Erie council seeks ways to close airport deficit, weighing hangar development, fees and noise mitigation

Erie officials on Aug. 5 devoted a special meeting to options aimed at making the Erie Municipal Airport financially sustainable while addressing residents’ complaints about noise and neighborhood impacts. Staff outlined a five‑year capital plan, current grant‑assurance constraints and a set of revenue strategies that town leaders asked staff to refine and return with concrete proposals.

The council was told the airport receives the bulk of capital funding from outside sources, typically about 90% from the Federal Aviation Administration, roughly 5% from the Colorado Division of Aeronautics and about 5% from the town. Todd Fessenden, the town’s utilities director who has overseen the airport, said recent projects included relocation of an electrical vault and a taxiway/ramp concrete replacement that was “a little over $1,000,000.” Fessenden emphasized that accepting outside grants brings long‑term grant assurances tied to aviation use.

Why it matters: the town currently transfers significant general‑fund dollars to support airport operations. Staff identified an annual $240,000 transfer tied to the 2023 manager agreement with Vector Air plus roughly $64,000 projected for operations — a roughly $300,000 annual subsidy that council members said competes with other municipal priorities.

Council and staff explored several revenue‑generation levers. One commonly discussed option is changing the ‘through‑the‑fence’ fee paid by Airpark properties that have direct airport access. Under current code, 31 residential lots with aircraft pay $600 annually (about $18,600 total). Consultants and staff modeled raising the fee to $1,000 and applying it to all 55 lots with airport access, which would increase residential collections and contribute toward closing the shortfall. Lockheed, a finance staff member, and consultants also ran scenarios showing that updating through‑the‑fence fees, increasing hangar rents (from $50/month toward market levels) and pursuing ground‑lease development for new hangars could each generate tens of thousands of dollars a year.

Julian, the town’s economic development liaison to the airport advisory board, summarized a BA Group hangar market study that found sustained demand: the advisory board collected roughly 187 initial interest forms and about 70 follow‑ups indicating readiness to occupy hangar space. The study evaluated three development areas: west of the terminal (replacement of very old T‑hangars), north of the terminal (the advisory board’s preferred site, estimated as the most immediately feasible) and the Crosswind Runway (a larger, more constrained 10–15 acre area that poses access and septic limitations). The advisory board’s recommendation favored Option 2 (north of the FBO) and replacing dilapidated hangars west of the terminal.

On operations and noise, airport staff and Vector Air representatives said the largest source of complaints is flight‑training traffic, much of it originating from larger nearby airports. Staff said the town has implemented voluntary noise‑abatement procedures and recently installed ADS‑B tracking equipment on the terminal building to collect origin and operation data that could support future mitigation or negotiations with flight schools.

Council members pressed staff on legal constraints tied to FAA grant assurances — including a 20‑year commitment window that can be triggered when the town accepts FAA funds. Staff said grant assurances and the original FAA funding that helped acquire the property limit the town’s ability to repurpose airport land without a complex legal process.

Quotes that capture the debate: “The most common, what we see is 90% of the project is funded by the FAA,” Fessenden said, underscoring the outside funding mix and associated conditions. Lockheed summarized the immediate budget impact: the 2025 budget includes a $240,000 transfer to Vector Air and an additional $64,000 transfer for operations, bringing the town subsidy to about $300,000.

What’s next: Council directed staff to return with a realistic package of fee changes and revenue options for further council review, to pursue feasibility and solicitation work for Option 1 and Option 2 hangar development (and possible combination), and to gather and analyze ADS‑B data to quantify training‑school operations. Staff were also asked to design public engagement around Crosswind Runway options and any fee changes, and to report back with timelines and draft proposals.