Boulder’s Municipal Airport Remains in Limbo Pending Litigation

Boulder’s Municipal Airport was established nearly a century ago in 1928, as a destination for business flying, law enforcement, and recreation. Through the years, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provided grants to the city to support the airport’s operation and maintenance. Although the city of Boulder stopped accepting grants in 2020 and began evaluating the future of the airport, a debate still rages between the city and the FAA about whether or not the city is obligated to keep the airport operable and open in “perpetuity.” Now, the city of Boulder is suing the FAA with the hopes of releasing the city from its long-term obligations to the FAA. 

Sarah Huntley, the Communications and Engagement Director of the City of Boulder, told Yellow Scene, “The question has to do with: we have over the years accepted some grant funding for infrastructure at the airport from the FAA, and there’s a lack of clarity as to how long we are obligated to continue to maintain that use of infrastructure given that we accepted the grants.” 

The city of Boulder [believes] there’s a set time clock on how long we’re obligated. And some recent communications from the FAA suggest that they think we are obligated in perpetuity. So, we’ve asked a court to look at the grant agreements and look at those different arguments and make a determination, explained Huntley. 

In a letter that was sent to the city of Boulder in March of this year, however, the FAA stated, “Grant assurances associated with land purchased with Federal aid do not expire, and the land must be used in perpetuity for its originally intended purpose.” 

The organization’s spokesperson explained that the airport provides a tremendous amount of benefit to civil aviation, pointing to this as a reason to maintain the restrictions. On the other hand, critics of the airport point to factors like noise and lead pollution as reasons to close it. And these fears aren’t unwarranted. In fact, studies have shown that living near lead-burning planes can contribute to higher concentrations of lead in the blood, which can cause issues like lower cognition and academic performance. 

The airport’s logs show about 65,000 flights annually. Comparatively, the nearby Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport conducts about three times as many flights. Yet one of the reasons why the city of Boulder is looking to close the airport is due to a small supply of affordable housing in the region. The airport’s closure could provide a developmental opportunity to create more community support. 

Both the city of Boulder and the Airport Neighbor Campaign community have taken steps to understand public sentiment surrounding the use of the Boulder Municipal Airport. The city’s surveys and meetings largely showed community support for keeping the airport open, with the caveat that issues like noise and pollution should be addressed. Opponents of the airport’s closure also point to the tremendous expenses that would be accrued from decommissioning the property. 

Taking the argument to court should clarify what terms – if any, should be held over the city., and whether or not anything can be done to change the airport at all. “The conversation about what to do with the airport in the future is going to be informed by our understanding of the timeline,” said Huntley. 

Independent to the city of Boulder, the Airport Neighborhood Campaign’s ballot measure committee gathered enough signatures to put a measure on November’s ballot, leaving the topic in voters’ hands as to whether or not the airport should be decommissioned. Since the original announcement, the committee has rescinded the measure until further clarification surrounding the terms of Boulder City’s agreement can be reached. 

One thing that’s clear is that keeping the airport open in “perpetuity” would lead to new developments and potentially more noise and carbon emissions – a big complaint to those who already live in the area. 

When asked about the FAA’s current position on the airport, the organization’s public affairs officer, Brittany Trotter, wrote, “Due to pending litigation with the City of Boulder and the airport, we cannot provide comment.” A court date has not yet been set to address the concerns of the FAA and the City of Boulder. However, the terms reached in court could set the tone for other small airports across the country. 

As it battles the FAA, the city has proposed two possible visions for the airport to the Boulder City Council. Both scenarios involve expansion. One would keep the airport open indefinitely, relying on private investments for capital improvements and maintenance. The other would close the airport, but not before offering 30 to 40-year leases to spur development and generate short-term revenue.

The airport closure campaign said Boulder has time to make this decision as a community. “The campaign for ‘housing for people, not parking for planes’ is a marathon, not a sprint,” it stated, adding that the campaign “stands ready to re-petition for the ballot measures after the litigation concludes.”