July 27, 2024

Here’s something on which both ourselves and airport supporters can agree - EVERYONE is unhappy with the recommendations from the airport financial analysis. 

Both sides feel that further development of the airport in order to meet funding needs is wrong, but for different reasons.  Both sides cite unwanted increases in noise and environmental impacts.  Beyond this, our reasoning differs.

See below for our position, a “Minimal and Safe Airport Until Closure” Scenario, where aviation pays it own way to the extent feasible, " as well as alternative possibilities for funding the airport until closure.

Airport supporters are opposed to the development plan because of its scale and a perceived attempt to attract private and corporate jets.   Jan Burton, a former city council member and also a pilot who rents a hangar at the airport, told the Boulder Reporting Lab, "That's not what anyone wants.  It's a community airport.  Everybody wants it to stay that way."

Airport supporters claim that the airport is "self-sustaining", pointing out that until now it has not required subsidies from the city's general fund.   And yet, the fact is that of years of deferred maintenance at the airport have created significant problems, including pavement needs that airport manager John Kinney called “burdensome.”  He said, “Unfortunately, you’re changing the oil on this car for the first time at 80,000 miles.”.

At the July 25 City Council meeting, Transportation and Mobility Director Natalie Stiffler siad, "limited revenue in the airport fund and airport revenue has not kept pace with the airport's needs" and that for decades the city's strategy has been to do "the bare minimum."  (See news item "City Council defers decisions on Boulder airport.")

We agree that further development at the airport is the wrong path

The Airport Neighborhood Campaign (ANC) argues that further airport development for any purpose is "financially unsound and wasteful".   We say no to:

• the construction of new facilities that might require city subsidies to attract tenants, 
• the lack of study of the negative impacts of airport growth, and also 
• any Council decision making before the November election when voters will decide on the ballot initiatives to repurpose the airport.

The Airport Neighborhood Campaign instead urges a “Minimal and Safe Airport Until Closure” Scenario, where aviation pays it own way to the extent feasible. "  

This scenario would assume legal airport closure in 2041 or sooner, and: 

• NO additional land would be made available for development
• NO additional permanent buildings, whether aviation-related or not, would be built at the airport site
• No additional hangar capacity
• Necessary health and safety rehabilitation of existing facilities would be permitted. 
• Temporary, easily removable structures (ones that do not increase the number of planes based at BDU and are not likely to attract more air traffic to BDU) could be permitted

Importantly, this scenario should creatively assess maximum potential for aviation to pay its own way without further developing the airport.. Options to consider include 

• landing fees on all aircraft 
• increased hangar rental rates 
• increased fees on leaded fuel
• other fees and charges as feasible and legal 
• where possible, using fee structures to encourage the use of unleaded fuel, and discourage the use of leaded fuel, to reduce impacts from leaded fuel 

We understand that each of these options is allowable even under FAA grant obligations.

On his July 18 post to the Boulder Council Hotline, Council Member Wallach proposed several potential alternative funding mechanisms.   He said:

“And in terms of minimizing the burden on the General Fund in order to fund airport expenses until 204, has there been any analysis of alternatives to funding those costs directly from the General Fund? These alternatives could include the following:

1. i) Using the City’s newly passed infrastructure tax to fund these infrastructure costs.
2. ii) Entering into a Certificate of Participation transaction secured by a $400-800MM piece of property in order to fund infrastructure improvements.

   iii) A small bond issuance to do so.

1. iv) A land loan? I think that a $20-30MM land loan would be regarded as exceedingly secure by a lender given the overall value of the property (i.e., a loan to value ratio of 20:1) secured by both the land and the City’s guaranty).
2. v) Some form of public/private partnership in which development rights over a portion of the land (hopefully, a very small portion) are granted in exchange for funding over the 18- year period?
3. vi) A slow drawdown from our extensive reserves to fund these expenses, either in whole or in part.
4. vi) Any other transaction that the creativity of staff could generate.”.

Daily Camera, Boulder airport financial analysis draws criticisms from community

Boulder Reporting Lab, Boulder considers expanding its airport, ahead of potential closure