome.

According to Vector, at least half of KBDU’s traffic is transient, meaning originating from other airports; therefore, those pilots are not paying hangar fees and are likely not purchasing fuel at KBDU. They are mostly performing training operations and then heading back home. Landing fees are perhaps the only method for collecting revenue from such users.

Vector also supplied some examples of airports like KBDU that 1) don’t have commercial service, 2) the majority of traffic is from smaller aircraft, and 3) implemented landing fees without a weight minimum, charging aircraft of all sizes. Notice the recent trend: Santa Monica, CA (2003), Heber City, UT (2024), Kissimmee, FL (2025), Spanish Fork, UT (2025), Torrance, CA (2024), Van Nuys, CA (2026), Mesa, AZ (coming in 2026). I’ve heard Longmont is considering them.

A look at the future airport budget tells me that the airport will run an annual deficit of something like $400,000 per year over the next 8 years. To collect that, I assume that the “operations” will go up to something like 70,000 per year, as I read in one projection. That’s 35,000 landings, or $13-14 per landing (including max 20% Vector fee). Hardly outrageous.

 

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Why is Boulder sending out another biased survey?

No doubt many of you remember the surveys the city of Boulder sent out a couple of years ago that appeared to be so biased as to be essentially useless other than as propaganda pieces. Well, last Friday I and many others received another one of these sell-jobs enticingly titled “Family-Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods.”  Translating, this means adding the maximum density to the still surviving lower-density parts of Boulder that the council can do without violating the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. FYI, the BVCP cannot be changed without the consent of the County Commissioners, who have a lot more sense and are not advocates of unlimited growth at any cost. Fortunately, this limits the damage the “progressives” can cause, at least for the immediate future. In addition to the cavalier attitude of some of our council members about unilaterally changing the character and livability of our neighborhoods, the survey offends by asserting that this is an attempt to address housing cost...
Read more

Comments from readers on my column on the ‘Family Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods’ survey

I received many times the usual number of comments regarding my recent column on the “Family Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods” survey and the willingness of some council members to ignore what the apparent majority of citizens respondents want. These came to me directly and also via NextDoor. Here are some of them, occasionally with edits for length and style: “Thank you for your editorial/letter about growth in Boulder. I thought I was the only one noticing and concerned about it!!” “The ‘progressives’ who have taken control of Boulder just seem to be developers in disguise.” “Neighborhood densifying: nothing has been said about PARKING — a disaster for those who do not have a driveway to park.” “Why do the ‘progressives’ just want to stuff more and more people (and cars) into Boulder? It just makes no sense.” “Collectively the community survey delivered a statistically significant ‘against’ the proposed changes … two to one not in favor, for instance...
Read more