Longmont reviews airport finances and adds 'saturated pattern' policy to near‑term agenda as staff prepares landing‑fee options

Longmont City Council on Tuesday discussed airport finances, capital needs and safety policy after an update from city staff and airport management. The five‑year pro forma presented at the meeting showed operating revenues roughly match expenses under current rates, but capital projects in the airport CIP would create shortfalls unless additional revenue or grant matches are identified.

Assistant City Manager Sandy Cedar and airport staff summarized operational expenses, an administrative transfer fee (ATF) that charges the airport for shared city services, and the large capital program driven by FAA and CDOT priorities. Cedar said the airport’s operating fund “is close” to breaking even under current operations but that including the listing of unfunded CIP projects produces a multi‑year deficit. She told council the average annual shortfall under a CIP‑inclusive pro forma would be modest but persistent and that staff will return with options to address the gap.

Why it matters: The airport relies on a combination of user revenue, leases and FAA/CDOT grants for capital projects. The city must balance operational self‑sufficiency with the ability to provide local matches for grants and to fund maintenance and safety‑critical work such as ramp and taxiway rehabilitation.

Key points from staff and council discussion: - Administrative transfer fee: staff explained the ATF reflects the airport’s share of central city services (finance, HR, legal, payroll). Council has historically required the airport to pay 50% of that fee; the remainder is absorbed by the general fund under past council policy. That split is a policy decision and influences the airport’s reported operating position. - Five‑year pro forma: staff presented two pro formas — one that excludes major capital needs and shows a generally balanced operating fund, and another that includes CIP projects and shows the airport fund drawdown over time. Cedar said the airport fund would see continued pressure if capital needs are added without additional revenue sources. - Landing fees and leases: staff and council discussed the need to analyze landing fees, lease language and other potential revenue sources. Council asked staff to convene the Airport Advisory Board (AAB) and return with landing‑fee options and legal analysis about lease changes and FAA implications.

Airport safety and operations: Councilor Popkin introduced and successfully moved to add a draft “saturated pattern” policy — a rule used at some small airports that limits touch‑and‑go operations when a specified number of aircraft are in the traffic pattern — to the October 7 meeting agenda. The airport advisory board had recommended that council consider developing a saturated‑pattern policy modeled on other Colorado airports. The motion passed and staff will add the draft policy for council review in October.

Public comment focused on safety and compliance with published pattern procedures. Public speaker Scott Store urged the airport and pilots to fly within the published traffic pattern and suggested the council compare current flight tracks to the city’s officially adopted pattern. “If we're gonna talk about a saturation thing, it should be the number of planes that fit within the existing pattern that's already prescribed,” Store said.

Next steps: Staff will bring landing‑fee options, the voluntary noise‑abatement program and the draft saturated‑pattern policy to council on October 7 after consulting with the Airport Advisory Board. The AAB will also review the pro forma materials; council asked staff to provide ongoing monthly expenditure reports for the airport fund and to return with specific fee and lease proposals for review.

Context: Airport capital projects commonly rely on FAA entitlement or discretionary grants; the FAA typically pays after work begins and requires local matches. Staff noted that federal funds are generous on a per‑project basis but that local match and long‑term capital planning are needed to keep the airport’s infrastructure in a safe, maintainable condition.