The Vance Brand Airport
I have written so much about my position on the airport, and I still feel like I’m not being clear, so I’m going to try again! My position on the airport can be reduced to this: Some residents would like the airport closed, but most just want to address specific problems associated with it, like noise, leaded gas, and city funds appropriated to the airport. I’m committed to addressing those problems.
I’m not talking about longer runways or bigger, louder, or more planes. I’m talking about doing things that allow all the residents of Longmont to gain some more tangible benefits from the airport, alongside concentrated, targeted, legally-informed efforts to address the issues stemming from the airport’s presence in Ward 2.
I have written so much about my position on the airport, and I still feel like I’m not being clear, so I’m going to try again! My position on the airport can be reduced to this: Some residents would like the airport closed, but most just want to address specific problems associated with it, like noise, leaded gas, and city funds appropriated to the airport. I’m committed to addressing those problems.
I’m not talking about longer runways or bigger, louder, or more planes. I’m talking about doing things that allow all the residents of Longmont to gain some more tangible benefits from the airport, alongside concentrated, targeted, legally-informed efforts to address the issues stemming from the airport’s presence in Ward 2.
Closing the Airport?
First, let’s adddress the possibility of closing the airport for that segment of the community that would like to see that outcome. The City of Boulder very recently asked a federal court if a municipality is permitted under the law to close down its airport without FAA approval. The case was dismissed last month mostly on a technicality but seems to indicate that the answer is no. This is in line with other legal precedence. So let’s take that option off the table, as most Ward 2 residents don’t seem to want to close the airport, almost no residents outside of Ward 2 want to close the airport, and it seems unclear that such an option is available to us legally.
Noise Abatement
Moving on, my positions on noise and traffic are strongly influenced by my background as an attorney and my growing understanding of the limits available to us under federal FAA law. Much of what is being asked for by residents is not allowable under federal law. For instance, as hard as it is to believe (it is for me!), local officials aren’t permitted to make any rules that are specifically or explicitly designed to reduce noise or traffic at an airport. The simplest explanation of this that I’ve heard is that we need to think of the airways and airports like federal highways – local officials aren’t allowed to place their own rules on traffic or noise related to federal highways, and the airways are likewise federally governed. However, we are allowed to make rules that govern the grounds of our airport and measures required for ground safety and airport financial solvency. It is in those areas that we can legislate and find solutions.
But let me be clear: I am absolutely not trying to increase air traffic to our little airport. Nor am I willing to just accept that we’ll have disruptive noise over our neighborhoods, and there is nothing at all we can do. But we do not have the same power here that we have with our golf courses and recreation centers; there is no federal agency with which we have to share governance with over those kinds of facilities.
Our solutions to these problems are going to have to be based on forming relationships and coalitions with the groups that can help us exert influence in this area. I have seen some indications that this may be possible, so I am cautiously hopeful. But it’s going to take some time and dedication to the issue by people truly willing to stick with it and some very, very careful dialogue around what we are trying to do and why.
So what can we do? Roughly a decade ago, the City adopted a Voluntary Noise Abatement Program (VNAP), which is a set of guidelines and considerations that private pilots and commercial operators at the airport are asked to follow. VNAPs have been shown to reduce noise annoyance at other airports, but we haven’t seen the same level of adherence. We have examples of other airports with policies that have been more successful at abating noise, and I believe we need to consider and adopt those methods where we can.
Airport Sustainability
My lont-term vision for airport improvements focuses on making the airport more valuable to the broader community, beyond only those who have aircrafts and businesses at the airport. Here are some of my ideas for doing so:
I support constructing a small terminal building with:
Finally, I’d like to see some basic, simple, cosmetic improvements to the airport approach and views from Airport Road that better reflect the character of Longmont. Not something sleek or expensive, just pretty and charming, like most of our city.
I’m not talking about longer runways or bigger, louder, or more planes. I’m talking about doing things that allow all the residents of Longmont to gain some more tangible benefits from the airport, alongside concentrated, targeted, legally-informed efforts to address the issues stemming from the airport’s presence in Ward 2.
How will I pay for all of this? There are a lot of transportation grants available for airport improvements. As a city, we don’t typically apply for these grants because our airport staff consists of literally one employee. However, I believe that we could gain support for an effort led by community members and/or the Airport Advisory Board. And these grants won’t tie us any further into federal governance – the FAA already controls what they control and that control isn’t going away whether we take the transportation funds or not, so we might as well use their money to our community’s advantage.
Position on Landing Fees
AGAINST AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED.
In case law and federal statute, landing fees are permissible only for the purpose of generating revenue for an airport. Federal court cases have made clear that it is illegal to impose landing fees as a lever to decrease airport traffic or for noise abatement reasons. We are only allowed to impose landing fees that are designed to promote financial solvency at our airport or serve to improve safety. I am supportive of those goals. However, I would like to see fees that incentivize the planes that land to do business in our city and refuel at our airport, and I would like to see different fees for itinerant planes vs. those housed at our airport so as to not unduly burden our local airport residents and businesses.
Position on Revised Hangar Lease Terms
IN FAVOR OF.
Hangars, the large, warehouse-like structures at the Vance Brand Airport, are owned by private individuals and commercial entities, not by the City. The land underneath the hangars is owned by the City and leased to the hangar owners. Under this system, hangar owners are much like mobile home owners – they can get mortgages for the structure and buy and sell their rights to the structure, but they lease the land the mobile home rests on.
I support reviewing our hangar leasing rates and terms to bring them in line with the market. Our hangars are currently leased at under-market rates, and there is enormous demand for hangars in our area. There is considerable disagreement about how much money our airport generates for the City, but I think we can all agree that, as budgets tighten, generating more revenue is a good thing.
Aircraft Innovations
If you spend some time chatting with small aircraft enthusiasts, you’ll learn a lot about the innovations on the horizon that could significantly resolve some of our shared concerns about the airport.
Electric-powered airplanes are one. The concept of planes that are nearly silent and don’t create fuel pollution is promising, and there are strong indicators that flight schools and some private pilots will eagerly purchase these planes as the technology advances. At least one flight school in Boulder is already using them. Furthermore, as Longmont owns its own utility provider, we will not have to negotiate with an outside electricity vendor to electrify our airport to support such planes.
However, there are also several reasons to exercise caution in our supposition that these planes will soon fill our airport runways. For one thing, the infrastructure to support electric-powered aircraft will be very large and very expensive. Also, because planes are so heavily regulated, even older planes are constantly being rebuilt to comply with safety regulations. Therefore, aircraft owners aren’t particularly incentivized to trade in their functioning planes for a more expensive option. We can, however, create future incentives to make the change more attractive for aircraft owners.
Another issue with electric-powered airplanes is that they aren’t yet capable of long flights. Until they are, adoption of electric aircrafts will continue to be extremely limited.
Unleaded fuel is another innovation that many aircraft owners and airport neighbors are optimistic about. Boulder’s airport recently announced that it will begin carrying unleaded fuel. This is an important step forward, and I think we need to be ready to follow suit as soon as we have clear data supporting the safety and general availability of unleaded fuel for our local pilots.