City Council - Special Meeting

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Thursday, July 23rd special meeting of the Boulder City Council. I'm going to go ahead and call us to order. Can we do a roll call, please, Alicia?

Yes, sir. Thank you, and good evening, everyone. Welcome back. We'll start tonight's roll call, as usual, with Council Member Adams. Present. Benjamin.

Present.

Mayor Brockett.

Present.

Council Member Kaplan.

Present.

Marquis. Present. Shewhart.

Here.

Speer.

Present.

Wallach.

Here.

And Mayor Pro Tem Weiner. Present. Mayor, we have our quorum.

Thank you so much. All right. So now I need to ask for a motion to amend the agenda. And this is a little bit complicated. So the existing agenda had item 3A as the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan adoption and 3B as the continued operation of the airport consideration. We need to remove the BVCP item because we don't have time to get to it tonight. So my request is to have a motion to amend the agenda to remove 3A for BVCP adoption and renumber 3B to 3A as well as To add item 2E, which is consideration of a motion to authorize the city attorney to appoint Jerome A. De Herrera as special counsel to investigate and if necessary prosecute complaints 2026-005-CCC and 2026-006-CCC related to alleged code of conduct violations filed pursuant to section 278 expectations BRC 91 and setting forth related details. And to add item 2F, consideration of a motion to hold the July 30th, 2026 city council special meeting in person.

So moved. Second.

Theresa.

Mayor. Yes. Because this public hearing was continued to a date certain, I believe procedurally what you would need to do is open the public hearing and then accept a motion to continue.

For the BVCP?

Yes, sir.

Okay. So I'm going to go back to my motion and revise it NOT INCLUDE THE DELETION OF ITEM 3B. I'M SORRY, 3A, THE BVCP ADOPTION. WHEN WE GET THERE INSTEAD, WE'LL OPEN IT AND CONTINUE IT AND CLOSE IT. SO THAT'S MY REVISED MOTION.

SO MOVED. SECOND.

WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. OKAY. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. SO THE AGENDA HAS BEEN AMENDED. CAN WE GO TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE, ELISHA?

Yes, sir, thank you. Our consent agenda tonight is item two on the agenda, and it consists of items 2A through 2F.

Great. Any questions or comments on this one? I got Tina and then Ryan.

Yeah, I just had a quick question about whether there's, what would be the opportunity to make a language change on any of the items that might be put forth or to give feedback on one of the ballot measures?

Councilmember, you could certainly do that tonight. Another option would be to wait for the second reading and then continue to a third reading. That would probably be our preference. Perfect. Thank you. And no surprises rule, so hotline would be helpful. 100%. Thank you.

Question for staff on item E. That's the motion to authorize city attorney to appoint special counsel. My impression is this is a perfunctory, intended to be a perfunctory item for counsel that city code just calls for us to move forward. And I want to make sure I have that right, and this would not be the right place to weigh in on the substance of or the merits of that item, item E.

Yes, Councilmember, that's correct. So the Boulder Revised Code Section 2-7, which is the code of conduct, names the city attorney as the investigator for a complaint against a member of a board or commission. As you read in the agenda memo, my office has a conflict and is unable to conduct an impartial investigation. And so I've requested that council appoint special counsel as provided for in the code.

Thank you. Great. Not seeing any other hands raised. I'll make a comment here, which is on item D three, which is the first reading, um, of the question of amending the Boulder home rule charter to add a new collective bargaining section for firefighters. And just wanted to thank the Firefighters Union. I noticed a number of them are here tonight. Great to see you out there. I really appreciate the flexibility in working with the city on coming up with mutually agreeable language. Looking forward to seeing that get on the ballot and hopefully be passed. So thanks to all of you for your service and working together. And with that, perhaps a motion. Make a motion to pass the consent agenda second got a motion a second roll call, please Alicia Yes, sir, thank you.

We'll start the roll call for the consent agenda items to a through to F with mayor Pro Tem Weiner Yes Councilmember Adams. Yes Benjamin. Yes Mayor Brunkett. Yes Councilmember Kaplan. Yes Marquis. Yes shoehard.

Yes

Speer? Yes. And Wallach? Yes. The consent agenda is hereby approved unanimously.

Thanks so much. Can we go to item 3A for the BVCP adoption, please?

Item 3A is the first public hearing on tonight's agenda, and it is the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan BVCP adoption, consideration of one or more motions to. First motion on the table is the motion to amend conditions of approval to the Boulder Valley Complan update made by the planning board. Motion number 2 is the approve or amend conditions of approval to the boulder Valley comprehensive plan update made by the board of County commissioners and the 3rd motion is the motion to approve or amend recommended amendments to the boulder Valley comp plan update made by the planning board County planning Commission and board of County commissioners.

Thanks so much. So, Nury, I'll just pass this over to you, because that's how we always start these items. For a quick introduction, then we'll do a continuation.

Thanks so much, Mayor. I'll say that we have been talking about our BVCP adoption for quite some time. It is now before the four bodies. We have had several meetings, and I just want to thank staff who has been working so incredibly to move this forward. Um, I know that there is a desire for us to, um, finalize it. And yet with tonight's meeting of great interest, I know that we have, um, some time consideration. So we look forward to having a fuller conversation at our next meeting.

Thanks so much. And Teresa, do we just need a motion to continue?

Mayor, you would want a motion to continue to a particular date that you name.

And I'm thinking August 6th is our most likely date to end on this and I guess we can continue again if we absolutely have to but Brad do you have a different date in mind?

Yeah good evening council Brad Mueller director of planning and development services. We did want to actually pull the council tomorrow morning assuming that you weren't going to hear it tonight. I believe and I'll check with council on this. I believe if the item is withdrawn and we just re-notice it, that'll be, because we don't have a date certain at this point.

We could, however, as I, and our city attorney will correct me, we could name a date certain right now. And if we come back and change that date, we can then notify differently. And so at least for tonight, maybe August 6th would be good. And then we would follow up tomorrow and confirm or provide community with new notice.

Okay, very good. Then I'll go ahead and make a motion to continue this item to August 6th.

Second.

Got a motion to second. Do a show of hands on this guy. All in favor, please raise your hand. That passes 9-0 unanimously. So that finishes item 3A. So if we can go to item 3B, please.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Item three B is our second public hearing, and it is the consideration of a motion to approve the continued operation of the airport in accordance with Boulder revised code 1981 sections 11-4 titled airport. Great. Maria.

Thank you so much, Mayor. Council, today we're talking about the airport and want to appreciate how much interest there has been in community about the topic. Our reasons for coming to you in April remain the same as they are today. We are preparing our budget for next year, and as we look to what our capital improvement program needs are, we must also look to see what revenue source will be used to fund our airport needs. Whether the airport remains a city asset far into the future or there is a policy choice to look at that land use differently in the future, we are obliged to continue to use the airport until 2040. And during that time, we must invest in certain things to ensure we are complying with existing FAA grant assurances and ensuring the airport is safe for all involved. At our last meeting, we had a majority of council indicate a desire to see the airport operate indefinitely in the future. How we fund that period of indefinite operations has been a conversation hotly debated in community. Yes, we could take FAA grants, which would potentially lessen a future argument that the FAA's assertion about perpetuity is incorrect. We already contested this assertion, but acknowledge that this is what we have been told by the FAA. We've been further informed that it is their policy not to support closure of public airports and that there are rare exceptions they have approved closure were in, quote, highly unusual circumstances where closing the airport provided a benefit to civil aviation, such as funding a replacement airport in community, unquote. I say this not as a matter of staff advocacy, but simply stating that FAA has let us know that they would not be supportive of closure and already assert that we are obligated to maintain the airport in perpetuity. We are prepared to continue litigation on this matter should that be Council's direction. We could also choose not to take FAA grants and instead look to other sources of funding from CDOT or other revenue generation activities. Some of the scenarios you see today will speak to that in general terms as we would if this is the policy direction of Council. Adjust our CIP program to reflect more modest funding and we'd have to see what funding could be available to us in other circumstances. I never want to mislead you though and so we're clear too that while we make every effort to obtain alternative funding from a variety of means, were there to be a funding gap on a critical project, we would likely turn first to applicable transportation funding prior to turning to the general fund. We would bring any such proposals to council through the budget process and certainly would talk about tradeoffs and other projects or activities caused by these funding proposals. We may not be able to fully maximize alternative revenue sources unless we were to open unless we were open to provide extended 20-year leases, for example, but we would certainly do all that we could to find ways to make the airport as self-sustaining as it could be. However we move forward, I want to acknowledge that there are no easy answers, and each decision has some important considerations. But as good fiscal stewards for taxpayers' money, we feel we need some clarity on a path forward so we can make the appropriate budgetary decisions. I know you're eager to get into this evening's presentation, and so I will pass it to our Director of Transportation and Mobility, Blythe Bailey.

Thank you, Nuria. First, I want to acknowledge Youngblood Photography. This is a new photograph and is a very nice update from what we've been using in the past. So again, thank Youngblood Photography and Film Productions for letting us use this image. I also want to acknowledge our airport manager, Eric Fences, who's in the audience ready to answer questions that are technical and that maybe I will be able to answer some, but we'll call on Eric if needed as we get into the presentation. So I just wanted to say, Mayor Brockett and Mayor Pro Tem Weiner, thank you for having me here tonight, and members of the council, thank you for the opportunity to present new and updated information to support the public hearing. In the slides that follow, we'll clarify some questions that emerged since our April 23rd presentation, present two new scenarios related to financial projections, and share additional revenue ideas as you have requested. First, I'd like to offer a brief perspective on the work that has brought us here. For perspective, every day, my colleagues in transportation and mobility work to make Boulder safer and more accessible. Whether that's reducing severe crashes, improving conditions for people walking and biking, strengthening transit or providing core maintenance functions that sustain our system, the Boulder Municipal Airport is one of the most significant long-term policy questions before the city. Earlier this year, in preparation for bringing this discussion back before you, Eric Vinces, Eric and I built upon the financial analysis originally prepared for the airport community conversation a couple of years ago. In response to your feedback, we've updated those assumptions and developed additional scenarios. Rather than retaining consultants for each new iteration, Eric and I chose purposefully to do the work ourselves to avoid further expensing the tight airport fund while still providing meaningful information to support your decision. As someone who has had the privilege of working as an architect and an urban designer, I recognize the validity of the questions before you. I understand the appeal of preserving more than 100 acres of publicly owned land for future community needs. I also understand the value that many people place on the airport for such things as aviation education, emerging technologies, recreation and emergency response. Reasonable people can reach different conclusions about these competing priorities. What I have become convinced of, however, is the value of certainty. Whatever direction Council ultimately chooses, that clarity will allow staff to plan responsibly, invest appropriately, pursue funding with confidence, and focus our efforts on implementing your policy. Like any long-range financial forecast, these scenarios rely on assumptions that predict inflation rates and construction costs, grant availability, legal outcomes, airport activity, and other variables that will occur in the future, as far in the future as 14 years, if not more. I believe the information we're sharing tonight is stronger than any that we've presented previously, but I also realize that assumptions could be challenged, predictions are imperfect, and more scenarios could be developed. We have tried to consider the range of possibilities objectively because we think doing so is the best way to achieve certainty in how we operate the airport going forward. Eric and I and the rest of our colleagues in the department are eager for the certainty that we hope will come from your direction. I also want to share some updates on the good work our airport staff is doing around some of the critical issues that are important to the community. I'm so grateful that Eric was hired before I arrived. He's been a superb manager and certainly very valuable to me as I have learned a lot about airports. Eric has expressed strong interest in noise and has recently applied to the FAA's Aircraft Noise Advisory Committee. Thank you, Mayor Brockett, for your nomination. Secondly, the airport has begun offering unleaded fuel, as I believe many of you know, as of July 1st. And thank you to those of you that attended our ribbon-cutting. With that, I'd like to walk you through the newest information we have compiled. If you could go to the next slide. But first, the recommended motion language. Before you, a motion to approve the continued operation of the airport in accordance with Boulder Revised Code 1981, sections 11-4 airport. Next slide, please. So this slide shows all of the scenarios that we have presented going back to the July 24 presentation. I'll cover the broad differences now and then in later slides, we'll dive further into the details. I do want to show one error that we discovered and we have corrected on this slide. Line four, you will see scenario two, April 2026. No, no, still on the previous slide, please. You'll see that that number is 14 million. We simply had the wrong cell attached and you may have noticed that the yearly numbers are very similar. to those two rows right next to each other. We have changed scenario two of April 2026 to correct that number to be 14 million rather than what it was in your packet. So this slide shows all of the scenarios. back to the July 24 presentation. And firstly, since there's a capital improvement plan on record with CDOT, I do want to clarify because there have been some questions about the CIP. We're using the CIP acronym in this presentation to refer to the capital projects that we have lined up over the next 14 years. There is also a CIP on record at CDOT, which is a static document. And when a policy decision is made, We will work with the required processes to update our official CIP accordingly. So I just wanted to avoid any confusion about CIP and how we're using that term in these tables. Firstly, the broad differences. Scenario one assumes continued use of FAA grants. Scenario two forgoes FAA grants in order to preserve the option for future closure. The new versions of scenario three respond to Council's request after its May discussion. to explore indefinite airport operations while attempting to preserve as much future local flexibility as possible. Scenario 3A assumes that we do utilize grants from the FAA, and scenario 3B assumes instead we pursue grant revenue only from CDOT. I'll talk more about those differences between 3B1 and 2 in a moment. First, to refresh the differences in the scenarios we've presented so far, you can go to the next slide. Okay, so same information, just a little bit more detail on the assumptions behind the different scenarios. Here are those developed through the 2024 analysis. First, regarding grant assumptions, the 24 Scenario 1 assumed annual FAA entitlement grants of approximately $150,000 per year, plus only one discretionary grant for runway rehabilitation assumed before 2040, resulting in about 8.7 million in total grant revenue, a conservative projection of future FAA participation. Second, another point to make of three, regarding our presumed future capital projects, because the premise of Scenario 2 was to avoid FAA's grant assurances, its project list assumed only minimal safety work and pavement sealcoats through 2040. rather than the broader capital program envisioned in the Airport Master Plan. While that reduced near-term costs, as we explained in April, it also increased the risk of substantial deferred maintenance if airport operations were to continue beyond 2040. And third, regarding lease revenue, Scenario 1 assumed greater hangar development and therefore higher lease revenues, reflecting the expectation that a long-term commitment to airport operations would encourage additional private investment as compared to scenario two. Looking back as we presented to you in April, what stood out to Eric and I was that the original scenario one combined a relatively ambitious capital program with very conservative FAA grant assumptions. That made it difficult to isolate the actual financial effect of continued FAA participation. One of our primary goals in revising the analysis that we presented in April which I'll talk about in the next slide, was to better separate those variables so that the scenarios were clearly reflected the policy choices before council, specifically as it related to those FAA grant opportunities. If you go to the next slide, please. So after taking a fresh look at the former projections from 2024, we made some core changes to the scenarios, the most significant of which was the FAA grant assumptions. Eric and I believe it's reasonable to conclude that in addition to annual entitlement grants, you may remember in 2024, for the most part, the only grant revenues that were identified were entitlements with one exception. And with the new scenarios that we presented in April, we recognized that the airport could successfully compete for more discretionary grants supporting major pavement preservation and rehabilitation projects. Those projects are generally among the FAA's highest safety priorities, and while not guaranteed, and nor are any of the things that are happening in the future we think reasonable to assume in our projections. So you'll see more grant revenue in Scenario 2 in April 2026 as compared to Scenario 2 in 2024. We also revisited our assumptions regarding CDOT participation. In our previous analysis, we understood no additional CDOT grant support without a long-term airport operation commitment. Since that time, we've corrected that assumption. And we've also had discussions with CDOT leadership and concluded that the situation is more nuanced. While state law limits, you all received a letter from CDOT a month or two ago, state law limits funding for projects eligible for FAA grants. If a project is eligible for FAA grants, the state is unable to provide funding for it. But we know that there may be circumstances where CDOT could participate in safety-related projects. So there's some nuance. And that range of outcomes is why there are two versions of 3B. I'll get to that more later. We did not change the lease revenue assumptions. Scenario one continues to assume stronger lease revenues associated with long-term investment in the airport, while scenario two maintains more conservative lease revenue projections, again, because that scenario coincides with less than a long-term commitment to the airport. As a response to some of the recent questions about non-grant revenue sources, we'll cover more detail on the hangar development assumptions in a later slide. Again, the objective of these revisions to the 2024 scenarios was to ensure that each scenario more accurately reflects the financial implications of these choices. You can go to the next slide, please. So after your discussion in late May, we've developed a new suite of scenarios that we call Scenario 3. As mentioned, Scenario 3 assumes indefinite operations. and preservation of the greatest likelihood of local control. In other words, all Scenario 3 versions keep open some possibility that the City could pursue future land use changes, but without any overt or explicit commitment now to do so. While current assurance schedules call for varying levels of grant assurance periods and perpetual grant assurance for land grants, FAA has also specifically indicated that past and future acceptance of federal grants for land acquisition do come with perpetual obligation assurances. To note, also in response to some recent questions, the City asserts a different legal point of view relative to the perpetual obligations of non-land acquisition FAA grants. For that reason, Scenario 3A assumes availability of all FAA grant opportunities, excluding only those for land acquisition. Effectively that grant revenue projection is equal to our April 26 scenario one. The surplus is not as large as that previously developed scenario though because we assume a conservative lease projection based on the perceived challenges of pursuing long-term new development of hangar space without a long-term commitment to airport operations. Go to the next slide please. And lastly, you asked for an indefinite operations scenario in which we still forego FAA grants and utilize only CDOT grants to help support our basic operational and maintenance needs. The purpose of this scenario 3B is to avoid new federal obligations and assurances to increase the chances of success for a possible future closure and reuse. As mentioned earlier, the state has indicated that by statute they can't provide funding for FAA-eligible projects. We believe there can be some discretion at the state level, but we do not have a predictable way to identify which grants CDOT would be able to consider and which they would not. For that reason, we've chosen a highest cost and a least cost scenario, a minimum and a maximum range, in which in the former, we assume CDOT is unable to provide any funding support for our capital projects identified between now and 2040 because all of them are FAA eligible. And in the latter, we assume CDOT is able to support all of the projects that we identified between now and 2040. The reason the deficit is different between 3B2 and 1 from April is because the FAA grants, with the FAA grants, we assume 5% support from CDOT. But when it's only CDOT, we need to match it 10%. I do want to point out that we've discussed with CDOT these assumptions. They're comfortable with the way that we're projecting it. it does seem much more likely that they would be able to support grants at a much lower amount rather than a higher amount. So between these two scenarios, 3B1 and 3B2, it is more likely that if we chose this route, we would be closer to the $26 million deficit rather than the $7 million deficit. Next slide, please. We've also identified the need for clarity on the grant assurances and useful life schedule and have included those for reference. The table on the left is the FAAs and the table on the right is the states. You'll notice the only project with a useful life that is unlimited is for the purchase of land. The current CIP and all versions of our scenarios do not pursue purchase of land or easements. What Eric and I have not done is evaluated which of the future targeted grants would obligate us to a longer time period beyond 2040. Again, because we're not shooting necessarily for 2040 but rather indefinite operations. So some of these assurances would extend our life past 2040 were we to accept the grants of these types. Next slide please. And this slide just simply presents a high level comparison of the aggregate assumptions for revenues and expenses. And reminder that all versions of Scenario 3 show an apples to apples capital plan as was requested by council after the May discussion, but also to note, depending on the outcome of the policy question, we would plan to adjust our capital plan as needed, depending on the policy direction we are given. In other words, if we have less access to outside grant sources, we would likely adjust our CIP for a much lower cost, certainly higher risk for deferred maintenance, but lower cost. Next slide, please. I know this is very small. We thought that for a number of reasons, we're sharing all of this information that again, Eric and I developed in-house on our own, that there were a lot of questions around where the numbers came from. So we thought that it would be helpful just to list some of the grants. These are, some of them are consolidated. You also received a ledger that I know was also challenging to read that includes all of our scenarios. we worked through in spreadsheet format. This consolidates many of those projects just in an attempt to show the range of types of projects, many of course of which are related to pavement maintenance and as they were applied to the different assumptions in each of the scenarios 1, 2, and 3. Next slide please. And one more slide with a table of There's been some interest in knowing the projects we've identified, and this is simply just a consolidated list of those projects by category and cost in the base year, summed at the bottom with future projected costs. I just want to note again that these projects were planned out preliminarily for the purposes of establishing the different fiscal impacts of the scenarios. The caveat is that scenario two assumes no pavement rehab and risks up to 8.5 million in possible pavement rehabs under this approach, as in that scenario two, as you may remember from April, was intentionally very tight on the capital plan, and the result of that is that in 2040, if we are obligated to continue to operate the airport, at that point we have significantly deferred maintenance, which may require some reconstruction, and a hefty cost just to rebuild that pavement. That's why that CIP is so much different for this scenario too. Okay, next slide. We were asked to develop a range of alternative revenue generation ideas. And we realized that if the policy decision is not to take FAA funding, we'll be searching and working hard to refine and pursue any and all worthwhile alternative revenue sources. We would do that anyway. And so we'll talk about some of these. We've done some additional research on some of the ones that seem most viable, and I'll go through some of those now. At a high level, among all of the ideas above, there are none that are a silver bullet. In the scenarios we just reviewed, when not taking FAA funding, I believe it's, as I mentioned, much more likely the cumulative deficit will be much closer to the higher of the numbers for 3B, simply because most of our projects are FAA eligible, and therefore, would not be able to be funded through CDOT's program. I also mentioned again there's some nuance, so we are hopeful that if that's the scenario, CDOT will be able to support us to some degree, but we think that it's probably closer to the lower end rather than the higher end. And at roughly, if you look at the better of those 1.2 million of annual deficit, which is the average between 3B1 and 3B2, none of these alternative sources will fill that gap. but let me go into a little bit more about what we've learned since we were last in front of you. First, we've heard a lot about landing fees. In our 24 financial analysis, our consultant broadly estimated, and that was what we presented to you in April, that we could expect 35,000 in revenues for landing fees. Since then, we have engaged with a contractor who provides landing fee services turnkey for airports across Colorado. We also recently reviewed a study, uh, done for Longmont, which also addresses landing fees. I've looked through each of those and sort of compared all those numbers, and I think the simplest way, there's a range of recommendations depending on whether just airport-based aircraft are assigned fees or whether all aircraft are assigned fees. So there's a range of recommendations both in the information that we got from the contractor as well as the Longmont study. But the middle ground in the Longmont study, which proposes a $2 per thousand pounds, shows potential revenues of $162,000 to $238,000, depending on whether only non-based aircraft or all aircraft are charged. So again, a range of $162,000 to $238,000 in what was shared very recently for Longmont. Knowing that Longmont's landings are roughly double boulders, this translates to a potential of half of that, about $81,000 to $119,000 for landing fees. I do want to say that the reason that Eric and I adopted our 2024 Consultants Conservative Estimate was because of known concerns about inequitability of assessment, which could run afoul of grant assurances. And there's a cost risk associated with that as well because we'll need to be careful that how we implement these fees is done legally so as not to discriminate any user groups. We would also need to proceed if we proceeded with landing fees with further assessment to test the market rates, engage with airport users, and follow through on the city's procurement process, as well as conduct a full legal review to make sure that we didn't run afoul of those assurances. I want to point out again that even at the high end of these estimates, $119,000, maybe as much as our contractor suggested, as much as $300,000, certainly quite a bit more. But at the high end of these estimates, these fees would not bridge the gap shown in that 3B scenario in which we do not make use of the FAA funding sources. I want to shift to hangar development. The 2024, which we've been asked about a lot, how can we generate new revenue and more hangar development? You may remember the 2024 financial analysis identified the need for renegotiated lease terms and new development to reverse historic deficit trends. To address the potential for revenue from new development, remember these assumptions are already built into the projections. For the scenario three, because there may not be a long-term commitment, we did assume the more conservative approach in our scenarios. If there's a more long-term commitment to the airport, we see an immediate demand for T-hanger development because of the 30 planes that are currently tied down on our ramp. We do recognize that some possibility on the exterior part of the property, we could pursue non-aeronautical development, like for a cafe or a restaurant, which could generate more revenue than aeronautical. Also wanna mention some about solar generation, which has also been asked. And per your request, we've begun some very preliminary thinking about solar. There's substantial precedent. You probably all are familiar with the substantial solar at Denver International. And we can also use rooftops and parking areas and compatible airport land Preliminary analysis suggests one site suitable for commercial size production along the south property boundary. Covered parking also is a possibility with solar for vehicles and aircraft. And it is another possibility in any tenant driven solar on land leases or possible new development requirements. We've not done the engineering or feasibility work necessary though to assign a reliable dollar value. I also want to talk a little bit about EV toll, which is electric vertical takeoff and landing, as well as S toll short takeoff and landing passenger service. The airline industry is investing in these types of services throughout the country, connecting communities to major hubs to alleviate travel congestion, as well as convenience offerings. These vehicles are capable of operating at BDU. Commercial service would need to be studied independently, but has potential to unlock additional lease revenues. landing fee revenue, and additional grant opportunities with the FAA. And also lease rates, which we get asked about frequently. We performed a rent study in 2025, and the results are being implemented. We have already adjusted T-hanger rates for those for which there are monthly leases that have come into their terms, and we'll be continuing to work on those adjustments to other leases as those terms come due. Like for example, our corporate hangers, commercial hangers, tie down spots, and land leases. And last slide, please. We've heard questions also about emergency operations. It was during the policy consideration of the BVC or in other forums about the usefulness of the airport as it relates to emergency response. Of course, neither Eric nor I are emergency response professionals, but I can acknowledge that we've heard there are larger facilities nearby that professionals rely upon in a more critical way. But nevertheless, BMA, the airport, has served as a flexible staging area and training site for emergency response on multiple occasions, and we collected images to represent some of those activities. During the 2013 floods, the facilities helped support evacuation operations, as shown upper left. During the 2020 Cowwood Fire, shown upper right, helicopters and support equipment occupied much of the airport as crews responded to the largest wildfire in Boulder County's history. And more recently, Mountain Blade Runner, based at the airport, supported response to the 2025 Lee Fire by carrying a bucket to aid in fire response, and even more recently deployed in response to the large wildfires this year. Also, in response to a hotline, we've indicated some ways in which we think that projected uses could change if the airport continues to be available to use for the city. I believe that takes us back to the slide, which we'll present. You can go to the next slide. We'll present the motion that we're asking for to approve the continued operation of the airport in accordance with Boulder revised code sections 11-4 airport. I'm happy to take questions.

Great. Thanks so much for that presentation. Really appreciate it. So it is now time for questions. So, uh, counselors, I'll note that we have 70 speakers night seven zero. So we've got a long public hearing ahead of us. We have asked many questions at previous meetings and also through hotline. So I would encourage everyone to keep their questions short. I'm going to do one question per round and if we need to have a second round, that's fine. But I would ask that you just do one question to start. So does anyone have any questions? I got Mark.

In terms of the gaps that we're showing between revenue and expense under all of the scenarios, have we considered any alternative financing sources such as a land loan against the property, a certificate of participation, a bond issue, use of infrastructure funds under the infrastructure tax. Have we looked at any of that? I have not.

Eric?

The only funding that we have identified is the state infrastructure bank loan.

I'm sorry?

The only... FUNDING THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED THAT IT WOULD BE ALTERNATIVE IS THE STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK LOAN.

ERIC, CAN YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE?

YES. MY NAME IS ERIC, AND I'M THE MANAGER AT THE BOULDER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. FIRST AND LAST NAME, IF YOU DON'T MIND. ERIC BENZIS. THANKS. THANK YOU.

I'LL JUST FURTHER, AND I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. AS WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT SOME OF THE FUNDING SOURCES, WE'VE LIMIT SORT OF THE CITY'S FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS IN THIS MANNER WHERE WE HAVE OTHER OPTIONS OUR FINANCE TEAM DEPENDING ON POLICY DIRECTIONS WOULD CONTINUE TO DIVE DEEPLY INTO POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES BUT THOSE WOULD ALSO BE VETTED AS AGAINST SOME OF THE OTHER OPTIONS THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING FROM SOME OF OUR OTHER FACILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS SO WE DO NOT SAY ANYTHING IS OFF THE TABLE AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO look for resources depending on policy direction.

Matt and Tina.

So we certainly pose that there's some FAA grants that we could pursue and I think in the previous meeting we had a schedule of sort of grants that have sort of come and lapsed and perhaps some that may still be pending. Is there a way we could get sort of describe what's still in front of us in terms of potential FAA grants, their amount and perhaps their impact on our immediate budget, which is something we'll be debating here in about a month. So just trying to get a sense of what's that immediate impact that an FAA grant, if we chose to do that, would have on our budget now versus sort of just down the road in the future. Are there implications with this next budget that we will be debating here in about a month based on potential FAA grants that are right in front of us?

Yeah, there's a I'll invite Eric to come up if I miss any of this, but there's basically three categories. Thanks for the question, Councilmember. There is 145,000, this is from memory, I don't see it in front of me, 145,000 and about 139, I think 139,000. There are two grants that are coming due on a list of grant opportunities that preceded this. One of them has, the FAA has graciously allowed to continue understanding that this decision was coming up. That one actually has a due date of next week that we would lose out on if not, if no decision is made. And the other one is, oh gosh, the deadline of the 1-45 September, thank you. And then on a bigger case, council member, is we do the capital program with CDOT, as with surface transportation, the state DOT is the liaison between the federal money and the local municipality, that capital process happens in the fall. And so we are obligated, if we want to participate in these FAA grants for 2027 and beyond, that we would do that, reference that CIP that we have on record with CDOT. We have several grants that we've outlined in our scenarios for 2027 that total about $1.7 million, so that you could, about 1.6 would be the grant availability Those grants would need to be a part of the CIP process through CDOT, which would need to happen in the fall, which means that that deadline effectively is about September to be able to commit to those and apply for those grants.

Thank you. And the follow-up to that is if we chose not to pursue them, How would that 1.7 million that we're looking to invest in the airport still have to be then invested? And how would that impact our budget and perhaps our 2027 budget, which we would be obviously coming up on real quick to have to debate?

Well, and that goes back to the comment I made a couple of times is that we still have the discretion to change our capital plan. If we don't have the access to those revenues, we certainly could choose to postpone those projects later. But every time we postpone a maintenance project, it runs the risk of it costing more in the future. Also, in addition, these are funding rounds for which the money gets used. So when the money goes to other municipalities, it becomes less likely that it would be available to us later. So it's not as though we would incur necessarily a $1.7 million debt. because we could simply defer those costs if we needed to, but you do reach a point where you can't defer those maintenance costs any farther.

Oh, sorry, I see an area. And then I just had one more follow-up on that.

Yeah, if you would.

I'm trying to do one.

And I just wanted to, and maybe I'll ask the team to check me as we were going through a lot of numbers. I believe as we were looking into the budget, which is one of the reasons that prompted us to come here, that we believe it was, HIGHLY LIKELY WE WOULD NEED TO SUPPLEMENT THE AIRPORT FUND IN 2027 REGARDLESS, AND CORRECT ME IF THESE NUMBERS ARE CORRECT, THE AIRPORT BEGAN 2026 WITH A $756,000 AVAILABILITY AND FUND BALANCE WITH REVENUES AT AROUND $817,000 COMPARED TO EXPENSES WHICH ARE ABOUT $1,000,000 IN 2025. I WANT TO THANK ERIC WHO HAS DONE A LOT TO ALREADY LEAN INTO THAT, TO INCREASE HANGER RATES AND REDUCE SOME OF THOSE CAPITAL EXPENSES, BUT WITHOUT ADDITIONAL REVENUE SOURCES, HOWEVER THAT MAY COME, GRANTS OR INCREASE IN OTHER FEES, FOR EXAMPLE, ANY CAPITAL PROJECTS WOULD WIDEN THAT GAP, AND THAT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY UNFORESEEN MAINTENANCE ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS. AM I CORRECT IN THOSE NUMBERS? YES.

I do have a lot of questions, but so we've heard about some airports that aren't taking FAA grants and there's a perceived value to doing that, but they're still operating their airport indefinitely. What would be the advantages to that in terms of and how would the community experience that?

Thank you, Council Member. To maybe restate the question to make sure I've got it, is what would be the pros and cons of

Yeah, and I'll be specific. Does it give us more control to do anything? I mean, do we get more say over noise or traffic abatement, or can we better manage the level of traffic?

Yeah.

I'd like to invite our special outside counsel, Peter Kirsch of Kaplan-Kirsch, up to the podium to address that question.

Good evening, City Council. I'm Peter Kirsch with the law firm of Kaplan Kirsch.

Can you get right into the microphone, please? Is that better?

Okay. Your question is actually fairly complicated because any airport, regardless of your grant conditions, is subject to federal regulation. The amount of regulation depends on the kind of airport. So at one extreme, we have Denver International Airport, which has an extraordinary amount of federal regulation. At the other extreme would be a private airport that never has taken any grants, and the regulations are very, very limited. If you currently are grant obligated, that is, if your last grant was less than 20 years ago, you remain fully subject to FAA regulation for that 20-year period. So if you chose, for example, not to take grants during that 20 years, all of the same obligations would occur during those 20 years. In the 21st year, those obligations would decline, not to zero, but they would decline. Now, when you deal with the question of local control, the real issue is what do you mean by local control? if you mean the ability to control who can and cannot fly into the airport. You have very limited control so long as you are federally obligated. And you have only slightly more control if you're not federally obligated. Federal law says that once you have an airport, you essentially cannot deny access to any aircraft that could safely use that airport. So that's the issue of control over who can access the airport. If you are talking about control over capital expenditures or other sorts of airport facilities, you have considerable local control both under federal regulation and without federal regulation. The big difference between the two is that so long as you are federally obligated, that 20-year period, you are obligated to maintain the airport in a safe condition. by virtue of your grant obligations, and that undoubtedly incurs some capital expenses. At the end of that 20 years, you can, in theory, let the airport become unsafe. A whole bunch of reasons why that may not be a prudent thing to do, but at the end of your federal obligation period, you are no longer obligated by federal law to maintain the airport in a safe condition.

Can I ask, are we obligated to maintain the airport after those 20 years?

The answer to that is actually fairly complicated, as you might imagine. And it sounds from the laughs in the audience that people understand it's complicated. If you are completely no longer subject to federal obligations, that is, if there are no obligations left, then you are able to close the airport following a federally mandated procedure that's relatively lengthy but not overwhelming. Two problems. If you have taken money from the federal government for the purchase of real estate, your obligations to the federal government are perpetual. And that's an issue that, as you know, the city has considered litigating, and I don't want to talk in public session about the pros and cons of litigation. But the obligations that attach to that real estate are perpetual. The interesting question that has never been tested is what about the other obligations? That is, we've got a whole series of obligations which expire in 20 years, but your obligations tied to the real estate do not expire. And I think there's a reasonable argument that at the end of those 20 years, you are no longer obligated under a number of the grant obligations, but you are still obligated to keep the airport open in perpetuity. The only way, assuming that that is the law, and as I say, there's been some litigation on that subject, assuming that's the law, the only way to get out from under the perpetual obligation is is for the FAA to release you of those obligations. The FAA has done that very occasionally. Most recently, an act of Congress ordered the FAA to do that with respect to an airport in Missouri. But it's quite unusual for the simple reason, and this may not surprise you, that the FAA is not a supporter of the closure of airports in most instances. The other exception where the FAA has allowed a release of those perpetual obligations is in the event of a replacement airport. And of course, the classic example that is Stapleton Airport, where the FAA released Denver from its obligations because they had a new airport opening up. That's unusual, but not extraordinary. And so sometimes, for example, the city of Cincinnati was able to close the Blue Ash Airport because they had another airport that was more productive, more cost efficient at Lunkin. And so they transferred everything from Blue Ash to Lunkin and the FAA approved it and released the city of Cincinnati from their obligations at Blue Ash. So it happens, but I don't want you to think it's particularly common.

One of those.

You didn't address the noise component.

That was a part of your question, right?

So I understand the obligation piece, but would the city, if we're not taking FAA grants, be allowed to create controls? And it's my understanding that Santa Monica and other airports have created these rules, although it was also my understanding that the FAA doesn't allow them. So it would be helpful to get clarification on that and note that this is not my one question. Thank you.

I won't treat that as your question, but I'll answer it anyway. federal law, not FAA, federal law, says that if you are a public use airport, if you're open to the public, you may not restrict access on the basis of noise without going through an approval process with the FAA. That law was adopted in 1990. Since 1990, no airport has successfully obtained FAA approval to restrict operations based on noise.

Mark, do you have a quick follow-up to that? Well, I'll come back to you because I got Rob queued up.

Thank you. Mr. Kirsch, you may want to stay up there. I thank you, Blythe, for the layout of the expenditures and the revenues. And I understand that no matter what, until 2040, we are under FAA regulation. What I'm curious about is the courts and the litigation, the timeline, and the expenses. When we hold this airport, to 2040, no matter how we do it, then we're gonna engage in a lawsuit, whether that's to explore if we're actually in perpetuity or something else. And then once that is settled, is there, whether it's in our favor or not, what does the appeal process look like? Is there another process after that? And if you could give us a timeline and some general I guess nominal costs in today's dollars?

I have to make a number of assumptions to answer your question, if I may. Assumption number one is the FAA has released you from the perpetual obligation with respect to your purchase of land, in which case litigation is unlikely. You'll have to go through a process. It'll take a number of months and relatively inexpensive. But the big but there is you have to get the FAA to release you from that perpetual obligation. And the FAA is not particularly encouraging of such efforts. Not that it has never happened, and it has happened, but it's unusual. So let's take the scenario number two, which is I think a somewhat more likely scenario, which is you remain subject to the perpetual restriction based on your purchase of real estate, and you litigate with the FAA over the validity of that restriction. That is in certain respects similar to Santa Monica. which litigated over a different issue having to do with FAA's perpetual control over the real estate. And that litigation lasted about 12 years or so on and off. I can't even count the number of lawsuits. I think it was probably four or five different lawsuits ultimately resulted in a settlement with the FAA. The cost was in excess of $10 million. This was 10 years ago. So you could probably assume it's double that today. That is a likely scenario. Another scenario is to get Congress to order the FAA to remove the permanent restriction. And there's a reason there's an expression that that takes an act of Congress. I mean, it's a complicated process. It's not particularly expensive. And with a receptive Congress, it would be quite straightforward, not very expensive, and either very time-consuming or not consuming at all, depending upon your I'll say your luck with Congress, which may be unfair. The last scenario is getting another airport to agree to be your replacement. Very unusual, but not unheard of, as I mentioned a moment ago. And that's a process of both convincing another airport to become, let's call it Boulder Airport 2, and getting the FAA to agree that that's permissible. That's not litigation. That's likely to be significant amount of lobbying and significant amount of jawboning both to the other airport and to the FAA. As I say, not unheard of, but the real strategic question there would be convincing both of them that it's in their best interest to allow you to do so. And in a public session, of course, I wouldn't want to talk about what that strategy might be to accomplish that. But that's neither terribly expensive nor terribly time consuming. There's a lot of legal work to do to make that happen. But the cost is measured in thousands or hundreds of thousands, not millions of dollars.

And if you signed a probability to that happening, just based on past cases?

It's low, but it's not zero. I mean, let me tell you why. I haven't done a study. I'll tell you what I would want to know. What is the traffic at Boulder? Are there other airports that would be delighted to receive this traffic, other airports that are underused in the immediate vicinity, and by immediate vicinity, let's say 50 miles or so? that would be eager to have Boulder transfer the assets, perhaps pay them a significant amount of money, to take over all of the functions of the airport. As I say, it's not straightforward. I don't know enough about what the other airports are, and I particularly don't know about whether the burden that Boulder Airport places on the airspace in this region is such that it would be attractive to the FAA. There are a number of very complex airspace problems in the front range and I don't know what role Boulder plays in that. If, I'll be hypothetical here, if Boulder presents a burden to the airspace and moving the traffic that would otherwise be at Boulder to another airport, I'm deliberately not using names here of course, moving it to another airport that would be happy to receive it and that in fact would enhance airspace availability in the front range, then you might have a very, very receptive FAA. So, you know, it's hard to tell the probability. Oh, thank you. It's hard to assess the probability without knowing those kinds of facts.

Okay, that was two. Thank you. All right, good. I got Nicole and then Taisha, and then we'll get to the next round. Okay, we think Taisha was first.

Thank you. I will limit this to just one question. No tricks or anything in here. So one of the interesting things in Longmont's landing piece study said, quote, industry data consistently shows that only a relatively small percentage of general aviation. Oh, and sorry, I don't think it's a question for you, but you're welcome to stay. Continue with the quote, only a relatively small percentage of general aviation airports often estimated at less than 20 percent operate in the black. If operating at a deficit is an industry-wide reality, we've already been operating at a deficit, I think whenever the report came out in 2024, at least three of the last four years, And we're already starting well behind the curve because of decades of deferred maintenance. What's our plan for when we fall into that 80% majority that requires a permanent city subsidy? Or if we don't get funds because they're otherwise occupied or being withheld based on obligations, aviation or otherwise, that our community isn't willing to meet, how do we plan for this long term? Because it seems like operating at a deficit and having city subsidies is pretty standard.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SPEAR, AND MAYBE I'LL START AND CERTAINLY INVITE THE TEAM TO WEIGH IN. I'LL SAY IT IS A, WE WOULD APPROACH IT SIMILARLY AS WE DO OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS IN OUR CITY. WE CERTAINLY ARE ALREADY, AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE, IN A DEFICIT FOR SOME OF OUR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AND SOME OF OUR OTHER FACILITIES, RIGHT? SO WE WOULD BE TAKING A LOOK AT BOTH THOSE MANDATED THINGS THAT WE MUST DO AS WE HAVE EMBARKED ON looking at our service level inventories, at prioritizing, at outcome-based budgeting. We would take a look at also what we must do to stay in compliance, and then we would take the other bucket of items of what are the things that we would like to do, what are the things, how can we still maintain minimum compliance efforts, and then match our revenues to that. So we would look at that, put it into our general CIP programming, that we would look at. We would come to council every year to take a look at those budgets, but we would have to balance whatever criticality needs there are for that as we continue to look at what existing revenue sources are. We would also have the ability, again, depending on what revenue sources we would have to our avail, be able to mitigate against some of that, whether that is grant funding, FAA, CDOT, or otherwise, or the ability to, if we knew that the airport was operating for the foreseeable future, we could elongate, for example, those 20-year leases, and that would mitigate against some of these cost sort of measures that we would need to take. So there's a theory, and as that slide that Blythe put up, we would continue to look at SOURCES OF REVENUE THAT WOULD ENHANCE. THE ULTIMATE GOAL WOULD BE TO TRY TO MAKE THE AIRPORT AS SUSTAINABLE AS NECESSARY, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THOSE IMMEDIATE STEPS AND KNOW THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO AT LEAST DO MINIMUM COMPLIANCE WITH GRANT INSURANCE. BUT IT WOULD BE PART OF OUR BUDGETARY ANALYSIS YEAR TO YEAR.

TAISHA?

I HAVE A SMALL QUALAQUA ON THE PREVIOUS STATEMENT ABOUT THE SANTA MONICA PIECE. Thank you. While you're coming up, specifically around the, for the 12 years that it was in litigation, was Santa Monica still responsible for the compliance and the, you know, covering the cost of the compliance during the time of the litigation, or was that on pause?

Yes, it was.

Okay, that was a wild call from the last one. And then... for the cost that we've already incurred for the FAA, this is Teresa, or somebody, about the cost that we've already done in the previous round of battle with the FAA.

I'm going to invite Senior Counsel Luis Toro to the podium. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Luis Toro.

Thank you.

You're good.

Oh, no, no, you're not.

Did I just turn it off? Sorry. It's okay. Get in there. Senior counsel in the office.

Get into the mic. Okay. Thank you.

Obviously I don't do this very much. Doing great. In court, the mics are further away. So the question is how much was the previous litigation? Yes. As I recall, it was around, I think $250,000.

And for how long of a period was that?

That was one year about from the file, maybe 16 months from the filing until the order. But some of those months there was very little spending because we're just waiting on the judge to rule.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. I think that's a round of questions. If we absolutely must, people could do a second question, but I would like to get to the public hearing. So Mark, follow up.

And I'm afraid you'll have to come back.

Oh yeah.

Getting your steps in today. I was listening to your point about if you purchase land you've got an obligation to operate basically forever. But our grants where we bought land were back in 1959 and 1977 and those grant documents very specifically state that they expire after 20 years. So the last of which, I guess, expired around the time of John Elway, and the first expired during Richard Nixon's term, I think. So does that change the analysis at all, if they specifically state that their 20-year grants and And that's it.

I need to be careful in answering this question because it is the subject of litigation. And I don't want to provide legal advice in a public session. But let me say this much. That is open to legal dispute.

I'm sorry?

That is open to legal dispute as to whether or not when you took grants prior to the 1980s, whether those grants, in fact, operated in perpetuity. Okay. Madam City Attorney, I don't think I can go much further than that, can I?

What I would add to that is it's been the city's position that they did not obligate us into perpetuity at that time. That was the subject matter of the lawsuit that was brought. That lawsuit was ultimately ruled not ripe for determination, and so it's an unanswered legal question at this point.

Thank you.

OK. Without seeing any other hands then, I will go ahead and go to the public hearing. So if we can start with the public participation guidelines, please, Alicia.

Yes, sir, thank you. Good evening, everyone, and again, thank you for your participation at tonight's council meeting. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code. This includes that participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by. Individuals must display their whole names before being allowed to speak online. Only audio testimony is permitted during open comment, but we're not having that tonight, so my apologies. No attendees shall disrupt, disturb, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of any council meeting in a manner that obstructs the business of the meeting. This also includes failing to obey any lawful order of the presiding officer to leave the meeting room or to refrain from addressing the council. Our remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. And lastly, obscenity, other epithets based on race, gender, or religion, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the meeting will not be tolerated. Thank you again for joining us, and thank you for listening.

Thanks for that, Elisha. Okay, everyone will have two minutes to speak. I will be strict about that in the interest of fairness. Some folks are pooling time with other people. We will need the people who are pooling to be present, either in person or virtually. So I'll check on that when we get to them. And I'll call three names at a time. If you can start moving towards the front as your time is approaching. Our first three speakers are Philip Ogren, Harry Ross, and Anna McAuliffe, all in person.

My name is Philip Ogren. I am a resident of Boulder, and I am speaking in my individual capacity and on behalf of the Airport Neighborhood Campaign, which I have been actively involved with for two and a half years. I was part of the effort to collect signatures for our petitions to put two airport-related measures on the ballot. As such, I have literally had many hundreds if not thousands of conversations with city residents about the airport. I can say with confidence that you cannot predict what someone might know about the airport or their opinions about how it's run until they start talking. I can also say with confidence that despite online surveys that suggest that 9 out of 10 pilots across North America support BDU, there is a lot of frustration across the city about what poor neighbors our airport has been and continues to be. The issues around the airport are complicated and varied, and they cut through the political landscape in interesting and surprising ways. As such, our coalition to pump the brakes on taking FAA funding spans Boulder's political spectrum from plan to the DSA and includes neighbors of the airport who suffer the brunt of the noise and pollution, but also residents from all parts of town. and unincorporated Boulder County. We have members of several different city boards, folks who have never spoken to council before, and even former council members. We are not some niche special interest group. Our speakers tonight represent a wide swath of Boulder. Here's a preview of key themes you'll hear from our coalition tonight. We do not want the city to obligate itself to the FAA forever. This would be an unforced error that will be difficult to undo. Two, much of the information that has been provided has been inadequate and problematic. Three, we are upset with the way this deliberation has unfolded so far and we want no more shenanigans. We want good information, careful deliberation, and good governance. Four, public opinion is divided and no one here can credibly claim to know what the majority of Boulder wants. However, we know that just two years ago, 3,400 registered city voters wanted to vote on the future of the airport. Please do not take the FAA grants without authorization from the people in a citywide election.

Thank you. I'll go to Harry Ross, Anna McAuliffe, and John Stewardy.

Hi, Harry Ross. Thank you all for having me. I'm here to advocate for emergency services including fire search and rescue, civil air patrol, and medevac air ambulance. During wildfires and floods, the airport ramp is packed full of aircraft and first responders. Between disasters, search and rescue, and medevac operate daily. All these entities need a full suite of services including fuel maintenance and critically runways to operate effectively. I'm going to focus on air ambulances. This is what I'm most involved in as an ER physician. I've crewed on helicopters and I've also stood at the hospital helipads waiting for patients to come in. I've trained and taught EMS on four continents and I know how complex these systems are. It's been suggested that we could reduce the airport and still keep everything running. This is completely false. In hot weather, our helicopters have limited lift capacity and the vertical takeoffs you see on TV are not possible when fully loaded. On a hot day when medevac is perched atop BCH, weight limits the maximum fuel to only 65 gallons, less than half a tank. For any flight of distance or time, the helicopter must first come to the airport, top off, and then get airborne with a running start down the runway. Boulder's one of the few airports which maintains 24-hour fueling. Last year, when the airport stopped providing this, our medevac was forced to divert to either of the next closest 24-hour options, either Loveland or Centennial, which added 45 minutes to each flight. BCH is not a trauma center, nor have a high-level stroke service. And much of what we do is not just rescue patients from the highways and mountains, but also deliver critical high-speed transfer to Denver. When a critical patient loses their pulse or is hemorrhaging, minutes matter and fatalities rise. If we limit airport facilities, Medevac is gone. Staging for emergency fire, flood, search and rescue are gone. They simply can't operate out of the proposed mini pads being suggested. One of the most concerning things to me.

Time's up, but thank you for your testimony. Thank you. We've got Anna McAuliffe now who's pooling with, let's see, Armand Chabonneau and Gary Campbell, if we can see their hands. Very good. Anna, you're up. Four minutes.

Good evening. Since I was a kid, I had two dreams, to be a pilot and to be a scientist. But I grew up in a low-income, single-parent household, often taking care of myself, and aviation was in my worldview, so I went the science route. What I never imagined is that those two worlds would come together at Boulder Airport. My name is Anna McAuliffe. I'm a member of the Experimental Aircraft Association and the Soaring Society of Boulder, and a private pilot based out of Boulder Airport. I also work within NOAA's Global Monitoring Laboratory up the street and the Cooperative Institute for Research and Environmental Sciences at CU Boulder. For work, I build scientific instruments that measure greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, carbon monoxide, water vapor, ozone, and I deploy those on aircraft. It often starts the same in a laboratory a few miles away, building an instrument. And then I drive those instruments to Boulder Airport and install them, test them, and then launch them in research missions that ultimately support global climate change. Just yesterday, I shipped an instrument that I tested at Boulder Airport to Gabon, Africa, where I plan to meet it at the end of August. to study the Congo Basin, which is one of the world's largest carbon sinks. I'm also heavily involved in a mission called No Gap, a nationwide airborne survey of greenhouse gases designed to understand emissions across the United States. It's been running for three years and started here at Boulder Airport. During the last government shutdown, the project was mission critical, which meant that while nearly everyone else in the federal government was on pause, I was still hauling equipment out to Boulder Airport, installing it on aircraft, working with pilots at odd hours to keep those measurements going. Twice a month, an aircraft flies from Boulder Airport to collect air samples that come back to our lab for analysis. The measurements feed the world's longest running airborne greenhouse gas record. Not only is that data used for today's policymakers, but it's a gift for scientists who haven't been born, giving them an unbroken record of measurements to understand how the atmosphere has changed over time. The National Ecological Observatory Network also operates airborne research outside of Boulder to study how ecosystems across the United States are responding to climate change like extreme drought and warming throughout a 20-year period, all funded by the National Science Foundation. Boulder Airport works for research because it's small, accessible, easy, and inexpensive to operate at. At the moment when federal science funding is being cut, moving these operations to a larger field, even just Broomfield, could likely end the operations altogether. But this airport means more to me than just my job. I learned to fly here. There have been numerous days when I left work after reading another notice that my funding will disappear in 60 days. Myself, along with the entire lab, sitting on layoff and furlough notices. And then I drive to Boulder Airport for a glider lesson. Once I climb into the cockpit, the uncertainty and stress fades away, and for a little while, my only focus is learning to fly. Every hour I've spent learning to fly has been made possible by volunteers. Volunteer instructors, tow pilots, and scholarships from organizations like the EAA and the Colorado 99s that helped myself and others afford to learn to fly. If you never spent time at Boulder Airport, I encourage you to come to a Young Eagles rally and watch kids climb in and out of the planes, or visit the Soaring Society on a busy weekend and watch how we all get aloft. Boulder Airport isn't just property, it's a classroom, it's a laboratory, it's a community, It helped me become both the climate scientist and pilot I dreamed of being. And with all that being said, please keep Boulder Airport open and please accept the FAA grants that fund it. And thank you for your time and service.

Thank you. Now we'll go to John Stewardy, Michael Rucker, and Richard Henry. And please, no applause, everybody. No sounds from the audience. Thank you.

Hello, I'm John Harold Stewart II. I thank the council for the opportunity to dispel misconceptions about towing gliders and to illustrate the dedication of our tow pilots to be good citizens and minimize our impact on the neighbors. This is important as we consider the future of the airport. I speak from experience as a professional aviator who has towed gliders and taught pilots how to tow for a soaring society for over 20 years. Towing in Boulder follows specific Precise ground tracks developed and modified over the years to avoid flying low over densely populated areas designated by the city as noise-sensitive Achieving this precision takes extensive training and attention to detail from our pilots club leadership monitors topotic performance and works extensively with the airport manager to evaluate noise related issues in a recent self assessment we found that 97% of our flights were completely compliant with these procedures, which reflects quite astonishing discipline of our tow pilots. There is a bright future for more efficient and quiet tow planes due to recent changes in the Federal Aviation Administration that will allow new types of aircraft to tow gliders, and the Soaring Society is currently actively evaluating these new possibilities. We have all of our airplanes use unleaded fuels now. An important consideration, towing gliders is a fantastic way for young pilots to gain highly valued experience and discipline and judgment. Many of our past tow pilots are now fighting fires, flying for airlines or corporations. We take our responsibility to our community seriously. We have noise mitigation seriously, and we have done that for over 60 years of our operations. I ask the city council to continue to operate the Boulder Airport. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have Michael Rucker, Richard Henry, and Mary Maxwell.

Good evening. My name is Michael Rucker. I've been a Boulder resident for 18 years. I live near Stockwell Park. I'm also an airport tenant and hangar owner at Boulder Municipal Airport. I am the founder and CEO of Scal Clean Energy, a renewable energy company that I started in Boulder 10 years ago and has grown to more than 240 employees. Our headquarters occupies the former Zayo space on 29th Street. I sold the company in December 22 to Brookfield Renewable for $1.1 billion, and I remain the CEO. So Scout is a veritable Boulder-based unicorn company built here in Boulder. Scout works in 22 states and several Canadian provinces. We currently have wind, solar, and battery energy storage projects in construction or soon to start construction in California, Arkansas, Nevada, Oregon, Indiana, Iowa, and Ottawa, Canada. Our 22 gigawatt pipeline and development projects also include several wind and solar projects in Colorado. Many of these projects are located in rural communities far from major commercial airports. Boulder Municipal Airport allows us to efficiently reach project sites throughout the West and Midwest using the network of local airports that supports businesses like ours. Having an airport just minutes from our headquarters saves significant time and increases our productivity. The airport's value extends well beyond individual businesses. It has served Boulder for almost a century and supports flight training, local businesses, emergency response, and wildfire operations. It is an established and important part of our community. I also encourage the city to accept available FAA and CDOT funding. The airport is part of the national airspace system and is eligible for state and federal support. Accepting those funds reduces the burden on local taxpayers and allows city resources to remain focused on other priorities, such as transportation, housing, and environmental initiatives. My request is simple. Let's provide certainty for the airport's future, accept the funding that is available, and move forward. There's no reason to delay. Boulder Municipal Airport has served this community for almost 100 years and can continue to do so for the next 100 years. Thank you very much. See you, Council.

Thank you. Now I'll go to Richard Henry, Mary Maxwell, and James Leftwich. And when you come up to the podium, if you can just be sure to speak directly into the microphone, please, so everybody can hear you. Thanks.

Good evening. My name is Richard Henry. I'm currently employed at Journeys Aviation. And right into the mic, please. Okay. Here we go. I'm on the boards of the Experimental Aircraft Association, the Vintage Aircraft Association, and the Boulder Airport Association. I would strongly urge you to approve and continue the operation of the airport. Boulder Airport is more than an acreage of land. It's a community of people that love aviation. It is critical infrastructure in times of emergency and a platform for scientific and climate research as well as an engineering innovation center. The airport is also a business center and an income generator. I personally help young people learn about aircraft, how they work, and how they're put together. I get great satisfaction from watching these young people accomplish small tasks on their own that fit together in a larger picture, something they rarely experience outside of the airport. As the EAA, we have free flights for youth during the summer months which generate many smiles. and offer a scholarship for a young person wanting to learn to fly, whether it's for fun or for a career. We help them learn to fly. Boulder Airport is coming up on its 100th anniversary in 2028, and aviation is moving in bold directions. I would hate for Boulder to miss out on that future and would like to see 20-minute rides to Denver Airport or 30-minute rides to the slopes, avoiding I-70. The future is on our doorstep, and I'd hate Boulder to miss out. And closing informal polls, 85% of Boulderites are in favor of the airport. Thank you.

Thanks. We'll go to Mary Maxwell, James Leftwich, and Norman Anderson. Do we have Mary in the room? All right. Let's go to James Leftwich then. Then Norman Anderson. Then we'll go to Supran Online.

Mayor and Council, James Leftwich. I'm an attorney in Boulder County working on airport issues. These are my personal opinions. My understanding is that federal grant funding conditions must be rationally related to the purposes of the grant program. Airport Improvement Program grants come with several conditions that are not intended to improve your airport at all. They are intended to prevent the city from exercising your proprietary powers to regulate nuisances from noise and lead pollution coming from your airport. For example, if the city wants to regulate noise from piston engine airplanes at Boulder's airport, you agree to conduct an expensive noise study and then ask the FAA for approval of your noise regulation. Your airport council tells us that the FAA never grants that approval, so it's a futile exercise. My question is, how does that condition improve your airport? Or when unleaded avgas is available, you may want to stop selling leaded fuel. in order to protect children who live and go to school within several miles of your airport. You can't do that until at least 2031 unless you want to risk getting fined $5,000 a day by the FAA. My question is how does that condition improve your airport? Finally, contractual obligations that bind the public in perpetuity are highly disfavored in law. in part because they violate citizens' rights to have their current or future elected representatives decide the best way to protect the public health and safety. This contractual overreach by the FAA only ends when the city stops taking the funds and tells them you intend to protect the public safety using your judgment, not theirs. Thank you.

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Norman Brockett and his esteemed counsel for the opportunity to share my perspective on this important issue. I'm a pilot. I live in East Boulder. I watched the airport struggle for years because of the uncertainty around how long it's actually going to be here. Right now, the city can't offer long-term leases at our airport, as you've heard. Not to businesses, not to developers, not to anyone, because no one can plan around a facility whose future is in question. Investment doesn't happen. Hangers don't get built. Aviation businesses look elsewhere. There is a solution. A long-term commitment changes everything. Private capital needs certainty. Given investors' confidence that this airport will be there for the long term and you will see hangars, maintenance facilities, and aviation businesses developed. Those investments generate lease revenue, create local jobs, and build a sustainable income stream for the city. one that can make our airport a major contributor to finances. Timing matters. Aviation is transforming at a rapid pace. Electric aircraft, autonomous logistics, advanced air mobility, these industries need strategically located, well-managed facilities to develop and operate their technology. Boulder, with its research institutes, its talents, and its location, is perfectly positioned to attract exactly that kind of investment. but only if we can offer the stability that these emerging industries require. That opportunity is coming. We must be ready for it. The choice is clear. We need to commit to the airport's future, enable those long-term leases that can unlock investments, and use grant money to keep costs off the back of taxpayers. Done right, our airport becomes an economic asset for the whole community. That process starts with your vote yes tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go to three people online, Sue Print, Jill Grano, and Betty Lavelle. One second. Taisha, you had something?

Sometimes we're able to ask questions of the folks that have presented. When is the appropriate time to do that? Like immediately thereafter?

Immediately thereafter. If you have a question for someone, you can ask it immediately after they testify. Okay.

And if I haven't done that, the ship has sailed?

I mean, we could call somebody back up if you would like to.

I would. Sorry.

Thank you. Go ahead.

I would like to call Michael back, who does the renewable energy. Since our team was not able to do an analysis, and this is your expertise, I was just curious on the solar generation. You mentioned that in your testimony. And the time period our city is in, and I know our climate initiatives team is in conversation around, generating solar on that airport and a parcel had been identified. And I was just curious in your expertise, just the time to get an operation up and running, again, just in the expertise and the experiences that your businesses had.

I can't really speak to that specific case. I haven't analyzed it.

Oh, not to our case. I'm just saying if you've worked with airports in the in your business and just in general, how long does it take to get something up and running?

I'll just, the qualification, I work on large-scale utility projects, so not exactly this application, but generally it's a three- to five-year timeline for us to fully develop a solar project at that scale.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, let's go to Jill Grano. Sue Prant is our next testifier, and then Jill Grano and Betty Lavelle.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, great. Good evening. I'm speaking on behalf of community cycles and Boulder residents who rely every day on safe roads, bike lanes, sidewalks, and transit. The staff memo confirms that the city stops taking FAA funding. Staff will look first to the transportation fund as the main source of funding, including the two dedicated transportation sales tax because they're broader in nature. Here's the part that matters most tonight, even if this council chooses to protect the transportation fund by pulling from the general fund instead. That choice doesn't bind to councils that follow. Once the transportation fund is better resourced after the TMF and the general fund stays strained, a future council could have every reason to pull airport costs from transportation enhancement dollars, simply because that's where the money will be. And it's not only about which fund looks flush, it's about who's sitting on council when the choices come up again. We've seen this at the county level, where a bike-friendly commissioner's progress stalled once new commissioners took over. So let's be clear what a vote to stop taking FAA funding actually risks, stalling real progress on the core arterial network and setting up years of future fights, snow removal versus bike lanes, potholes versus transit service. For some on this council, cutting into transportation funding may not feel like much of a sacrifice, but for those who have pushed hard on tough trade-offs to get us this far on safe streets, bikes, and transit, we hope you'll see what's really at stake, especially since a future council, or maybe even this one, will be the one left to deal with those consequences. We're asking you to weigh that fully before you vote tonight. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Jill Grano, then Betty Lavelle, and Sheila Salt.

Thank you, Council. Tonight's vote is not about closing the airport or keeping it open. It's about whether you nine tonight are going to make one of the most significant land use decisions since 1976 with almost no public process. It's about whether you will foreclose the opportunity for future generations to decide how to use 180 acres in one of the most land constrained cities in the country. Future generations might choose to keep the airport, but let that choice be theirs. Tonight's presentation was crafted to convince you that you must take FAA grants, but that's just not true. There are over a thousand small local airports that do not take them. Boulder could become a self-sustaining airport. No lawsuit, no closure, no confrontation. But accepting perpetual obligations closes that door that no future council can reopen. That's what makes tonight's vote different. Most votes can be revised, but this one cannot. And please do not make a decision of this consequence based on what the FAA might do 14 years from now. Let's take this one step at a time. Let future staff and future councils handle a lawsuit if that comes. Aviation is changing and the FAA might change with it. I implore you, please focus on what's before you tonight and don't trade away Boulder's future options out of fear of the hypothetical.

Thank you. Thank you. Now we'll go to Betty Lavelle, then Sheila Salt, and then Frank Carinante.

Betty, your mic is open if you'd like to unmute.

We're not getting any... Are you able to speak?

Can you hear me?

Yes. Okay, good.

I'm Betty Lavelle, a longtime resident of Boulder and Boulder County over 40 years. In the late 1970s, I took flying lessons at the Boulder Airport and earned a student pilot's license flying a Piper Cub and flew to Cheyenne and back under a hood using instruments. It was a thrill. And I'm so grateful that the airport was there. In the last few years, my partner, another commercial pilot, a Bush pilot from Alaska, who flew rescue missions in the Arctic region, relocated and resided with me in Longland. An octogenarian, he was able to resume his flying by taking glider lessons at the Boulder Airport. At eight, At age 80, he soloed and had the time of his life in the city of Boulder Skyways. I'm speaking now in support of retaining the airport for others to have the same wonderful recreational experiences that the airport offers. It is an important and worthy amenity and a benefit for the city of Boulder. That's it.

Thank you. All right, now we're going to go to Sheila Salt, who's pooling with Mary Ingham and Howard Johnson. If I can see the hands. I got one hand. Do we have Howard Johnson?

All right, do we have?

And I see Howard online. Great. So, Sheila, you get four minutes.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Good evening, and thank you for your time. Before we lose our hats on the large millions of dollars getting presented, let's break down the data. Regardless of which scenario we are talking about, each one inflates project costs while grossly understates revenues. The result is the impression that the FAA funding is the only reasonable option. Today, Longmont City Council member Jake Marsing issued a statement on the newly released rates and charges study on their airport. And to paraphrase, the study makes clear that the airport's current financial model is not strong enough for long-term sustainability. It ties that directly to the obligation to be as self-sustaining as possible under FAA Grant Assurance 24. The study also evaluated landing fees as a legitimate revenue source, not a fringe idea. I include this because the takeaway here is that airports trend to historically and nearly exclusively lean on subsidies to operate while ignoring internal revenue to be self-sustaining and remain out of deficit. Our airport spreadsheet on the cost side includes virtually every conceivable capital project. This list originates from the 2024 financial memo, which explicitly states that it is not prioritized. In other words, it's a wish list, not a financially constrained capital plan. The FAA and CDOT have limited funding, with many airports competing for needs. It is very optimistic to assume we will get full coverage. Additionally, BDU's historic subsidies will starkly contrast current anticipated figures. For example, airport staff projects up to $29 million in capital spending over the next 15 years. Yet over the past 38 years, BDU received less than $12 million total in FAA funding, less than half of what is now projected in less than half the time. VDU has averaged taking $300,000 a year in the past 40 years from the FAA, an amount that the airport should have no problem covering. CDOT funds look similar. Over the past 34 years, Boulder received about $2.5 million in state funding. Staff now projects nearly that same amount in just the next four years. It's hard to believe that state or federal, singly or combined, are going to fund up to $29 million of projects in 15 years or the $14 million in the next four. The next question compares the CIP, the capital improvement plan submitted in November 2025, which outlines critical project needs to the FAA and CDOT to discuss who and if these get funded. As stated, staff is reporting $14 million for the next four years, yet the CIP only asked for $4 million. Why is there a $10 million gap between what's presented to us versus what's discussed with government funding agencies? Additionally, until 2030, the total line items have anticipated CDOT and FAA funds is over 15 million, yet listed projects are at 14 million. The government isn't going to give us surplus funds. Next, we will cover the artificially thin revenue. While we got a slide tonight, staff deleted or failed to include revenue generating efforts such as landing fees or solar in the spreadsheets. This has been done despite Boulder's 2023 study that literally listed revenue ideas to get compliant with the FAA's note on self-sustainability. This has starved and continues to starve our airport to the tune of hundreds of thousands a year. The current ledger deleted landing fees with a footnote stating it would cost too much and vendors wouldn't charge piston crafts due to lawsuits. This is patently false information. So why is the revenue side fully dependent on grants and largely excluded the ways the airport can self-generate revenue? Why is the expense ledger max, but the revenue virtually non-existent in the presentation? So the last question surfaces, do we have adequate, honest, and reliable data to make any decision right now? Thank you.

Thank you. We've got a question for you from Council Member Adams.

I would just like to give a moment to Blythe to respond to specifically the 2023 report and the landing fees, as well as the gap that was mentioned between what the Fed said and what the report says from our most recent contact.

I'm sorry, Council Member, I might need you to repeat that question.

So the, what is the person called who speaks? Well, I know her name, but the speaker, thank you. The last speaker just said that the information that you provided is incorrect and doesn't reference the correct costs for the landing fees from the 2023 report. And it also doesn't include that there was a gap in the... Sheila, are you still on the line?

Yes, they just keep muting me and unmuting me, so I might take a minute.

No, you're back on now. Can you speak to the federal, the discrepancy between what the federal says and what the report says? Just that line. Just that line.

There was a capital improvement plan submitted in 2025. Is that the one you're referencing? And that lists five-year plan for $4 million. Mm-hmm.

Correct.

But versus, versus the scenario one, when I look at it, there's a need of 14 million in the next four years.

That's the discussion.

Yeah. And that's the, that's the Eric. Yeah. Thank you. And I'll just add generally before Eric goes that that was the, one of the points I was trying to make in the presentation is that the, The CIP that's officially documented preceded our time. It's a static document. And what we've developed for the purposes of evaluating the scenarios is our own judgment of what we would need to do over the next 15 years. So the fact that there's a discrepancy doesn't mean that either of them are incorrect. They're just two different documents.

To speak to the process, I started my job in August of last year. And the CIP planning process starts in September. So within a month, I was tasked with developing a five-year CIP. after several years of not participating in those meetings. In the portal that the state uses to manage the CIP process, that you can forecast projects all the way out, zero to five years, five to 10, and 11 plus. The subject of the CIP meetings only focuses on five year increments. Having been on the job for 30 days, I focused on those five years that were gonna be discussed. All projects that were previously in those years while we weren't meeting with them got pushed out to year six until we can get some updated policy guidance. That is the discrepancy that is being referenced by the speaker. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

As a point of order, I believe it's in our council rules and procedures in terms of how we operate that we don't have staff directly respond to a question that came through public hearing. That the question is from a council member to ask the person giving testimony the question and not implicate staff to then be answering direct so that we're not getting in those tit for tats between community and staff. I thought that was our normal procedure. It's not that the questions aren't valid, it's just to avoid

Creating that conflict which is something that we've normally I think a council member could ask a clarifying question of city staff if they so desired I just don't want these to take up too much time so we can get through our public hearing but I think you are allowed to do that if All right our next three speakers are Frank Carinante Jan Burton and William Schaefer in person We'll get this right, okay

Good evening, City Council.

My name is Frank Carinante, and I speak for myself and as an advocate for the continued operation of Boulder Municipal Airport. I was previously a resident of Boulder from May of 1977 to June of 1992, although I still spend quite a bit of money in Boulder, living in Lafayette to this day. I'm an airline transport pilot. I used to be an FAA liaison, but they call it check airman, and I haven't been embedded in the Boulder Airport for many years. This might be just a kind of a memory lane look, but it might help understand what the Boulder Airport means to the community. I was initially employed as a flight instructor for Colorado Flight Safety. I assumed roles as chief flight instructor, chief pilot FAA 135, which is a charter instructor, and eventually general manager. And in these positions, I have trained nearly 70 student pilots, many leisure and many in professional pilots. I've worked with the National Business and Aircraft Association to help cities across the nation understand the value of their community airport resource. A number of professional pilot graduates that I've worked with myself went on to employment with storied aircraft commuter airlines such as Aspen Airways, Rocky Mountain Airways, Pioneer Airways, and, of course, United Airlines. Several locally owned cloud physics and research companies, notably Particle Measuring Systems, which was founded in Boulder in 1972, and Colorado International Corporation. Robert Nolenberg invented the laser particle counter that flew on a Pioneer Venus probe in space. And the airport and Boulder and the university have spawned many companies.

Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. Okay, we're going to go now to Jan Burton, then William Schaefer, and Gabrielle Katz.

Good evening, Mayor. council members. I'm Jan Burton, a Boulder resident, former business owner and tenant at the Boulder Municipal Airport. I've used the airport to support my tiny home business, to do non-profit work, to help pilots learn how to do mountain training with my airplane. I've rescued dogs and I've used it for family connections. I know it as a caring and cooperative community, one that provides real value to Boulder. Your first responsibility is prudent stewardship of the city's finances. Rejecting available FAA funding for proper airport maintenance would be fiscally irresponsible, especially while the city is confronting deferred maintenance issues in its buildings and other public assets and considering new taxes to pay for it. Turning away federal funding would shift costs to Boulder taxpayers and force limited local dollars to compete with other essential needs, including roads, bike lanes, transit, and public facilities. Accepting FAA grants protects a valuable city asset without placing the burden on our residents. Your second important responsibility is public safety. Boulder faces a serious and growing welfare threat. Our airport has supported firefighting and rescue operations in the recent past, and we cannot assume that we won't need it again. Once this infrastructure is lost, it would be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to replace. Further delay will only prolong uncertainty, conflict, and expense Tonight, you have the opportunity to provide clear leadership and put this issue to rest. Please vote to continue operating the Boulder Municipal Airport and FAA funds. Your time's up. Thank you very much.

Thanks for your testimony.

All right, now we have William Schaefer, then Gabrielle Katz, and then Laura Kaplan.

Thank you. I'm William Schaefer. I have been a Boulder resident for 40 years. living along the J Road residential corridor. I can speak firsthand to the transformation of our airport from a lightly used facility for travel in and out of Boulder to a major pilot training venue for the Front Range. It has become a one trick pony with upwards of 90% of the takeoffs and landings going nowhere, but flying in never ending circles over our homes. at a rate of one every couple of minutes. Pilots fly in from other airports for this practice. Glider-tow planes add their high-performance wail to the noise level. I have worked with many others to press for reduction of these overflights affecting thousands of Boulder citizens with noise and fuel pollution. I was a member of the city's airport study group on the airport in 2023. Though the transportation director and the airport manager were supportive, the sum total of these efforts was assigned asking pilots to fly south of J Road, which most pilots ignore. I do not want the council to lose sight of the severe ongoing negative impact of the airport. Ceding this unique and valuable city property to the FAA and a small group of airplane enthusiasts would likely condemn Boulder residents to this noisy, polluted future. The ever-resistant and sometimes belligerent flying community would be further emboldened when FAA control is permanent. There are much better uses for this land than planes flying in relentless loops above our homes. Please consider the greater good of the entire Boulder community in deciding the fate of this valuable resource. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Gabrielle Katz, then Laura Kaplan, and Cheryl Haugen.

Hi. Good? I'm Gabrielle Katz. I'm a resident of Heatherwood neighborhood. I live near 75th Street and J Road. I urge the city council to take the following common sense steps as you navigate the important decisions ahead. Step one, do not sign an FAA contract that binds our community to the federal government in perpetuity. By not signing this contract, you will open up a world of opportunities. You will open up space for creative decision making and new ideas. Step two, answer this question. Is operating an airport the highest and best use of this city property? Conduct a thorough, unbiased cost benefit assessment. The analysis should not be limited to status quo business benefits, grants and taxes. It must also include an evaluation of the public health costs associated with the lead pollution and noise from the airport, as well as impacts to local property values. It should include ethical considerations related to the above, as well as an assessment of environmental impacts. Step three, if it is determined that operating, oh, step three, option A, if it is determined that operating an airport is the best use of this site, then by not signing the FAA contract, you will have an opportunity to operate the airport differently. Can you operate an airport that is financially self-sustaining? Can you operate an airport that is benign in terms of environmental and public health impacts? Can you operate an airport that is a good neighbor and in a way that is consistent with the city's values? Step three, option B. If you decide that an airport is not the best use of the property, you will have future opportunity to decide what the best use would be. This would be a chance for debate, public participation, and shared decision making. If you sign the FAA contract now, you close off these future possibilities. You handcuff yourselves to the FAA and curtail the ability of all future city councils to make responsible decisions about the airport site.

Thank you. Now I'll go to Laura Kaplan, who's pooling with Paul Dugan and Kate Elliott. Can we see hands for those two people? I got one hand.

Kate is online.

Great. Let's just confirm that. And there she is. All right, you got four minutes.

Thank you, Aaron. So good evening, Mayor Brockett and members of council. I'm Laura Kaplan speaking in my individual capacity and for the ANC, the Airport Neighborhood Campaign. So tonight's the big night. Thank you for agreeing to hold this public hearing to listen to your constituents. Tonight's packet implies that either we take the FAA grants or we must raid the transportation fund. That is a false binary choice that pits the airport against other city needs. You have not received any peer community research, no case studies about how other airports run without FAA grants and without raiding the treasury. And confusion around available CDOT funding still persists. Recent events have pushed the ANC to learn more about how airports can become self-financing. I am very excited that you will hear tonight from John Fairweather about the Santa Monica Airport, which is entirely self-funding without using any federal grants, state grants, or city funding. And not only are they self-sustaining, they are also in the black by about $8 to $10 million a year. John will tell you how they are doing it.

That's only one example.

As mentioned before, there are over 1,000 publicly-owned, public-serving airports in the U.S. that run with zero federal funding. How are they similar to Boulder, and how are they different? Who knows? It hasn't been looked at yet. In other news, some of you have seen the Longmont Airport Rates and Charges Study, which came out today and which I forwarded to you. It looks like there's a lot of great information there about revenue generation, although there has been no time to absorb it before this meeting. The ANC previously opposed additional development at BDU. Well, we are now learning how development can be an effective tool to generate revenue to replace FAA grants. So the ANC could support airport development in service of that goal. It is not our first choice, but it beats the alternative. But if we haven't had a chance to talk about this yet with the city, because there has been no outreach to the ANC since the day that we officially withdrew our ballot measures nearly two years ago. We would welcome conversation with the city about how to work together, particularly if council tonight considers putting a measure on the ballot as a way to keep faith with the petitioners. Many of us from the ANC are here tonight and many more of us are not here because they could not bear to watch. They are holding their breath at home, waiting to hear what you all decide. But we all want to remind council about our 4,000 signatures, the vast majority of whom were registered city voters as verified by Alicia's team, who wanted to say in the future of the airport. I ask you to prioritize the fact that you do not yet have a reasonable base of information upon which to make this decision. Hotline this week has been chaotic. There is the inadequacy of the financial analysis, but also council members do not appear to have had a common understanding of the perpetuity commitment required by the FAA. And while I do appreciate the attorney's testimony here tonight, I'm still not sure that it is entirely clear. The staff memo says you've received confidential information, confidential legal advice, which is great. I'm glad for that, but it is not transparent to the public and does not build public trust. The public does not understand why some of you are pushing what seems like a terrible deal for the city of Boulder with so little information to go on. I believe strongly that the city should not take the FAA grants. But if after listening to all the testimony, the council still thinks that this is the right decision for Boulder, then we at the ANC urge you to put the matter to a public vote. If you are right about what the public wants, then you will be validated. And if you are wrong and the people say no to FAA funding, then you will have saved the city from a major unforced error. Regarding ballot language, there is existing language from the 2024 ballot petitions that specifically talks about FAA funding and not accepting it. This language was already vetted by the city attorney's office and the city manager's office and could be repurposed. I wish you all good luck in your deliberations tonight. Please be wise. Thank you.

Now we'll go to Cheryl Haugen and Joseph Trammell and then Hep Ingham.

I'm Cheryl Haugen, and I object to giving the federal government the keys to the kingdom. I ask you to vote no on accepting FAA funding for a tiny amount of money we give away too much. The airport is not a need, it is a want. It is used by a small number of privileged lobbyists, many of whom do not live in Boulder. It is an untruth that the airport is needed for our community's safety and well-being. In actuality, the airport causes great environmental harm in acoustic pollution, air and soil contamination, nor is it a moneymaker. Our 179 acres is the largest parcel of city-owned land not in a floodplain and not designated open space. We can choose wisely to operate this airport without federal funding. Choose that our legacy be to retain control of this land. Here's a worst case scenario for you. Boulder has a devastating fire or catastrophic flood. We're financially devastated. Our priorities and needs change. Our wants no longer apply. This parcel could be our ace in the hole against a natural disaster or other unforeseen circumstance that could financially crater the city. Let's be certain not to encumber our land with FAA grant restrictions that have no expiration date. Please do not accept FAA funding. This is one of our last frontiers. Not many communities have this kind of safeguard contingency plan. Give our citizens certainty that our leaders are protecting our assets. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go to Joseph Trammell, then Hap Ingham, and then John Fairweather.

Hello, I am Joseph Trammell, a 15-year-old avid user of the Boulder Airport, and I believe that the airport should stay open because the airport is critical in the development of future aviators. There are at least three flight schools that are operated out of the airport.

And if you can get right into the mic, please.

Operated out of the airport. This is not just recreational. This represents an educational resource that impacts the professional futures of the individuals learning to fly out of Boulder Municipal Airport, including myself. In this way, the airport also contributes to the economic health of our community and state. Closing down the airport could have a negative downstream effect on national security because of a pilot shortage that still persists in our nation. The Marshall Fire in 2021 was the most destructive wildfire in Colorado history. Given the growing intensity and frequency of wildfires in our state and nation, there will be a developed and urgent need for aerial wildfire resources that Boulder Airport could provide in a very substantial manner due to its location to the water and mountains. Over the past several years, I have had the opportunity to participate in the EAA Chapter 1627 at Boulder Municipal Airport. It is hard to describe how meaningful this has been to me and my father due to his late passing. We have made some memories that have lasted past his death. This is a place where I come to learn about aviation and mechanics, a set of indispensable skills for me, as well as where I found community that has supported me through very difficult times and will continue to be a positive and life-changing factor in many more lives such as mine for years to come. So please vote to keep the Boulder Airport open, accept the FAA and CDOT grants so this place can continue operating for generations to come and continue improving lives such as mine in a positive and meaningful manner. Thank you.

Thanks so much.

All right. Now we're going to go to Hep Ingham and John Fairweather and Lynn Siegel. Hey, good evening.

So nobody wakes up and says, I want to close the airport. What happens? You get a bunch of low, loud, leaded flights and they start coming over your house, reporting on harassment. And so you call up the city and say, what's to be done. And they kick it down the road and say, We can't do anything because we took FAA money. So go talk to the FAA. So you go talk to the FAA and what you find out is their only response is it doesn't affect flight safety. And then that's it. That's your only recourse. So this is how it's been, and it's a very unjust situation. And this power shouldn't be in the hands of the FAA because they're an interested party. Most of the guys that I talked to at the FAA, they were pilots or they had shares in airplanes. And they're kind of in the same group. And when I went up and talked to the pilots up at the airport, asking them to follow the rules that they were breaking, they said, the FAA says we can do whatever we want. That's a quote. The other quote I got was, there are no rules. These are only recommendations. And so you have this basically lawless enterprise called the FAA that's going to give you the rules in perpetuity. And I just want you to think about the justice angle that this is causing. Because once you take this money, that's the only thing you're ever going to hear from the FAA is it doesn't affect flight safety. And that's going to be the only recourse that you're going to have in terms of noise, pollution, and basically borderline harassment. So keep the airport open, but don't take the FAA money or keep it open in the future.

Thank you. Now we'll go to John Fairweather, who's pooling with Mason Roberts and Ann Wilson. If I can have, okay, I got one hand and I see Mason online. So John, you've got four minutes.

My name is John Fairweather and I'm a leading activist in the successful campaign to close Santa Monica Airport at the end of 2028 and replace it with a great park. Given tonight's focus, I'll only cover the financial aspects of that process. Santa Monica is a GA airport, very similar to Boulder. We faced the same decision in the late 2000s. The airport had a $13 million debt to the general fund that was growing each year. Should we take money from the FAA or could we find another way that didn't trap the city in a Faustian bargain? The city recognized the airport for what it really was, an underperforming real estate portfolio needing good management and diversification beyond aviation to succeed. Today, the 13 million is replayed and we have an eight to $10 million annual surpluses. Less than 10% of the roughly 200 businesses there are aviation based. Revenues pay for all maintenance and airport related litigation costs. So SMO takes no grants or funding from any other source. Here's how we did it. Firstly, don't take money from the FAA for anything. Document any city money you put in as a loan, that way you can get it back. Secondly, run aviation as a business. Hire a consultant to determine what landing fees and aviation lease rates need to be. All aircraft based and itinerant must pay landing fees. Install tail number cameras for billing. It's a short ROI and our fee capture rate jumped dramatically. Present your findings to the FAA and they'll grant these increases as they did for us. Thirdly, review subleasing. At SMO, over 80% of all activity turned out to be non-aviation subleases to the FBOs, who were making millions each year. Ban subleasing to capture those millions while taking over all leases. The FAA has no say in this. All this may cause some businesses to throw in the towel. If you can't find a new aviation talent, the FAA encourages you to lease for non-aviation purposes. And tech companies love the funky spaces that there are at airports. So we had no trouble leasing to entities paying far higher rates than aviation. SMO became the center of Silicon Beach. Snapchat is now headquartered there. SMO now is a diverse and profitable real estate enterprise with aviation as a subsidiary but mandatory function. End-to-end time for this makeover was about five years. That's how we did it. Your airport is an information and fiscal black hole preventing the escape of earned dollars to benefit the city as a whole. Use this new trapped income. The FAA allows use for airport litigation and to upgrade infrastructures and buildings that were ever used for aviation purposes. Upgrade your real estate portfolio to yield even higher revenues. closure ends the black hole. Earnings now directly to the general fund double while airport costs disappear. This financial engine lets you find and finance the best and highest use for the land, so work with your community to prepare. The key point is if you take money from the FAA, your successes are powerless because closure is not an option. So think about them and what beneficial futures you may preclude when making tonight's choice. Do your own fact finding. Talk to the city of Santa Monica, talk to the airport manager, talk to the activists, and you'll see clearly this is the path you should tread. Good luck.

Thank you. Now we're going to go to Lynn Siegel and then Zach Yamauchi and then John Mack.

We have a problem in Boulder with Lynn Siegel with long term economic sustainability. I was just at the Boulder commissioners today and I didn't get to speak about the funding of culture. Um, but it was, the discussion was on childcare and, you know, we can't fund childcare in Boulder. You know, we have an economic crisis here and We're begging for more affordable housing. And the way that we do that is we get LIHTC funds and we get tax subsidies from the federal government and pushing growth. And growth never pays its way. And that's what you have to do when you analyze the long-term fiscal ability of this community to fund its South Boulder Rec Center. Now my dad, you know, I'm biased. My dad worked for the FAA. He got laid off from Boeing on the supersonic transport and he went back to school in civic engineering and got his degree in air and noise and he got a job in air at the FAA. And, you know, my dad almost, I'm almost not here. He would have been happy to not have me because he would have crashed in World War II. they almost went down. So in that sense, I support air flight, but I certainly don't support it in Israel and Palestine.

Please stay on the topic of the hearing.

And that is directly relevant.

Okay, your time is up. All right, your time is up. All right, our next three speakers. Your time is up. Our next three speakers are Zach Yamauchi, John Mack, and Nick Aguilera. Quiet in the audience.

Thank you, counsel. My name is Zach Yamauchi and I'm the vice president of the Soaring Society of Boulder. I first found my passion for flying gliders in college while studying aerospace engineering and am now a highly accomplished glider pilot having represented the United States in international gliding competitions. After starting my career as an engineer, I now work as a professional pilot for one of the largest private aviation companies in the world. I moved to Boulder in January. My wife enrolled in a postgraduate program at CU, but I won't pretend the airport wasn't a major part of that decision, too. When we were choosing where to build our life, the airport was one of the reasons Boulder won. The Boulder airport isn't a relic the community tolerates out of habit. It's actively drawing skilled workers, engineers, scientists, and pilots to the city right now in 2026. I also want to correct an assumption I've heard, that closing the airport would mean fewer planes over Boulder. The company I work for flies into Rocky Mountain Metro hundreds of times each year, and I've personally flown jets in and out of it many times. Jets currently fly a significantly shorter traffic pattern, specifically to stay clear of aircraft operating from Boulder Airport. If this airport disappears, that reason to stay clear disappears with it, and the final approach path for Metro Airport runs right over the city. Closing this airport doesn't reduce the aircraft overhead, it removes the one thing keeping large aircraft away. And it doesn't cost the city to keep it open. City analysis shows that with FAA and CDOC funding, the airport remains financially self-sustaining as it has for most of its history. Reject that funding and Boulder doesn't save money. It takes on millions of dollars in costs the airport currently covers itself. While I might not have decades of history with the airport, like many of the people speaking tonight, I do have a fresh outside perspective. And from that perspective, the vote is simple. You have a chance to accept funding that costs the city nothing and keep something rare and valuable exactly where it is. I hope you will keep the airport open and vote to accept FAA grants. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Now we'll go to John Mack, then Nick Aguilera, and then Clemens Sepeck.

Hello, council members. This is John Mack. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I understand there are concerns about losing $150,000 per year of FAA entitlement grants. Well, there's a great solution. Landing fees for Boulder could easily generate double that amount or more. A letter from an executive from Vector Airport Systems was sent to Boulder's airport manager. It corrects any misinformation regarding landing fees. She said hundreds of airports in the US charge landing fees. You can bill all weights of planes, including the training traffic. Importantly, landing fees have not been found to drive away air traffic, and there are ways to manage fee avoidance. The fact is there's almost no administrative cost to the airport sponsor. She noted that airports can easily pivot to camera technology if legislation were ever to pass that outlaws the current method of monitoring air traffic for landing fees. Please remember, she has a nationwide perspective. And that's a modest landing fee with even more potential with more aggressive fees. So shouldn't Boulder consider this given it's been such a successful revenue stream at hundreds of airports from coast to coast? Please explore landing fees and do not accept any more FAA funds unless there is a public vote reflecting the will of the people. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to Nick Aguilera, then Clem Sepec and Debra Yin.

Hi, City Council. Can you all hear me?

Yes.

Great. Thank you all. Good evening, City Council. My name is Nick Aguilera, a Boulder resident speaking as myself. I urge you, please do not accept FAA funding. This is not simply a funding decision. It is a decision about whether future City Councils will retain meaningful authority over this land's FAA grants come with the obligation to operate the airport indefinitely, as we've heard extensively tonight, but they do not guarantee that federal funding indefinitely. Once the city commits to these FAA obligations, future residents and future councils will have far less ability to reconcile whatever decision comes tonight. Getting this power back will be an extraordinary difficult task. A decision this lasting and consequential deserves a fair, transparent, and democratic public process. This has not happened on nearly every other major planning issue. Boulder values public engagement and democratic process. This decision should be no different. Boulder needs to make a decision that reflects our city's values. Today, FAA grant obligations limit the city's ability to adopt stronger environmental protections, noise restrictions, fueling standards, and other measures. that residents have repeatedly asked for and expressed concerns about the lack thereof. Whether you support the airport or not, these are decisions that should remain available to Boulder through its own public process, as Jill said, not foreclosed on by this sort of long-term federal contract and a rushed non-representative decision. I ask you to respect the more than 3,400 registered city voters who signed the airport neighborhood campaign petition Despite qualifying as a ballot initiative, the campaign withdrew its support or its initiative to support the city's FAA litigation. And based on at the time, the city's commitment not to accept additional FAA funding, accepting new FAA funding now would break that commitment and undermine public trust. Please honor the commitment made to the public. I'm not asking you all to not make a decision. I'm not asking you all to make a decision about the city's future.

Time is up, but thank you for your testimony. Now we're going to Clemens Cipek, who is pooling time with Jeff Clayton and Jody Clayton. If we can just see, yes, they're here. Okay, so you got four minutes.

Good evening and thank you all for your service. Right into the mic, please. Okay, yep. My name is Clemens Cipek. I was president of the Soaring Society of Boulder for the last five years. I continue to serve on the board. I personally moved to Boulder because of what this airport offers. You've read our letters. You know our arguments. I won't repeat them here Instead I'm gonna use the time To tell you what no letter can I'm gonna talk about a glider flight On July 11, I took off from the bold Airport just after 9 in the morning. My glider is a small fuel-efficient engine no tall plane needed Departed Northwest right into the foothills No one in Boulder would have heard me or seen me Over the hills I shut off the engine but at that time I had burned one and a half gallons of unleaded fuel I Spotted a pair of Hawks circling in a thermal over the hills. I joined the Hawks and climbed with them to 16,000 feet I Following an invisible line of rising air, I passed Mount Blue Sky, across South Park, across the Collegiate Peaks, and by noon I was at the New Mexico border. I turned northwest. I climbed to 17,000 feet, passed over San Luis Peak, the Black Canyon of the Gunnison. By 3 p.m., I was at the Utah border. I turned northwest. I joined an eagle in a thermal. Eagles are amazing soaring birds, and they easily outperform the glider. And I turned back, and I came through the Yampa Valley North Park, the Madison Bow Range, to the Wyoming border. turns out flew back past Rocky Mountain National Park by 630 I landed back in Boulder nine hours three states 780 miles on one and a half gallons of fuel that's 520 miles per gallon about ten times as efficient as a Prius and completely silent from the moment I turned off the engine now I Some gliders, as you know, need a tow plane to get airborne. And tow plane noise has been a legitimate concern for many. So I want to tell you what's coming. New FAA regulations expected within days will allow us to transition to light sport aircraft. These aircrafts are 10 times quieter than our current tow planes and three times as fuel efficient. They also climb faster, which means less time in noise sensitive areas. The gliders they tow make no noise at all. The Soaring Society is committed to make this transition as soon as possible, but we need a clear vote from you because we need the security that this airport will still be here for us when this investment has to pay off. When I hear people say that our sport is spewing lead over the city, I ask you to hold this picture. 780 miles, three states, nine hours. An eagle, silence, one and a half gallons of unleaded fuel. And tow planes will soon be just as quiet as my glider. Boulder is one of the best gliding sites on Earth. Last year, the Soaring Society finished second in the World League out of more than 750 clubs. We need the airport. If it goes, so goes soaring in Boulder. Please accept FAA funds and keep this airport open for the emergency responders, for the community, and for a sport that is adventurous, silent, and powered entirely by the sun and the wind, a sport that is quintessentially Boulder. Please vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you. We've got a question for you.

Yes, Tara.

So I'm glad to hear that you're committed to quieter planes. Yes. But what about the other companies that use the noisy.

So obviously I cannot speak for journeys but I know that Andrew McKenna is supremely interested in those as well. In fact he has been in discussions with companies that would distribute those planes that are looking for U.S. distributors now that the FAA will open access to these planes and so there's a possibility that we might even get him to become a dealer for these planes and that would be for us would be super exciting because having local support on site would be fantastic but I can't speak for him, and this is still a little too early. We still don't even have the green light from the FAA yet, but we should be getting it. You know, we thought we would get it last year. We still don't have it. I think we get it tomorrow, but, you know, I can't speak for the FAA either. But it's coming. I know it's coming, and these planes are, you know, they really are just as quiet as my glider. You won't hear them.

Thank you. All right, so now we have Deborah Yin, Sue Gomez-Folk, and Christopher Young.

Good evening, Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Deborah Yin. I've lived in Boulder for 27 years. I'm here tonight to express my thoughts about the decision before you, whether to commit the city, in other words, us, to maintaining the airport in perpetuity. It's sad to see Council in this state, dysfunctional, in chaos. Council says you care about fiscal responsibility, signing away the rights to a large city-owned property without knowing in advance how much the city will get in return. And it appears not even being clear on the terms of the deal with a federal partner who keeps trying to change the terms is the opposite of fiscal responsibility. These conditions are absurd. A financial advisor would tell you to run away fast. Council says you listen to the public. If this is true, you would know you don't have a mandate from the public to take the FAA grants. You've never asked the public if we're willing to accept running the airport forever. The city does more public outreach about naming parks than you're doing about this. Council says you care about collaboration and good governance. Pushing through a high-stakes decision like this with so many unanswered questions, so little information about alternatives, and over the thoughtful objections of your colleagues is neither collaborative nor good governance. Do not vote in favor of taking the FAA grants tonight. If you do, history will not look on this kindly. This is the kind of controversial decision that should be put to public vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Sue Gomez-Folk, then Christopher Young, and Tom Akes.

Good evening, Council. Thanks for taking the time to listen to all of us. I'm Sue Gomez-Folk. I moved to Boulder seven years ago as an undergraduate student in engineering, and now I'm still here pursuing my doctorate. I walked around the airport for the first time as a sophomore, and I didn't really know what I was looking for. I was just curious about the gliders and how they worked. The president of the glider club came out and took the time to talk to me, to show me around, talk to a curious 19-year-old. And when I decided to pursue a glider pilot's license, he volunteered his time to teach me. In doing so, I got to see not just the natural beauty of the Rockies, but of the skies above. It sparked a passion in me for the atmosphere and for understanding the world around us. I could stand here and tell you about why I feel the airport is a pillar of the community, about the kind and generous people I've met around the airfield, about the scholarships and the volunteers and whatnot, but I think the airport is important to Boulder for a different reason altogether. In my eyes, it's a part of our identity as the city. Boulder would be a different town without our sailplanes, without the atmospheric research flights in the same way as it would be without the trails or the bike paths. I've been a rated glider pilot for five years now, and I don't really fly much anymore, but the experience of learning to fly gliders made me the person that I am today, and I don't think we should give that up. And for that reason, I urge you to continue to accept FAA grants and maintain the airport in the condition that it should be in. Thank you all for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Christopher Young, then Tom Akes and Gretchen Yon.

Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Thank you, Council Member, for this meeting and seeking public input. My name is Christopher Young and I'm a Boulder resident who has lived near the airport in the Four Mile Creek neighborhood off of J Road since 2013. I am a firm supporter for keeping the Boulder Airport open and accepting grant money from the FAA and CDOT. The noise from aircraft is not burdensome, it's not relentless, and has not negatively affected my property value. nor is there any direct evidence of pollution as some try to falsely declare. The airport is an integral transportation asset to our community for almost 100 years. It provides aviation access and education to community members and students aspiring to have a career in the aerospace industry. It is a popular and welcoming venue for recreational enthusiasts to enjoy our beautiful landscape. It is a useful stopping point for operators conducting business and research in their region. It also has a value for the innovative commuter transit options now being developed through quiet electric aircraft technologies. Most importantly, it is a vital staging point for emergency services during natural disasters by helping to reduce aircraft travel times when just few minutes can be the difference with saving structures and lives in a wildfire, flood, or other major emergency. The majority of Boulder residents support the airport as evidenced by the withdrawal of the 2024 ballot measure due to strong opposition. Yet we are still discussing the future of our airport because a few individuals have tried to tarnish the airport's community value and importance without evidence-based data. It's simply their emotional opinion. By not accepting grant money to the city, the city council is burdening our taxpayers and diverting limited funds away from other important projects, as well as filling staffing shortages. It is notable that 2026 is the first time in the airport's 100-year history that the city has used general funds to cover airport expenditures due to pausing grant acceptance. Vote yes to keep the airport open and accept FAACDOT grant money. Thank you.

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Tom Akes, then Gretchen Yan, and Lisa Spaulding.

Mayor, I do not see Tom online tonight.

All right, let's go to Gretchen then.

This is Gretchen John. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Great. I'm a pilot and a member of the Colorado Pilots Association, EAA, AOPA, and the 99s. I began flying at the Boulder Airport back in 1979, and that's more than 48 years ago. My husband and I were partners in an airplane based here. I spent hours as a passenger, then a navigator, eventually a pilot. My flying and flying career progressed to become CEO of Mooney Airplane Company in Texas. I was in management at Alpha Aviation in New Zealand and Rimos Aircraft in Germany, then an aviation consultant before retiring and coming back home to the Boulder area. Boulder Airport gave me my start in aviation. It provided the basis to explore aviation and build a place in it for myself where I could contribute. It still does this service for countless generations of pilots. While I'm only one of many thousands of individuals this airport has affected positively, we are all molded by our aviation experiences here and become leaders in the industry. Thousands have followed in our footsteps, and thousands more will follow us. We pay our rentals, our hangars, our fuel fees, and other fees as airport users. The Boulder Airport matters to general aviation pilots. More than you know, more than you believe. I'm not the only one whose life changed course because of experiences at the airport. you as the city council members would be remiss in your mission if you close this important asset or stop taking FAA grants. While others have told you about its importance to the economy, to human welfare, I bear witness to its importance in changing lives.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Now we'll go to Lisa Spaulding and then Jesse Applegate and Robert Caldwell.

Lisa Spalding for Plan Boulder County. Plan Boulder County strongly recommends that council delay approving any grants from the FAA for the Boulder Airport until the outstanding issues and conflicting information have been resolved. At the May 28th, 2026 meeting, the council approved holding a public hearing on funding of the airport in order to take formal action based on a complete and accurate record. Staff was to prepare two versions of the policy for that hearing, one authorizing the use of FAA funding and one reflecting a long-term path that preserves maximum local control and avoids new FAA grants. Apparently scheduling this public hearing so quickly did not provide adequate time to assemble the appropriate information since the staff memo is missing much of the information requested by council. This has been noted in public hotlines by council members Schuhardt and Wallach. Different facts have been argued by different interests in the future of the airport. However, there are real provable facts for all parties to agree to. The major argument by the city staff for taking FAA grants is financial, but we have no evidence of a real examination of the potential alternative funding resources to keep the Boulder Airport open under local control. Taking FAA grants now means there can be no meaningful changes to the impacts of the airport use before 2046. There are already increasing impacts from local flight schools and scenic tour operators flying tourists over Boulder for the aerial view. The citizens of Boulder deserve at least a full and public determination of the facts for a rational decision. Once this picture is clear and accurate, the citizen should be allowed to vote on the outcome. Please delay any discussion on using FAA grants until it is agreed by all party that the facts provide the basis for a rational decision. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Jesse Applegate, then Robert Caldwell, then Bradley Peterson.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Council, and staff. My name is Jesse Applegate. I'm a student pilot out of Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport, and I'm speaking today in support of perpetual operation of the airfield.

Can you get more into the mic, please?

Ah, yes. Most of what I was going to say has been said, so this is going to be a bit more of a scattershot, kind of addressing random various things that, in my own experience, would be useful or unuseful. First of all, landing fees. Much has been said on the point. I would note that you are in competition with Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport, Longmont Airport, Erie Airport and the Northern Colorado Regional for student traffic, so that would just drive people away. Cafes and restaurants, hangars, solar, and eVTOL are all wonderful ideas, and they will help Los Angeles. Aye, aye, aye. They will help stabilize funding for the airfield, eVTOLs especially. Well, I don't know much about the tech. I do know that Centennial is looking into getting their own eVTOL pads. So they're building infrastructure for it as we speak. Quieter and cleaner aircraft have been talked about. The rule they were specifically referring to is Mosaic. That'll be wonderful for the gliders and whatnot, making them much quieter. For the general aviation airplanes that are coming in, you may want to consider looking into voluntary noise abatement programs. Similar programs have been implemented at Rocky Mountain Metropolitan and Centennial. They have helped lower complaints, though there are always those people who simply issue thousands of them. The airspace, and this will be my last note, the airspace, you are protected very well by having an airfield It was already mentioned that large aircraft are already avoiding Boulder because there's an airfield here. Massive amounts of training are happening to the north and the east, and the airfield keeps them from crossing over Boulder proper. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Robert Caldwell, then Bradley Peterson, and Ryan Harris.

Thank you to the council for allowing me to speak. I'm a leaseholder at Boulder Airport, and I've been flying out of Boulder Airport for over 50 years. I'm going to advocate for the airport, not in my own self-interest, but for that of the future. I'm going to age out of aviation before the airport's proposed closing date. And so what I want to advocate for is for the future pilots and aviation enthusiasts in Boulder area. I wanted to address the two main triggers that I think prompted the desire to close the airport. That is lead and number two, noise. As I think others have pointed out, we're in a time of flux right now where both of those issues are being addressed. Boulder's not alone in their complaints about these items, and they are being addressed. We now have unleaded fuel available, and my aircraft, which is a self-launched glider, is the shape of things to come. It runs on unleaded fuel. It makes very little noise. It's highly efficient. And that will apply not only to gliders and powered gliders, but also to the new generation of aircraft, which will be quieter and will run on unleaded fuel. And so the flux that we are going through right now in the aviation industry is going to benefit the problems faced by Boulder Airport. And so therefore, I would encourage you all to go ahead and keep Boulder Airport operating and to fund it. with the available federal funds that will make the airport self-sustaining again. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. I'll go to Bradley Peterson, then Ryan Harris, and Gil Gilmore. Is Bradley present? Not seeing them, then we'll go to Ryan Harris.

Good evening, counsel. My name is Ryan Harris. I'm a Boulder County resident, a CU Boulder graduate, and I wanted to share what this airport has been to me. To many people, an airport is simply a place where planes take off and land, but for me it has been so much more. It has taught me the value of critical thinking, how to solve problems, stay calm under pressure, and look at challenges from a different perspective. Those are lessons that reach far beyond aviation and help shape who I am. I'm currently a drinking water treatment operator. And I've taken a lot of things from aviation into water to just like it, yeah. It's an educational venue that isn't recognized in most educations. So you don't go get an aviation degree, you get a pilot license. It has also taught me gratitude. Gratitude for the people who volunteer their time, mentor others, and work hard to keep this airport thriving. gratitude for a place that brings people together, creates opportunities, and inspires the next generation to dream big. Closing this airport would mean losing more than a runway. We would lose a place where young people discover passions, where lifelong friendships are built, and where invaluable life lessons are learned. I hope we recognize that this airport is an investment in our community, our future, and the people whose lives it continues to change, just as it has changed mine. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to Gil Gilmore, then John Ter, then Richard Hall.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Gil Gilmore, and I will be advocating for the airport tonight. I want to talk about mainly my experience at the airport and also the youth programs that the airport offers. My first experience at the Boulder Airport was when I was eight years old and I went for a Young Eagles, a free discovery flight that people volunteer their time and fuel to give every single summer to hundreds of kids. After this, I knew that I wanted to pursue a career in aviation. And it is the same for many other kids who take these, knowing just at that moment that they want this to be their entire life. And that wouldn't be possible without the Boulder Airport. After this Young Eagles flight, I started attending EAA meetings and our build projects, which taught me many valuable lessons, met me up with mentors that I still know today, and taught me skills that I will never forget. After this, I founded a... a business that I still run today called Gilmore's Aero Wash, where I clean airplanes to save up for flight lessons. And over the time that I've been in this business, I have met nothing but kind people. No one has been rude or disrespectful at the airport. Everyone is super kind and supportive. While I'm washing planes, I often see families come out with their kids or field trips coming to the airport to watch the planes go up and down. That would not be possible without the Boulder Airport. And finally, my most recent thing is joining a youth program with about 40 other kids that meets every single week. Their main focus is leadership and aerospace education and it has taught me so much that I will carry throughout my entire life. Now, this Boulder Airport has supported mine and many other youth's life, and I believe that it is for this reason that you should continue FAA funding and keep the airport open. Thank you.

Thanks so much. Now we're going to go to John Thayer, then Richard Hall, and Todd Buchanan. Oh, turn the mic on. There we go. Nope, nope.

There we go. Cool. Mayor and members of council, I'm John Thayer, President and CEO of the Boulder Chamber. And I have two minutes to give you four reasons why you should end this flight of fancy regarding the potential closure of the Boulder airport. One, it's about economic vitality. We're talking about $23 million of annual economic impact to our community. That's visitors, business activity, and research from companies like Gilmore's, but entrepreneurs, researchers, aerospace companies, professional services, and scientific research organizations. In these very difficult and challenging economic times, we cannot afford to turn our back on valuable business activity. Number two, it's about tax dollars. $600,000 a year, that's nearly $10 million over the next 18 years. That's funding for bike lanes, pedestrian safety improvements. Did I mention bike lanes? that the city would otherwise have to forego in order to maintain our airports. In these constrained budget times, we cannot afford to waste our precious tax dollars. It's also number three about our environment. Just this month, we cut the ribbon on the first unleaded fuel pump at the Boulder Airport. Electric planes are coming and we can incorporate solar gardens on that site. We will kneecap our opportunity for innovation and environmental leadership if we fail to commit to our Boulder Airport. In these troubled days of our environment, we cannot afford to turn our back on the critical source of that type of innovation. And then number four, it's about our future. No one here can tell us where the future of flight is going, but electric planes and drones are in our future. Future generations will regret losing the one location in our community that accommodates these important mobility options. Thank you for your testimony. Let's get that FAA funding.

All right. Now we're going to go to Richard Hall, then Todd Buchanan, then Elliot Dickerson.

Hi. My name is Richard Hall. Thank you for the time to speak. We moved here, my family did, in the spring of 1957. So I am a longtime resident of Boulder. I'm one of those strange kids who grew up with, I really never wanted to be anything other than a United Airlines pilot. Went out to the Boulder airport when I was 13 years old and found a community out there that is still there to this day and it's a community that values education, but it also demands excellence. And it's very Boulder in that way that you have a lot of mentors out there that are doing a lot of interesting things. Did get to United Airlines, had a 46-year career. I would guess that someone in this room has ridden somewhere behind me safely and got there. Boulder Airport is where airline pilots go to be born. It's important, and I would like that opportunity to exist for my granddaughter or grandson someday. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Todd Buchanan, then Elliot Dickerson, and Ivan Jasliks.

Todd, your mic is open, but we cannot hear you.

All right. Todd, are you able to unmute yourself? Any, let's see, not hearing from you. We'll come back to you. All right, let's move to Elliot Dickerson next.

Hi, good evening. Thank you to everybody for the opportunity to speak. I'm a member of the Sorian Society and usually a pilot at Boulder with the glider. So if Boulder is able to prevail in any legal battle against the federal government, which is a very uncertain prospect, the relevant question kind of shifts to if Boulder would actually choose to use that legal right and actually close the airport. Right now, I don't believe the population of Boulder would support such a closure, but I admit that nobody here at the meeting has a definite answer as to what the people of Boulder want. However, the more specific question is actually, what would the people of Boulder want to do in 2040? And I think what I want to emphasize is that the nature of the Boulder airport will shift dramatically in the next 14 years when it really becomes a pertinent question. As everybody has alluded to, this week, the new mode radio rules for light sport will come into place. Basically, what currently costs millions and millions of dollars to approve a new aircraft will shift to a much more economical way to prove the engineering standard and get a new aircraft approved for use in the United States. And that will basically dramatically modernize the aircraft that operate out of Boulder. And that means much quieter aircraft, much more electric aircraft. aviation that will probably provide much more practical transportation options for people that are residents of Boulder, whether they're pilots or non-pilots. So if the City of Boulder chooses to take on this mass investment of declining FAA funding, there's a very real chance that they would not prevail in a legal battle. But even if they did, there's an even higher chance that the City of Boulder would not want to close the airport, especially in 2040. after all the modernization that I think will rapidly occur over the next 14 years, I am quite certain there will be no unleaded fuel in use at the Boulder Airport in 2040. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Next, we have Ivan Jasliks. I hope I'm pronouncing it the right way. And that is virtually.

No, Ivan? Do you see him online? Ivan, your mic is open if you'd like to unmute.

Should we go to – we'll come back to you, Ivan. We're going to move on. Very much. Yes.

So Ivan is ready for you now.

Is he here?

Yes, I am right here.

Great. Go ahead. We're ready.

Okay. Thank you very much, Ivan Jasliks, after all this. I am an MIT graduate in aerospace engineering. I work for Boeing, Lockheed Martin. And now at the age of 91, I am still working for the United States Air Force and NATO on varied contracts. I started flying, I had my first solo flight in 1951, and I am still an active pilot. That fact that I'm an active pilot helps me very much in my research work with these respectful agencies. I have noticed something a very long time ago when I instructed flying, that flying is like learning a foreign language, which I had to do also. There is an age limit. Up to seven years, you can take a child and a child will learn three languages with perfect accent. After that, they will have an accent. Same thing in flying. The later you learn to fly, the more of a quote accent you have in flying. You can still be a safe pilot, but not the same. So in gliding, you can start at age 14. You can solo at age 14. And you can solo an airplane at 16. Why am I saying this? We are all flying airlines. You know where airline accidents come from right now? Pilot errors. The safety systems are unbeatable, but pilot error is the problem. Boulder is an ideal place for training pilots. Please fund the airport and invest in more hangars, probably buy more land, and it will only bring more business to Boulder. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. I wish I spoke more than one language myself. Moving on, Charles Gillespie in person.

Good evening, Consul. Thank you for your service and the opportunity to speak to you. My name is Charlie Gillespie. I'm also a glider pilot that has operated out of Boulder for the past 30 years. And from that standpoint, I am a firm supporter of the continued operation of the airport and the acceptance of federal and local funds to do so. I wanted to speak briefly about that from the standpoint of fiscal responsibility. Excuse me. As you know, we live in a time where federal funding for programs that people rely upon have been drastically cut. We've seen examples of this in Boulder through mass layoffs at NOAA and the loss of tens of millions of dollars to the university in terms of research grants. In contrast to these losses that are currently beyond our control, Boulder currently has an opportunity to preserve a valuable part of its infrastructure. That's the Boulder Airport. excuse me, the city can accomplish this by accepting federal funding and CDOT grants to operate and maintain the airport. It doesn't need to fight for this funding. It doesn't need to apply for this funding. It simply needs to accept this funding. As we know, the city is currently legally required to operate and maintain the airport until 2040, yet it currently is refusing to accept federal and CDOT funding. meaning that Boulder taxpayers will cover the city's own estimated $26 million from recent presentation tonight over the next 14 years to meet this obligation. I'd like to conclude with a question for the council, city planners, and the mayor. If the city leadership is adamant in declining the available funding, what existing programs are they willing to cut or defund to meet this obligation? Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much and next we have Daniel Howard in person.

Members of Council, my name is Daniel Howard. I'm speaking on behalf as a Boulder resident and not on behalf of the Environmental Advisory Board. Please decline any FAA grant while operating BDU through 2040. BDU's long-term future should be left to the next generation of Boulderites who will inherit the consequences. I ask this on environmental grounds. First, emissions. Boulder has committed to steep science-based climate targets, and our community greenhouse gas emissions dashboard tracks our progress sector by sector. Against that backdrop, general aviation is among the most carbon-intensive activities per person. Boulder aviation emissions are not declining compared to other sectors, and one hour of piston flight burns roughly 8 to 15 gallons of fuel, often to carry few people. BDU flyers generate emissions wildly out of proportion on a per-user basis, given often small, single-occupancy flights. Also, unleaded fleets change nothing where cleaner fuel, even biofuel, is still a carbon-intensive one. There's no such thing as sustainable aviation fuels counter to greenwashing efforts. Second, land and heat. The airport occupies 175 acres of scarce land in the city, desperate for protected open space alongside sustainable, vibrant neighborhoods. Airports are a vast expanse of dark, impervious pavement that intensify local urban heat and land effects. raising temps and cooling costs for nearby neighborhoods precisely as our summers grow hotter. Via satellite imagery, our airport is the brightest hotspot in Boulder. If we decline FAA funding, we would not be charting new territory. Santa Monica and Santa Cruz County have both moved to reclaim local control of airports rather than accept perpetual FAA obligations. Closer to home, Denver turned Stapleton into the Central Park neighborhood, and Austin turned its Mueller Airport into a thriving mixed-use community, each with many acres of parkland. Mueller has notably generated $2.6 billion in economic impact after its airport was redeveloped. which is enabled by TIF financing. Nonetheless, airport land can have a second life, either remaining as an airport or other uses, but that can be a decision given a future context, which we are only afforded if we decline FAA grants today. Perpetuity is a long time. This council should not foreclose every future use of the airport on behalf of residents not yet born. Service the airport through 2040, then let the next generation decide. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll go to James Heonin, then Alonzo Holmes, and Julian Hamro.

Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is James Yonan and I've been a Boulder resident since 1998. I'm also a pilot. I very much value the airport. I've lived near the airport for many years. Basically, I raised my children watching the sailplanes fly overhead and it was really something that kind of motivated us and myself to get involved in aviation. And I just want to say one thing. I don't have a lot of prepared remarks to say tonight, but watching the people who have testified today, I noticed that the younger people who are testifying are all in favor of the airport. They're all in favor of the airport going forward, accepting funding. We need the funding to have a world class airport. We're not going to be able to fund the airport just by withdrawing money from areas that are already slated for expenditures and other things like schools and parks and rec centers. So let's think about the future. The Boulder Airport can be a great incubator for technology and helping students and young people get involved in aviation going forward. And I'd have to say that these days, children are so kind of obsessed with the virtual world and connected to their telephones and their cell phones and such. It's just very heartwarming to see all the young people who are excited about aviation. And the Boulder Airport is the venue where that happens. So please support the airport going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Alonzo Holmes, Julian Hammerl, and Alec Lieberman.

First off, thank you for giving us all this opportunity to share our experiences. My name is Alonzo Holmes. I'm a glider pilot and engineer. I want to talk about accessibility. So aviation has gained a reputation as something that's only accessible to those with a lot of disposable income. Unfortunately, in many places and in many ways, that is becoming a reality. It puts a career or passion for aviation out of reach of many and requires or requires onerous loans. This is less of a problem right now in Boulder, which may seem surprising. The reason is that we have a great source of affordable, accessible, and eco-friendly aviation available here, and that's our glider clubs. Whether you're a young person in high school dreaming of a career in aviation or a college student studying aerospace engineering or ornithology and you want a little hands-on experience, you can currently ride your bicycle to the airport, receive instruction from someone volunteering their time, get your pilot's license, rent a glider for a tenth the cost of a powered aircraft, fly for hours at a stretch to exotic locales such as Laramie or Granby. I'm not as good as the glider pilot you heard from earlier. And importantly, you can count that time towards a future career in aviation. This is a huge service that the airport is providing people, and especially young people. In this kind of accessibility, we are likely the best in the country, and we should all be proud of it. The airport is a community center, and it's a huge asset. To the extent that it's not working for everyone, let's find ways to make it work for everyone. I urge you to preserve these opportunities for our community members, keep the airport open, and to accept the FAA grants to do so safely. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Julian Hammerl, Alec Lieberman, and Lucy Carlson-Krakow.

Hey, Julian Hammerl. I'm a professional research assistant here in Boulder. Thanks for having me here. I'm sure many of us have had an opportunity in life that gave us a kickstart in some direction. An opportunity that we remember and are grateful for. Maybe a soccer coach, first time skiing, or an internship at a great company. I want you to think about such a person or institution and how thankful you are for them. My aerospace degree here at CU Boulder has definitely kickstarted my career. And the Soaring Society at Boulder Airport has definitely kickstarted my life as a young pilot. It's not just the volunteering flight instructors, tow pilots, the close proximity of the airport to where I live and work, the ease of entry to gliders for young pilots. It is especially the amount of concentrated talent that we have here at the Boulder Airport. The number of glider pilots that are not just the best of the country, they're among the best in the world. and many of them have actually spoken here today. These are glider pilots who have learned to fly at Boulder Airport just like I have, and who love to pass on their knowledge for generations to come. It's hard to imagine that I would have gone from zero flying experience to flying hundreds of miles without an engine, without any noise in the way I did here, anywhere else, all while gaining hands-on experience to my job and also to what I learned in theory at CU Boulder. Thank you to the Soaring Society of Boulder and the Boulder Airport for turning me into the pilot that I am today. And please keep the airport open and accept FAA funding to allow future young pilots to have the same experience as I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Alec Lieberman, who is pooling with Rachel Witt and Charlie Bailey. Are they present? OK, let's just check. I see them. OK, you've got four minutes.

Good evening. My name is Alec Lieberman, and I'm a PhD candidate in aerospace engineering at CU, as well as a commercial pilot and flight instructor.

Don't worry about the beeps. We're just getting the timing set up. Give us one second. Okay, you're good to go.

Good evening. My name is Alec Lieberman, and I'm a PhD candidate in aerospace engineering at CU, as well as a commercial pilot and flight instructor. I'm someone whose entire career traces back to a small local airport, just like Boulder Municipal. I'd like to start with the two concerns I know are weighing on many, noise and pollution. I'm not here to wave those away. They're legitimate concerns, and the aviation community already agrees with you on both. On lead. I'm sure that you know that just as a few weeks ago, Boulder Municipal is now offering unleaded aviation fuel subsidized by a state grant, so it costs the same as traditional low-lead gas. A vast majority of the aircraft based here are already compatible, and the two major operators at Boulder Municipal, namely Journeys and the Soaring Society, have already committed to switching. Similar transitions are in progress at the airports in Broomfield, Centennial, and more well ahead of the FAA's 2030 deadline. On noise. Pilots here already fly voluntary noise abatement procedures distributed by the Colorado Pilots Association. These are custom flight patterns and altitudes designed to route traffic away from Boulder's noise-sensitive neighborhoods. While not regulatory by nature, these are actively self-enforced by the pilot community, and every local pilot I know abides by them, myself included. We live in this town too, and we don't want to be bad neighbors. Cleaner, quieter airplanes are coming. I raise these points because I don't think the choice in front of you is airport versus neighborhood. The aviation community is actively working to fix the two biggest complaints against it in real time this year. What the airport does give back is significant. When people picture a small airport, they picture fancy private planes for people who have money and time. But Boulder Municipal is closer to a training ground. In the summer, CU STEM camp brings high schoolers out for hands-on aerospace exposure. The CU Aviation Club offers a private pilot ground school every year, which I personally teach, where students work towards their private pilot certificates and can use this airport as a home base. Every one of them can become a pilot who spends money on training, maintenance, and fuel right here in Boulder, becoming a source of revenue for the city. Boulder Municipal also has incredible community outreach programs for younger children like the EAA Young Eagles. I don't take that lightly because I was one of those kids. At 14, I went up for my first flight through the Young Eagles program at a small, single runway airfield a lot like this one. That flight sparked my passion for aviation, and it's the reason I'm standing here today as an experienced professional pilot and working towards a doctorate in aerospace engineering. Local airports like this are often the only entry point into aviation that doesn't require already being a pilot or having an airline ticket. Beyond training, this airport has fantastic economic and civil work. Estimates put it at several hundred jobs and tens of millions in annual activity. Mechanics, instructors, the many small businesses around it. It's home to emergency medical helicopters, aerial firefighting operators, and other infrastructure that people's lives depend on, sometimes literally. I know this council is weighing real competing needs, housing chief among them, and I'm not here to dismiss that. I'd ask you to weigh it against what this airport already provides, an aviation training pipeline that doesn't exist nearby, a genuine economic engine, and for some of us, the single afternoon that set the direction of an entire career. Boulder Municipal isn't just acreage waiting for better use. It's already in use every day, turning curiosity into a career, turning a 14-year-old kid staring out an airplane window into an aerospace engineer. I ask you to consider that legacy tonight when discussing FAA grants and to give this airport's value the same weight you'd give any other use of this land. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Lucy Carlson Krakow, John Nesledge, and Carl Lawrence. You can turn on the mic, please.

Hello, I'm Lucy. I'm 25, and I would say that makes me a young person as well. So tonight, I want to discuss democracy, where power is vested in the people. Democracy in our country feels so fragile lately, so I want to believe that here in Boulder, we actually do care a lot more about listening to people. I spend my days as a bilingual health care professional listening to people, and I think that my council members are just as caring as I am with my patients. Unfortunately, I think Boulder has failed a bit on this issue of the FAA funds. Committing to operate an airport forever is a big deal. It's a major land use decision and a financial commitment. It says that we will keep prioritizing this particular thing, small private airplane flight forever. And this is a decision where the opinion of people is going to be pretty important. That's why it's upsetting to hear some of our leaders say that they don't need to ask for any input on this, that they already know what the people want. I don't see how that can be true. Definitely here tonight, you're hearing a lot of opinions that are opposite of each other, which I support as part of democracy. That also came out of the airport community conversation. And city staff said that the airport community conversation revealed a quote wide range of perspectives with no clear consensus. In 2024, I helped put measures on the ballot to repurpose the airport We got over 400 signatures, or 4,000 signatures. That's a clear message that the people of Boulder do want to vote on this issue. If you take FAA funds, you slam that democracy door forever. I urge you not to take the FAA funding and to put this on the ballot. Don't corrode my optimism for democracy. Thank you.

Thanks. Now we'll go to John Nestledge, then Carl Lawrence, and Johan Milton.

Thank you. I wanted to point out, I'm a resident of Four Mile Creek, so around J Road and 47th. We've lived here 10 years. The airport has not presented any issue for us. I'm frequently outside, whether I'm going out to exercise, walking my dog, riding my bike. I've been all over this entire area, even up to and around the airport, and there's been zero issue from our standpoint. But what has concerned me has been the constant drumbeat of misinformation, misdirection, and just really startling intellectual dishonesty around this issue. It's really self-evident that the airport performs a vital public function, that there is wide, deep, broad public support. This mention of 3,400 signatures that began with one of the first speakers, Philip, again, mentioned again by Laura and then again by the speaker who preceded me, that's in the single digits of the total voting populace of Boulder. If I were to go out and poll, and I have done so, around issues surrounding public safety, which some of you well know, I can tell you that gathering 3,400 signatures is not any big deal at all. I could quadruple quintuple that in support of the airport. And that's before we even took an initiative. I also want to point your attention to the mention of the, this Laura's mentioning of Longmont funding study. So what let's hold up a mirror. What did the city of Longmont do? The city of Longmont studied the issue, debated it and took a vote and they voted six to one in favor of accepting a grant. Why have we been piddling around with this for almost four years? Exercising leadership requires looking at people and sometimes telling people no. So that's really what you've got to do. You're going to have to own your responsibility as leaders of the city. Stand up, look some people in the eye and just say, sorry, no. It's real easy. It's been done many times.

Thank you for your testimony. All right, now we're going to go to Carl Lawrence, then Johan Milton and Rob Patterson.

Hello, I'm Carl Lawrence. I moved to Boulder in 1978 to attend CU and get a degree in physics. Over time, I co-founded a hydroelectric bus company, an electric vehicle battery company, and an automated transit company. 15 years ago, I led the engineering team that converted a Cessna airplane to electric propulsion. Currently, I'm building an electric gyroplane for my personal use. Going forward, I will be working with our local experimental Aircraft Association chapter to form a community group to share ideas and knowledge about amateur built electric aircraft. Several years ago I designed and built the only passive solar aircraft hangar at the Boulder Airport. The hangar maintained acceptable interior temperatures winter and summer without any purchased energy or sophisticated systems. This unique approach is slightly more expensive but with a financial break even of a few years. Three years ago, I submitted preliminary proposal to the then airport manager to build more passive hangers, yet it was never responded to due to the airport's uncertain future. I am ready to build more passive hangers, and I believe that the airport is the only place in Boulder where passive solar commercial buildings are being built. There are a lot of fantastic opportunities to incorporate passive solar, and active solar at the airport, including solar canopies for aircraft and for road vehicles. I am asking for the City Council to stop wasting these opportunities. Allow people like me to make the Boulder Airport into a showcase of sustainability. Take grants and stop depleting the airport fund. Commit to the airport, grants and all, and we will commit to building out an airport aligned with the values of Boulder.

Thank you. Now let's go to Johan Milton, then Rob Patterson, and Thomas Krueger. Is Johan or Johann here? Looks like not. So we will go to Rob Patterson.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Rob Patterson. I'm an avid water pilot. I've flown out of the Boulder field for about 30 years. This airport is an asset in ways that are easy to overlook. For decades, it has brought together aviation, atmospheric science, engineering, and optics. Particle measuring systems began in Boulder, building airborne instruments to measure particles in clouds. That work helped create a local community of scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs. From that ecosystem came many successful optics companies, including three I know personally, Research Electro-Optics, Advanced in Films, and Five9 Optics. I helped found two of them. Today, Boulder is receiving major investment in quantum technology, hundreds of millions of dollars. Many of these companies depend on the advanced optics expertise that grew from the same scientific and manufacturing community. This is how innovation happens. Researchers, pilots, engineers, entrepreneurs meet, exchange ideas, and build companies. The airport has been part of this process. It also is critical infrastructure. Its runway, ramp, and refueling capacity support firefighting, emergency response, and other aircraft when Boulder needs them. These assets cannot be recreated during a wildfire flood. Please do not judge the airport only by counting airplanes or aircraft owners. Its economic, scientific, and emergency value extend far beyond its fence. Please accept the FAA grants, provide long-term certainty, and preserve this irreplaceable community asset. Thank you for your service.

Thank you. Now I'll go to Thomas Krueger, Susan Gilmore, and then we'll give Todd Buchanan one more chance.

Good evening. Tom Krieger, Boulder resident. We've been hearing a lot of personal stories, a lot of personal opinions, a lot of background information. And the thing that stands out to me having sat through here from 6.30 or so this evening is this is a terrible deal. Even if we want to keep the airport open, this deal with the FAA is just a terrible deal. I'm reminded of the character from the Popeye cartoon strip, Wimpy, who says, I will gladly give you money on Tuesday for a hamburger today. And that's essentially what the FAA is saying. We'll take your 170 acres of property in perpetuity. not allow you to control much of anything that goes on there, and we'll give you some money maybe sometime down the road. It might be enough for you to keep your airport open. It might not. Now, it may be important to keep the airport open, but we've heard testimony tonight that there are models available where it's possible to have an airport continue to operate and be self-supporting, and we haven't gotten any information about that. So I would encourage you to pass on this particular opportunity to get money from the FAA, explore some of those models, get a little more information, or a lot more information, frankly, is what I would suggest, and then put it to the voters. We can provide a good thorough analysis, good in-depth conversation, and then there's no griping about what the outcome is. So please, don't do this tonight. Pass on the FAA opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you. Our last in-person speaker is Susan Gilmore, and then we'll go to Todd Buchanan.

Good evening, Mayor, council members. Thank you for the opportunity.

If you can get right into the mic, please.

Mayor Cancel, thank you for the opportunity. I will be speaking to you on the meaningful ways the airport has positively impacted my family's life and why it's just not for the privileged few. As a single mom to a bright and curious 15-year-old Gil who drives a 24-year-old vehicle and struggles at times to provide for her family, I make getting my son to the Boulder Airport a priority. Opportunities afforded to Gil are free discovery flights, employment, mentorship, aviation scholarships, as well as a robust youth aviation programs. With the support and the generous, kind, and encouraging airport community, Gil is on a trajectory for a life of military service, including his dream of flying fighter jets. Gil and I are Boulder Municipal Airport. None of this would be possible without the continued opening of the airport and the generous users. You've heard from many that the airport is for a privileged few. Stating the airport is only for a privileged few is a logical fallacy because many gain wealth from aviation versus wealthy people going into aviation. One day someone will call my son Gil privileged because he gained wealth from aviation even though he came from a single mother household. It's incredibly short-sighted to assume my son and I are privileged. I welcome a conversation to share our story. In closing, you've heard from many this evening. I ask that each of you look at this issue logically, reasonably, rationally, and factually, free of emotion and conflicts of interest. I ask you, Mayor Brockett and council, that you lead with courage and vote yes to keeping Boulder Municipal Airport open, fully operational, and funded by FAA grants. Finally, I extend my extraordinary gratitude for everyone in this room who have leaned into our family and those on the Boulder City Council who I trust will make the absolute best decision.

Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. All right, let's see if Todd Buchanan can connect now.

Your mic is open if you'd like to try to unmute.

All right, any chance that we can hear Todd? It's not looking good. Okay, looks like that's not going to work out, but thanks for attending. All right, that brings us to the end of our public hearing. Thanks so much everyone for coming and speaking with us. We really appreciate you taking the time and registering your input. So we're now going to come back to city council for deliberations and Blythe from your presentation, you had a proposed motion and often there are questions for council, but it looks like what your question is is, Does council support this following motion? And if so, would somebody like to make it? So do I have that correct?

Yes, Mr. Mayor.

Okay. So who on council would like to get the discussion started? We're getting the motion language up on the screen. Let's take a moment to get that up there. And I'll just read it so people know what it is. The recommended motion language is motion to approve the continued operation of the airport in accordance with Boulder revised code 1981 sections 11-4 airport. So that's staff's recommended motion language.

Mark, you had a question?

Yeah.

I'm not quite sure what we're voting on. We are obligated to run this airport for at least another generation. So what... What are we doing with this motion that we're not doing today and would be obligated to do for the next 16 or 17 years?

Teresa, would you like to answer that question?

Yes. Council, you'll recall that you had a study session where you directed us to bring back language affirming the continued operation of the airport. That's the motion language before you because that's what you requested. Should you wish to put conditions on that, you may do so.

I'm just not sure how that differs from the reality that we're not going to be changing the use of the airport until everybody on this council is long gone, if ever. So operatively, what is it that we're doing today if we vote for this that is any different than what we are doing today?

Nury, do you want to address that?

Sure. Thank you, counsel. I appreciate that. When we were last here, initially at our study session, we were talking about continued operation that would include full use of any available funding that would include FAA funds. As we spoke about it, certainly there were a variety of opinions, but at that meeting, we had a majority of counsel that did commit to or at that time wanted to move forward with an indefinite operations of the airport and at that time those were options that were there if council would like to condition the indefinite operations of the airport so that different funds are not used and we need to know that as well as there are ramifications to that we would have to specify no FAA funds or The motion before you right now would allow staff to lean into the full panoply of options, funding options available to it. That would include FAA funds. If there is a different desire, we would need to hear that.

Okay. Clear enough, Mark? Yes. Very good. Who'd like to get the discussion started? Nicole?

Sure. Why not? It's probably the most awake I'm going to be for the next hour. I just wanted to thank everyone who joined us, either here in the room or virtually online, and talked about your experiences tonight. I really welcome all of the feedback that you've given us. And thank you to staff and my colleagues for holding this public hearing, which has given so many people an opportunity to speak to us directly on this issue. My biggest concern as we're facing this question is that BDU struggled to reach a balanced budget is a permanent structural feature rather than a temporary problem. If past behavior is the guide, the airport will likely continue to run deficits, struggle with accelerating maintenance costs, and receive far less federal money than the current best-case scenario projection. Our current financial strategy seems to be relying on breaking from 40 years of local history and 100 years of aviation industry norms. And the Hayden Lake development that was seen as a primary means for getting the airport to a place of self-sufficiency has disappeared. My issue is not with the airport per se, because I do see a use for it, particularly for emergency helicopter services. I would like to keep it for the foreseeable future, but I'm challenged by the reliance on theoretical FAA funds that represent a six-fold increase from what we've seen in the past 40 years. And that's well past what might be expected from increases due to inflation, particularly at the rate the national debt is growing. For example, the Government Accountability Office estimates that almost 30% of the federal budget is going to go toward interest payments by 2056. I'd wager that we have some of the best grant writers in the country here in the city. And even with this skill level, this unprecedented degree of support in the next 15 years seems beyond wishful thinking to me, especially in the current climate. I'm concerned we're going to reach a point where we can't maintain the airport and will be under financial obligations we can't meet. that will be an even greater financial burden because we haven't planned for it. I want to keep the airport open for the foreseeable future. I do not want to take FAA funds that further limit our already limited options. So if the two are inherently tied together, I will say no, even though that doesn't reflect my views or my desire. What I want is to find a realistic, sustainable funding mechanism. and I don't see the FAA as that path. If that means that a future city that's flush with cash and has unlimited time can spend some money and time suing the FAA to close the airport because they've done things like solve the climate crisis, so be it. But let's find a financial model that doesn't depend on bucking historical trends in a chaotic federal environment. If we move forward with a financial model that relies on FAA funds, we are gambling on an unprecedented level of federal generosity to fix decades of deferred maintenance on a facility that industry data suggests will never be self-sustaining. I feel a responsibility to the many people who depend on the airport services now and in the future as well as to current and future taxpayers and airport neighbors. And for the record, I know that everybody sitting at this dais and everybody who has spoken tonight shares this goal, even if we see different ways to achieve it. Thank you.

Thanks. Who's next?

Mark's going to go.

And Mark, if you can speak right into the mic. Like this? Yeah.

Okay.

As I said before, the issue is not closing the airport. It's going to be kept open at a minimum for 16 years, maybe much longer, maybe permanently. But the 2024 study found that by 2041, this asset will be worth $500 million, more than six times the size of the CU South project, approximately five times the size of the Alpine Balsam project. At that size, it is appropriate to operate the airport, but ultimately ask the community what they want to do. There have been some efforts to belittle the 3,400 signatures collected in the petition a year or so ago. I only note that more than 4,000 signatures were actually submitted, which is roughly equivalent to the signatures collected for the Iris Ballfields and the South Boulder Rec Center, and we were plenty impressed by that. So I don't know why this is considered less significant. You know, I'm known as an opponent of the airport, but in one sense, I am actually indifferent. If the community wants an airport, so be it. They should have an airport. But we haven't asked the question, and we should. And if it's true that the community supports the airport as many have represented, let the community demonstrate that. We have not asked the question, and we have not gotten the answer. With respect to the airport, the projections that we've been given, I asked a question earlier about alternative means of financing it, which might not implicate FAA funds. We have not had a full explanation of what those possibilities are. Can it be done? How could it be done? How much could it be done for? There is still a great deal of information that I think we lack in terms of making a final judgment on that. And I urge us to do that and not move immediately towards taking FAA grants until we have a better sense of the actual finances and possibilities for fully funding the airport without going in that direction. Thank you.

Thanks. Ryan?

I'm sorry. I have a couple questions that took a minute to formulate. Is that okay? Sure. Go ahead. Teresa, this will be coming to you. So, and I know this was just addressed some of this, but this says a motion to approve the continued operation. Why do we need a motion to approve the continued opera? I mean, it continued. It will, it will, if we do not, if we do not carry this motion forward, the airport will continue to operate. It is already approved. So what is, what is the reason again?

Council member shoe hard. This is a difficult position to put me in. Council gave me direction. I followed your direction.

Thanks. Okay, then follow up for this for Blythe then. So we had, well, I don't know if this is for, but we did at the May 28th meeting talked about the idea of a scenario that would have a, you know, enable a perpetuity obligation with a VA and one that would not. I'm paraphrasing. I forgot the exact language, but that was the idea that we brought forward. And then in the memo that was mentioned, represented and then broken into some subparts. Scenarios 1, 2, 3 and 3 part B, A and B and so on. I was expecting we would be looking at those or at the very least the distinction between the perpetuity and the non-perpetuity versions. Let me put this into a question. What happened to the idea that we would be discussing the meaningful difference between the the covenants that have a perpetuity obligation and those that don't.

Do you mind if I jump in here? Please. Is that all right? So this is staff's recommended motion language. And I'm speaking up in part because I think this, I was the one who suggested the next steps at the study session because we had that straw poll about what the future of the airport should be. And at the time I said, well, I feel like a straw poll is, insufficient procedurally for determining the future of the airport. And I suggested that instead we come back and have council take a formal vote on a motion on the question. And so that's what led to this. And at a certain point we decided to have a public hearing on it versus some other approach. So it was that suggestion, which I think had unanimous support at the time, was that we should have a formal council vote on the future of the airport. And what staff was bringing to us at that time was, do you support the indefinite operation of the future of the airport into the future? Meaning also that we would look for all sources of funding to fund that. Now, if we just vote in approval of this motion tonight, then I think that would be giving staff direction, continuing operating the airport and look for all sources of funding, including FAA grants. Council could, if it wanted to, as Teresa was saying, we could condition this motion to do something other than that. If councils, if it were the will of council to say, okay, we'll operate the airport indefinitely, but follow scenario whatever that does or does not involve FAA funding, that would be within council's purview to do that. Does that make sense?

Good enough, thank you.

So, yeah, okay. Maybe, but yeah, do you wanna just go ahead, weigh in?

Okay, so I'll move to a comment. Okay, so I'm not a pilot. I wish I was. Seems pretty awesome. And I support Boulder having a great airport. But the question is, how do we fund it? And how do we do that in a way that's going to take care of the whole community? And I think the heart of this is this pretty severe trade-off between a daunting cash flow constraint that we have and also taking care of Boulder's residents who are going to live here in a time frame that is beyond 20 years out, which is about the limit of our long-term comprehensive community planning. So I'm thinking about the residents in 2036 who are going to be making that 20-year BVCP, the comprehensive plan. I'm thinking about the residents in 2046 who are going to be living beyond the BVCP that we're creating, the limits of our planning horizon. And life may look very different then. Future residents, obviously, are not here to speak for themselves, so it is our job to look out for them. And a couple of questions I would expect that if any of them were here might be thinking that they'd like us to be able to account for is, one, that we were being really careful in thinking about creating a perpetual stream of significant financial obligations that would be weighed against the benefits, and also that we would We really knew that we tried hard enough, and we applied enough creativity to fund our needs without perpetuity covenants, which we lacked a process to make sense of, before placing those obligations on us, the generations 20 years plus out. And these aren't airport questions. These are CFO questions, these are values questions, and these are equity questions. Boulder does have a high standard for making these kind of long-term commitments. And I think we could get to the point that it would make sense. I don't think we've gotten there yet. So that's kind of where I land. I think this is a close call. Others might legitimately read these trade-offs differently. And I would just like to add that my point of view is informed partly by trying to get my and our arms around the city's challenges with our large bill of deferred maintenance, where we're learning that one of the sources of our problems is a lack of responsibility for what's going to happen down the line and that we need to be focused on that now. And this council has a chance to say that the buck stops here. So I'll just end by saying I'd like us to be role modeling a really judicious approach to our long-term investments. I think that's what we should be doing. Thanks.

I think I got Tara next.

How many of you remember my whiny complaint about our deferred maintenance just a few weeks ago. Remember that? So I had a little fit about how have we gotten here? And this to me is another example as if we don't take the FAA money, we can say the same thing. Like, we'll owe all this money. We'll have this deferred maintenance. And again, people will be saying, how could you allow us to get here? This is exactly what I cannot do. After complaining that we need to tighten our belts, I can't take money from the general fund or from the transportation fund to pay for the airport when the FAA is giving us money. I just can't. The legal chances of us winning are slim. I mean, they're possible, but they're slim. And one thing I don't do is gamble. I'm not a gambler. I'm not interested in Vegas. I don't like Vegas. So I feel like this is taking a gamble on something that is probably not going to happen with funds that we don't have. Now, those of you that know me a long time, there's some of you that do, I was really, I really hate noise. So when I first got on council, Rachel Friend and I, the first thing we did was go to the airport and complain about the noise. And a lot of you at the airport were there when I was complaining because I could really complain very loudly. But one thing I know, and the other thing that happened is recently I was at a Shiva, for those of you that know what that is, where in East Boulder, where this glider, this noisy glider is going back and forth, back and forth for like 20 minutes on a Sunday morning. I could not hear the rabbi. So I was pretty aggravated. So I don't think that our noise problem is solved or close to being solved. That being said, I want to be part of the solution and not the problem. And I feel like we're at the cusp, scientifically, of turning this around and being a part of the solution. I really do think that. I think that I've spoken to a lot of people at the airport who want to be partners. And I am very excited, actually. Kind of a switch around. I'm very excited now about the scientific developments and the possibilities for climate And I want to do even more for wildfire and flood mitigation from the airport and solar and other technologies. I became like a yes person. I used to be a really big no person. Anyway, that's besides the point. My point is that I just feel I cannot take a chance and spend this kind of money that we don't have. So I'd rather work with the airport community to solve these community problems. And I'm just going to have to trust... airport people, that that is what you want to do as well, and that we don't hear pilots saying, which is true, well, if you don't agree with me, this did happen. I'm just going to be a bad neighbor. I just hope that that doesn't happen. So that's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

Thanks, Tara. Rob?

Thanks. And thanks for everybody that came out. It's really inspiring to hear from a 15-year-old to a 91-year-old. Super impressive. Like Tara, I'm not a gambler. I look at our situation with our budget. The facilities that we need to fund, $400 million in unfunded. Look at the South Boulder Rec Center, bike paths, streets, plowing, pothole. And at some point, we will be pulling money from the general fund and the transportation fund if we don't take the FAA money. That said, taking the FAA money will send a signal to businesses that we're committed to the airport. Right now, they don't have that signal, and we're not attracting long-term leases and businesses like I think we could be. And just hearing some of the testimony tonight, there are a lot of businesses that I didn't even know about and people that have gotten started in their career, and it has changed their life. All that to say, I think it's important to be fiscally responsible. With our current situation, I personally can't see a world where we don't accept the potential FAA funding. And I say potential, nothing's guaranteed. But as far as the FAA, they want to keep airports. having control of the land eventually if we didn't take the funding isn't going to change the air traffic by 2040 we're not going to have leaded fuel by 2040 we're not going to have the noise and if we don't take the FAA funding and we try to fund it ourselves in 2040 what we get is to start a lawsuit and maybe the discovery is in our favor maybe it's not maybe we fight the FAA and I have heard upwards of $1.5 million and a potentially decade-long lawsuit. I know these are just numbers. Mark just mentioned the land is worth $500 million eventually, and it very well could be. But again, these are just numbers. The thing that I can't do is I can't gamble the city's money. I can't keep going every single fall to the taxpayers and saying, we need to do another ballot initiative and ask you for more taxes because we're pulling out of the general fund, we're pulling out of the transportation fund, parks and rec, whatever it is. I look at this as fiscally responsible and risk tolerance. And that's where I stand. I hear everybody and I appreciate everybody's position on it, but this is my perspective on it. And I just wanted to share that before my vote.

Thanks, Rob. Who would like to go next? Matt?

We've been doing this for over four years. There's been quite a bit of actual public debate and public participation. It's important to know that we don't stand up working groups for every issue. It actually takes big issues and it's not common to do working groups. The airport conversation got its own working group in 2023. So we have done a lot of community engagement. And we've heard a lot from community. Folks have put up petitions. We've heard counter petitions. So we've had immense amount of feedback from community. And at some point, as a council, we have to just take the feedback we've got and say we're ready to make a decision. Analysis paralysis is the abdication of responsibility as an elected official. And we can't continue to do that. We have enough information to act. We are legally bound to operate the airport through at least 2040. We know that. And likely beyond, unless the FAA reverses a position. And Mr. Kershier did a great job explaining what those options are and the likelihood of those options occurring and the conditions in which it may or may not occur. Federal grants make the airport self-sustaining. Declining them costs us, as estimates, nearly $26 million. And as Rob and Tara and others have pointed out, it's fiduciary malpractice if we take the chance at something that may happen. I think it's interesting that we keep talking about possibility, the hope, we might, there's a chance. that's not how we operate in terms of running a government. We have to operate on certainty, on facts, on things that are right in front of us. And what's right in front of us is to apply for grants to get that money, and we know there's a good chance to get that. As we said, there's no really legal pathway. And there's a big difference, and I want to dispel a few misconceptions about the housing. The airport's not where housing is going to go in any decent time. We're 30 plus years out. We have area three planning reserve, which our comp plan has been negotiating for quite a while, has 200 acres ready to go if we want to use that for housing. Yes, it's owned by parks, but we can make the decision and be shovels in the dirt in five, maybe six years, building housing now for the housing needs we have. Let's do that. The other thing is about the Santa Monica airport. When I learned to fly there back in the 90s, it was the busiest airport in the country. It has nothing to, there's no commonalities between Santa Monica and Boulder except that they are an airport. It was the busiest airport in the country. It served small planes to massive Gulf streams. Our airport doesn't do that. All those airport restrictions that people talk about at Santa Monica, it was because they had those in place before the 1990 ANCA Act. They were grandfathered in to allow those restrictions. We don't have such ones that we could necessarily produce. And LAX was nine miles away. So there's no similarities. So the last thing I'll say is saying we support the airport but aren't willing to give it the resources to thrive is a smokescreen for closure and a pretext for that. So we just have to call it what it is. And we just have to own that if that's the argument being made.

But I'll lastly end on what this argument and discussion has reminded me of.

And it's a famous ending scene to the movie Dumb and Dumber. And if you remember, Lloyd decides to sort of go up to Mary and say, what do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me ending up together? And Mary says, well, Lloyd, that's difficult to say. We really don't, Lloyd says, cuts in. Hit me with it. Just give it to me straight. What are my chances? And Mary says, not good. Lloyd says, you mean not good like one out of 100? And Mary says, I'd say more like one out of a million. And Lloyd says, so you're telling me there's a chance.

Yeah.

That's what this conversation has been, where Lloyd is looking at this whimsical hope and fantasy, and Mary is just delivering the facts and reality of what the situation actually is. So let's not take this one out of a million chance and risk the financial future of our community. And let's take that money and invest it into something that can actually produce great results for our community, be sustainable, be the envy of the front range. And we can then all move together, whether you are an airport advocate or you're not, to build this airport that serves our entire community. Let's do that together. And it starts with taking this motion and accepting funds.

Yes, Nicole.

I just want to note that I think the implication that people are dumb or dumber for having a view that's different. It's not helpful. It doesn't help this discussion. It doesn't help us move forward on this issue. I really do believe that everybody cares, right? Everybody cares about this community. Everybody cares about its future. And I think it's really important that we acknowledge that and not try to diminish each other's perspectives because this is a room full of almost said a word I shouldn't say on live TV. Very smart people, right, who care a lot. So I really hope that future comments can just respect that. Thank you.

Thanks, Nicole. All right, I got Tina. Tina?

Yeah, I just want to echo my thanks for all the people who showed up today, and we all learned a lot about how much we care about Boulder as a whole, how much we care about how we dedicate each of the different large parcels of land, and how much we're enjoying the airport. And I just want to make sure that people know that I listen, that the issue is lead and noise, but also it's about land use. And that was the really other the big theme is should we continue the land use of the last 100 years in a way that extends further than the 14 years that we currently are committed to at least. So I just want to make sure that that was heard. So, you know, this is I was really a lot of my opinion is really what Council Member Adams said at the last meeting, which talked a lot about how we live in an uncertain world. And we don't really know what's coming ahead of us. We don't know what's happening in aviation, and we don't know exactly what all of our needs are in the city. And it's pretty hard to guess right now. But I was struck a little bit, you know, six months ago I went on the Historical Society tour of downtown Boulder, and we went to the lobby of the Boulder County. And there's a picture of the train station. It was an electric train that went into Boulder to Denver. and they ended the service in 1926 when they made that decision that they were going to switch just to automobiles. That group of townspeople made that decision. That was in 1926, I think it's 2026. It's taken about 100 years to get back to a train that's going to go to Denver. And it took a lot of work and a lot of, you know, it was a terrible decision, right? So I'm looking at this two ways. It could be a terrible decision to continue the airport and it could be a terrible decision not to because there are so many amazing things probably happening in aviation. things that we may not want to decide we want to miss out on. So where I'm going to land on this is I think we should continue the airport. And I do think that FAA funding is uncertain, but it's probably better than not having funding and going to the general fund. So I'm going to support the FAA funding at this time. The other piece, though, I want to go back to what Councilmember Adams said last time. We don't believe in a city that perpetuity is real. So the FAA believes that, but I'm not so sure they can say we can have to do anything into perpetuity. That is our stance. And I maintain that. That means that I believe as long as we're not getting FAA grants for land, that it is possible that that will one day be challenged and not be perpetuity. I do believe there might be an option that if we see that there's a really significant need for a change in that land use, that we can start working toward that goal. We were given three other options to do this. They are long shots, for sure. Trying to persuade the FAA. Longmont, one of the things in their rates analysis says that they want to increase visitation. Maybe that's our window. I don't know. Maybe they do want to take Boulder. Probably not. But I do think that things are going to change enough that there will be opportunities and there will be future decisions that I simply can't make. So for the time being, I see a use for the airport. I want it to operate, and I would support taking the FAA funds. And again, I just appreciate everyone who is here today.

Thanks, Tina. Taisha, would you like to go next?

When I was on the campaign trail in 2023, this question was asked at every, almost every forum. And at that time, I was very clear that my interest was to continue the airport. And that was even before some of these technological advancements around noise were made. I knew that unflated fuel was on the way, but I didn't know how we were gonna address noise. But my primary reason for that is my extensive experience and understanding and relationships around climate and climate chaos. We are living in unprecedented times. And I would argue, and the scientific community would back me, I'm going to go ahead and say, that we're at ecological collapse right now. We had three flakes of snow this year practically. We can anticipate more wildfires, hotter wildfires that are gonna require more staging than we currently have in the existing aviation footprint. That's one of my primary reasons for wanting to ensure that we have a airport that doesn't have deferred maintenance and that we're not gambling over the next three to five years where I suspect we may be at our worst. There is also the issue around the legal piece. And I appreciate the Santa Monica example. That is not an apples to apples example. And every time anybody brings it up, they fail to mention the 10 years and $10 million it took to make that a reality. So that extends it not to 14, but to 24 years. Now, according to the United Nations, we're in a water bankruptcy. So my biggest concern is I have gotten more emails about the airport than I have about the current threat to one-third of our drinking, our water supply from the Colorado River. And then the other two watersheds, which are surrounded by federal land that is currently not being stored appropriately, which means they are under increased wildfire threat. So... Many of you came in, and I appreciate the time. I also want to acknowledge that I have been underwhelmed by the process that has been used to make this decision. I continue to have concerns around the governance and how we're scheduling things and the process that we are using, and I apologize. However, the facts are that I'm underpinning my decision on are, again, the emergency response, the transition to unleaded fuel, the innovations around the noise mitigation and the commitment by the aviation community. I also was persuaded by, and I have spoken to Ignacium about this, around the energy generation. Currently, I do not believe that the airport is a sufficient community benefit. But I do believe, and I am firmly committed to, making sure that the airport is extending the community benefit beyond those who are using aviation activities, although I do appreciate and was deeply persuaded by some of the pushback to the assumptions that we make that it's only for rich people. And I appreciate the youth programs and the education programs. I also appreciate the research programs monitoring air quality. And so therefore, I do want to continue to accept the FAA grants. However, I would like to, and again, I don't know if this is jumping the frog or whatever the appropriate cute phrase is. No, but in all seriousness, I do believe that there needs to be higher transparency and accountability for if we are going to use those funds, whether that be putting contracts on the consent agenda so that the community can see and we can actually discuss actual money that's on the table. When $1.7 million is on the table and budget season is coming up in September, we'll have an opportunity to say, okay, well, what's going to get cut? Will those other revenue streams be able to be in position by 2027? Because that's what we're talking about. And I'm not opposed to identifying additional streams that would alleviate and address the deficit that Councilmember Speer has raised. But in this moment with the evidence that is valid and reliable that has been presented, I do feel like we should take FAA funds conditionally, make sure that any contracts that come up are seen by the community at large. If this conversation was happening in 1980 or 1990 or 2000 or 2010, perhaps a ballot measure would be appropriate. But we are in urgent and important times. We are in ecological collapse. And it is absolutely essential that we take the resources that are available right now. And lastly, I will leave you with this perpetuity conversation. As an African American, do you think that the federal government has a strong track record of anything that they say that goes into perpetuity? Because if that is the case, I would be shackled right now and or three-fifths a person. I do believe contracts can be changed. I do believe the FAA can be changed. And quite frankly, when the current administration is gone, inshallah, We're going to have to make a lot of changes to our federal agencies, and the FAA will absolutely need to be one of them. But I hope that Boulder can be a leader in that transformation to ensure that our community is healthy, that our community is thriving, and that the ecological needs that we have right now are met. Thank you.

Thanks, Taisha. All right, I'll wrap things up with some comments from myself. Thanks to to the council members for all of your words. And thanks to everyone who came out to speak to us tonight. I really appreciate you taking the time. Tara, I thought your comments were excellent. I could almost just say ditto, but I should say a few extra words. I do think it's time for us to affirm the operation of the airport and go ahead and take FAA funds. I appreciate the advocacy of all of those who've been talking about the potential closure of the airport or potential increased local control. But we're at 2040 plus a minimum of 10 years of litigation to potentially get to that point, as Tahitian Robbins and others have talked about. And I think it's a very long path. It's a path that places significant burdens on our general fund and our transportation fund. And it's a path that is probably unlikely to be successful in the end. I don't think those chances are ones that we should take. So I do think we should move forward now. I have spent a fair amount of time visiting the airport and getting a sense of it and certainly heard a lot of inspiring stories today about lives that have been changed because of the activities at the airport, particularly from some of the young folks. So I really appreciate the young people for coming out and talk to us tonight. And those examples are inspiring and show that there are real positive effects in our community That are not just going to to the wealthiest of the wealthy so we do get real benefits from from the airport That I do want to continue to support so and again given the time frame that we have of a minimum of 25 years or so I think we can we will have solved lead by then and Almost certainly noise so we got to work hard on those problems and those impacts that we do have and I fully support our airport manager, Eric, and the great work that he's doing to make progress on all of those issues. So I'll leave it at that. And we've all had our piece here. So I might invite someone to make a motion if they were so moved. Yep. Yep. Go ahead, Ryan.

That's the question. Sorry, this I'm back on the, just understanding what we have here. Can, can maybe mayor, is it your understanding that if we go forward with this, we vote on this and this, we go ahead. Does this motion say yes, staff may take FAA perpetuity funding covenant grants or is it, does it not say that?

I just want to be clear on what it does. It does. So this would be direction to the city manager. to operate the airport indefinitely and to pursue all sources of reasonable and available funding, including FAA grants. Okay.

Then I would, I'm just sort of thinking on the fly here, but I'd be, I don't know if this is appropriate, but I'll just tell you my intention. It would be, I would like us to look at a variation of this that says this, but with a one-year waiting period on obligations that have FAA perpetuity covenants while staff considers options or something to that effect.

You're certainly welcome to make that motion if you would like.

Okay.

Do I need to say that? You do. Again? Yeah, you need to make a motion.

Okay. I'll try it then. So I'd like to make a motion to approve the continued operation of the airport with a one-year waiting period on obligations that have FAA perpetuity covenants in accordance with Boulder Revised Code 1981 sections 11-4 airport. Second.

Got a motion and a second. I think we've probably spoken to it already. So I don't know if it's strictly required, but let's do a roll call vote for any motions tonight just for full clarity. So Alicia, if you could, please.

All right. Thank you, sir. We'll start the roll call for the motion that is currently on the table amending the motion that's on the screen with Council Member Adams.

No.

We're voting on it. We're voting on his. Yeah, we're voting on Ryan's motion. That includes a one-year delay. The amended version. So that was a no. Okay, go ahead. Benjamin.

No.

Mayor Brockett.

No.

Council Member Kaplan.

No.

Marquis. No. Shewhart.

Yes.

Speer. Yes. Wallach.

Yes.

And Mayor Pro Tem Weiner. No. The motion as presented by Council Member Shewhart is hereby defeated with a vote of six to three.

Yeah, Matt, go ahead.

I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to approve the continued operation of the airport in accordance with Boulder Revised Code 1981, sections 11-4, airport.

Second. I think we've spoken to it. If we could do a yes.

Yes. Would that include putting any kind of grants onto the consent agenda so that there's more transparency on the money that's on the table?

That, I think, is, oh, sorry, go ahead, Aaron. By itself, no, it would not. But we could have a discussion about a possible notification or something from the city manager right now or afterwards. Could I help clarify?

Because don't we have, there is also the potential based on the city attorney offering perhaps an ordinance regarding Issues regarding perpetuity which would then effectively create that very mechanism for us to to see them.

Okay.

I just want to Clarify that that indeed would sort of be synonymous that if we had the authority to review those then we would thus be seeing them And if that's on the table for a later discussion, I just wanted to make sure that was an avenue for that Councilmember I believe that if that's a condition that council wants to impose it would need to do so in the motion.

I

Can I make an amendment, please, to the motion that's on the table?

Yes, you may. You can move an amendment.

All right. I would like to move an amendment that any grants that would have perpetuity requirements come before council for final approval.

And do you want to speak to that a little bit because we haven't talked that over much?

I feel like we've already talked it over, honestly. So if people have questions, I'm happy to answer them. But I feel like we've been there.

Great. Do we have a second to that motion to amend? That was a mark as a second. Does anybody want to discuss that before we vote on it? Go ahead, Tara.

So are you saying, OK, so we just voted six to three to accept the FAA funds?

We did not. We voted six to three to not have a one year delay period on FAA funds. We haven't yet voted on taking FAA funds.

I see. So what is this motion could possibly say that we don't accept the funds?

So it would basically say that if there are grant funds that would create perpetual or perpetuity obligations, that would come to council for a vote. Only in that case, right? So other grants could be applied for with abandon, but anything with a perpetuity would come to council.

So I want to look to Nuri and Teresa to see if this is an amendment that you're, if you have any Questions or issues with that?

No questions or issues. I do want to make sure that council understands that that would mean all FAA grants would come to city council for approval if this motion were to carry.

Can I get another clarification on that? Yep. Because the current way this would work if we just pass this motion is we'd be authorizing the city manager's authority to pursue those grants and get them done, not take that authority from the city manager. And this amendment effectively pulls that authority from the city manager. Is that correct?

That's correct. The city manager has that authority. And what this would do is carve out exception to that authority for FAA grants that purport to bind the city in perpetuity.

Yeah, go ahead.

Now that we're having discussion. I mean, the reason for this, right, is really, I think this is a big sticking point for community, is this idea of perpetuity. And I absolutely hear your point, Councilmember Adams. I get you. I'm with you on that. And also, right, I recognize the significance that this language has for community. And I... personally feel like that would be a better burden to put on council than on the city manager and also happy to be the person that is in the minority there.

And I guess let me just ask a question because two other possibilities that I might see. One would be that there be a notification about taking of any such grants so that there was transparency about if such a thing were happening. The other is we could limit it to the initial grant rather than every FAA grant that might come in the future.

Any of those would be an option with an appropriate amendment.

Yeah, go ahead, Tara.

Bringing up Longmont again, they just decided to accept FAA grants and also they're notified, the council is notified when these grants come up on their consent agenda, it is.

That's right. In the city of Longmont, I happen to know that in the city of Longmont, grants go to city council for approval. That is not the case here. In the city of Boulder, grants are an administrative approval.

So it's just different? Okay. I'm going to check in, Nicole, with what you would think about the possibility of limiting this to the next acceptance of an FAA grant that purports to have a perpetuity clause.

I haven't thought about that one. So I am not sure. That would basically be an amendment to my amendments. AT THAT POINT, RIGHT?

YEAH, I'M JUST SORT OF CHECKING IN WITH YOU ON THAT.

I MEAN, RIGHT? LIKE, I DON'T NEED, I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW THIS IS GOING TO GO, SO I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO. NO, TOTALLY FAIR.

WE CAN JUST VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.

YEAH, OKAY.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO AMEND MATT'S MOTION TO INCLUDE HAVING FAA GRANTS THAT PURPORT PERPETUITY TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. Okay. So if we can have a roll call vote on that motion to amend, please.

All right. Yes, sir. The motion to amend that's on the table will begin with council member Benjamin.

No.

Mayor Brockett.

No.

Council member Kaplan.

No.

Marquis. No. Shewhart.

Yes.

Speer. Yes. Wallach? Yes. Thank you, sir. Mayor Pro Tem Weiner? No. And Council Member Adams? No. The amendment to the motion presented by Council Member Speer is hereby defeated with a vote of 6-3.

Can I make the amendment then for this other, or would you like to, Erin, for this, just for the first one? Honestly, I think it gives, I would prefer that council take that than for staff to take more. I feel like staff's being blamed for a lot right now. So basically, I would make an amendment that the... You move to amend the motion. Thank you. Move to amend the motion that's on the table so that the first grant that comes to us with perpetuity obligations would be approved by council versus the city manager.

I have a question. Yeah, go ahead.

Would that be the first and only? Teresa, this is a question for Teresa. Does this open Pandora's box for other grants or does this specifically amendment limit to just this one grant in this one situation? Or does it effectively open the door to further erode the city manager's authority on grants? Is it strictly limited to this one?

I understand Councilmember Speer's motion to be relevant to FAA grants that purport to bind the city in perpetuity. So that is limited in scope.

She also said the first one.

I'm sorry. Yes. Yes. But FAA grants, not other grants. Yeah.

Okay, we have a motion on the table. Is there a second? Can I ask a question? Yeah, go ahead, ask a question.

When will that occur?

That's an area question, I think.

So currently, as mentioned in the presentation, we have some opportunities before us. We have a entitlement grant, and keep me honest, gentlemen, We have an entitlement grant of $149,000 that we have been given an extension that we could apply for next week. We have entitlement grant for the following September for $137,000. But perhaps more importantly, we have an opportunity to apply to the FAA in September for approximately $1.7 million. The way in which that process happens is that that CDOT is our conduit to the FAA. They do that statewide. We would work with them directly. So we would likely come to you if this were to pass as early as September, if not, if that isn't done beforehand. Am I accurate, gentlemen?

I think we would pursue the 149K grant, which has an upcoming deadline as soon as we possibly could. Great.

So tomorrow.

So Tina, do you have a question?

Yeah, and when we're talking about this language, are we approving, are we asking for us to, for you to show us the grant and we vote yes, you can go get it, or you go get it, and then we would say yes. Or it's just on consent.

I would say that the manner in which that happens, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, gentlemen, is that we would need to come to you as we apply for it. If not, we would be having CDOT, FAA be working on these and then get an award just to say, just to have us say, no, thank you. And we would likely not be considered in the future. So it is an application.

So it'd be at the time of application, just prior to application. Yep.

But not at acceptance. We would. That would be correct. Okay. So we wouldn't know, we would approve it without knowing whether we get it.

Okay. We've got a lot of, a lot of questions here. Let's, I got Rob and then Matt.

Just to be clear, the $150,000 that you would apply for soon, that is not in perpetuity grant, is that correct?

I would invite Mr. Kirsch up to the podium.

I think there has been a little casual use of language here. I think we need to be really precise. The only FAA grants that apply in perpetuity by their terms are grants for acquisition of real property. But the city has taken the position in litigation that the perpetuity requirement that attaches to the purchase of real property does not apply to the city. because it has not taken grants since the FAA announced publicly that that condition applies. That's our position in court. The FAA announced that in 2023. If under that position, if the city takes any grant after 2023, then we can no longer take the position in court that the grant we took when we were children for real estate does not apply in perpetuity. It's really complicated, but it's really important. The FAA takes the position that we are currently obligated in perpetuity, so taking another grant has no effect as far as the FAA is concerned. But the city has taken a contrary position. And so as I understand the city council's discussion, it is based upon the city's position in court that we believe the city is currently not subject to the perpetuity requirement. And that, as I understand the discussion here, the next grant you take would eliminate your ability to make that argument in court.

Thank you for that clarification. Okay, so good enough. All right, Mark, Matt, did you want to say something or ask a question?

Yes. Blythe mentioned that we have $149,000 of entitlement next week. If this motion passes, this application has to come to us next week. otherwise when we would have to see it before we submit the application right so that's what i'm asking that's a timing question i get the 1.7 we've got some runway with but if there is indeed a goal to go after the 149 then we would have to have that for next week's meeting i just want to understand the timing correctly so to set expectations here and i shook my head no because the deadline is monday so it would need approval to apply for that grant we need to have an

today, or we would be foregoing that grant. We would not be able to meet the deadline.

And this gets to, well, Neri, go ahead, but this gets to the point.

I was just going to say, you could, if council so desires, give us direction tonight. We do not, I'm not trying to impose that as a requirement, so please don't take that as pressure, but we would not have time, unless you direct us tonight, to seek that next week. That's the practical impact of this.

So aren't we implying with the original motion as staff rights to give you said direction to go for the very grant. So it seems a bit redundant that we're giving you that authority only to then rubber stamp it later. Seems a bit strange.

I guess that's kind of a comment rather than a question. Yeah. Nicole.

So it isn't explicitly stated in the motion. It is implicitly stated, and this is what I'm trying to get to, is some explicit statement that we are intentionally choosing to do this. That's what I'm trying to get us to. And I'm sorry if it seems redundant. I think it is important for community that we are making this decision crystal clear.

Okay. Thanks, Nicole. Did we have, so you made that motion to amend. Did we get a second on that one? I'm not sure that we have yet.

Second.

Okay. So we've got a motion by Nicole to, it was, I believe it's a motion to amend the existing motion to add that staff would come back to council for approval of the first FAA grant that they were applying for. Nicole, do I have that correct? Okay, and we have a motion and a second on that. I'll just speak to it. Given the import of taking the FAA grant, I'm willing to have council take a formal vote on that. As everyone has heard, I am in support of taking FAA grants, but I'm willing to accept having us take a formal vote on the next one that comes forward. Does anybody else want to come before we go to the vote?

Clarity, just for clarity. So for clarity, that means we are foregoing, if that is indeed the case, this amendment would forfeit $149,000.

We would not be applying in time for the Monday grant.

Just want to be clear. Yet another pot of money that we're going to leave on the table. All right.

Okay. So we got a motion to amend on the table with second. Alicia, if we can have a roll call for that, please.

Okay. Yes, sir. We will start the motion, I mean, the vote for the third motion on the table made by Councilmember Speer with Mayor Brockett.

Yes.

Councilmember Kaplan.

No.

Marquis. Yes. Shewhart.

Yes.

Speer. Yes. Wallach. Yes.

He said yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Weiner.

I'm going to say no.

Council Member Adams.

Yes.

And Benjamin. I'm going to say no. The current motion on the table for the amendment made by Council Member Speer is hereby approved with a vote of six to three.

Thanks very much. So we now have an amended motion. I don't think we need further discussion. So let's go to a vote on the amended motion, please. Does anybody need clarification on what we're doing next? Yeah, so we just voted to amend the main motion, and that amendment vote was successful. We still haven't voted on the motion itself. So the motion is the language on the table as amended by Nicole to add the requirement that the next FAA grant come to council for a vote. So if we can have a vote on that motion, please.

OK. We'll start the vote for the amended motion that was just approved with council member Kaplan.

Yes.

Marquis. Yes. Shuhart.

Yes.

Speer. Yes. Wallach. No. Mayor Pro Tem Weiner. Yes. Council member Adams.

I want to apologize for opening this can because I do want to see that first one. So I'm a yes.

Benjamin.

Yes.

And Mayor Brockett.

Yes.

The motion as amended, as approved and amended, is approved with a vote of eight to one.

Very good. All right, Steph. Yeah, Mark, did you want to?

Could you indulge me on a point of personal privilege?

You, yes, I can.

Okay. I think I picked the wrong week to come back to council. Um, but I want to say one more thing with respect to what I regard as a momentous and misguided decision regarding the Boulder airport. Uh, and though I won't make any promises, I'm going to try to be brief. Uh, you know, I've often advised prospective candidates for council to always act as if you're without fear of losing the position. If you hang on too tightly, you will become bound to the politics, not your values. Today I get to put that belief into practice. I've never believed in the indispensability of any individual in politics, and that is certainly applicable to me. But I believe in serving according to my values and with a sense of self-respect. And if I feel I can no longer do so, I will choose not to serve. I will not be a party to the surrender of our valuable airport land in perpetuity for no purpose, little consideration, failure to properly consider our alternatives, and entirely without the extensive community input that this subject requires. I will not be a party to elevating the interests of 50 to 60 resident pilots over what I regard are the interests of 107,000 residents. For once, simply being a recorded vote in opposition does not suffice. Accordingly, and in sorrowful protest, I am resigning as a member of the Boulder City Council, effective immediately. I always like to make you happy. Quiet, please. It's been the honor of my life to serve on this body, and I have affection and respect for its members. Interestingly, I have become friends even with those with whom I am least politically aligned. Thank you, Nicole, Ryan, and before that, Rachel Friend. I will miss many aspects of service. but most of all the ability to work with extremely talented and intelligent colleagues and staff members. But I believe there's a half-life to every public servant, and there comes a moment when it's time to go. That moment has arrived for me. So to steal the sign-off of the late journalist Edward R. Murrow, good night and good luck. See you all down the road. First round is on me. Thank you.

Mark, I'm very sorry to get that news.

I am too.

I value your service very much and you'll be deeply missed. Um, S city staff, do you have anything else that you need on this item?

Thank you, mayor and members of council. I believe we have, uh, what we need. I am, uh, incredibly sad to hear, um, council member Wallach's decision. Certainly respect, uh, him, but he has been, um, an ally and a supporter of staff and I am sorry for his decision.

All right. Well, that brings us to the close of our meeting. Thanks again to everybody who came out tonight. I'll go ahead and gavel us closed at 1025 p.m. Take care.