Table 7 Comparative Rates & Charges for Airport Services Services Volley Chandler Open Apron 

### $ 30.00 

### $ 20.00 T-Shades 60.00 40.00 T-Hangars 120.00 

## * * Fuel (100 octane, low lead) 1.89 1.76 *currently unavailable at Chandler; information only These data suggests that the Chandler financial program can be improved by developing rates Gnd charges more comparable to Volley rates. This may be approached with a cost-recover philosophy in mind. Chandler should work toward a self-sustaining enterprise Gnd these revenues can be adjusted to that end. For this study, the current "hm'Jes will be used and inflGted at on arbitrary rate of 10% until rates are comparable with the Valley-wide rates. This would result in a four-year program to bring these rntes on a par with Valley rates.
"uel snles are currently at a level of 17% of the notional sales average by type of "ircroft opernted at airports nationwide or about 1.3 gallons/operation. Table 8 shows the difference between rnaintaining the current projection and slowlY increasing sales 10 the national norm by the year 2000. For this study the transition data is used for determining these revenues. Table 8 Fuel Revenue* Total Income per Time Period CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

Time Period 1982-1985 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 TotoIto year 2000: Constant Gallon/opn ( 1.3) 

### $ 162,700 310,100 388,800 441,500 

### $ 1,303, 100

-31- Average 

### $ 225,900 631,700 1,066,600 1,529,200 

### $ 3,453,400('hCHHII{'r's finel! prirn(Jry**'}ourc(~** of**re~Vf'~nl)(~** is in qround leases to oirport operators. Currently, five leases are in effect: Two agricultural applications, three fixed based operators. Also, two off-airport users, Varga Aircraft and the Patterson Company, pay u Business Use fee for the priviledge of access to the airport direct from their properties. The most recent appraisals at the Chandler airport place a value of six cents (6¢) per square foot for a bare land lease. The square footage of leased ground will increase roughly in proportion to the current rutio of total hosed aircraft to aircraft at each FBO.**I~unds** for major capitol improvements can be obtained from Federal and State agencies. Federal funds have historically been provided at 91.06% of the total project costs through the Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP) which expired at the end of fiscal year 1980. In F.Y. 1981 an emergency biII was passed by Congress for development funds a similar occurance for F.Y. 1982 is expected. Although we cannot be certain whether this program will return in its present form, it is the best estimate; therefore, our estimates will use FAA's 91.06% funding level.
State funds are currently available. These funds; however, are in greater demand due to the absence of some Federal monies. The State can fund as much as 90% of the cost of a project. However, with less than $2 million for F.Y. 1982, these funds llre very limited. For this reason State funds are estimated at 50% of Chandler share ufter Federal funds. This is a position the state has expressed as their preference. They will, however, cansider requests at 90% levels.
Financial Analysis
A analysis of the financial viability of the Chandler Airport has been conducted by considering three variations to the basic airport layout. These three alternatives all satisfy the demand for aeronautical facilities. The primary difference is the timing and location of parcels for land acquisition.
These alternatives are shown in figures 4 through 6. In each case, the analysis is focused on developing an arrangement to accomodate 480 based aircraft. The runway/taxiway portion of each alternate remains the same.



### -32-Alternate (2) places the terminal and FBO's in the middle of all operations while Alternates (I) and (3) would require FBO's to be located to the northeast and city serviced facilities to be parallel to the runway, west of the terminal. Alternate 3 would provide the City more flexibility in obtaining the more expensive 80 acre tract, while AIternates (I) or (2) would require purchase of all or portions of the 80 acre tract.
In all three alternates, the City will have great flexibility in developing airport related industrial/commercial airpark facilities. The area south of the parallel runway would be ideal for taxiway-related industrial development while the unused area in the 80 acre tract could be used for airport-related and highway-related commercial development.
Alternate III
This plan is basically an expansion of the 1976 Master Plan. A portion of the area owned by the RWCD would be developed for T-hangars, T-shades and executive hangars (JIang with a portion of the 80 acre area between the airport and Germann Rood.
Alternate 112
This plan would require purchase of the complete 80 acre tract fronting on Germann Road, however, the RWCD land would not be required. The 80 acre tract would likely be more expensive, on a per-acre basis, than the RWCD land.
AIternate 113
This concept does not require any of the north 80 acre tract since a larger section of RWCD land would be used.
A complete Revenue and Expense analysis of each alternative is shown in Table 9 through II.

-33-I '

" 

### ;:/1 

## I ",I / I' 

### G;;;'/dA"tt ""OAf)

- 

# r'
- - J

-- , 

# OX I,: \" I
- / ''J '

: ,,: I

# ";"";JSIi''',~ 1'\

# 7~

ALTERNATE PLAN NO.1 Wilidan Associates 1981

Figure 4 

### ---z)--

AIRFIELD OPERATIONS AREA**lad"~** 1982-1985 1,·,,:3 1986-1990**rz~"J** 1991-1995**C==~J** 1996-2000



### --------- I 'I

# ~l_, ]r----- -**~~III**

,;rOAD CRGeK ,,,**I',"~** 

### J ;,;/ ; "1 

### " I"i /', "i II,) lUI 

## I:; f/I/ f"/ Jill ,I**~OQ** I,d )1'<> 0 ')00 _j II**~~** III /,'J /,1/1 /,"; 

### 1 1 // 1'1**~~j ./~J'**  47/ ...?::.,,/**.~:,/;/** "j;//**/~,** ;/ /,,/ .;;/ i!7 ,;I 

### 11/, 1111 

## '''1 ," 1 111 1111 

### i:;l )1:1 j";' I,) !I;: 

### :,1 .... l.r**~..,. ~ ;**  I 

# !

I

,

" 

# Ji /: -II



# '" "t 

# '" "'" , ':' 

### , 

## "', 

# '" 

# '" '" "..**:~.**':'

. ..- "'.
. 

# " ('II w ce 

### 0 

# " 

# z U> z 0 

### Z



# ... <C 

# " ce


### "'

# -~-~- 

# 1 ...J<o w**Q.~** "- 

### "' 0 c 0 

### "' 0 

## '" 0 

## , " <0 

## '" '" 0 

## '" W 0 

## '" 

## '" " L;:**I-~** ..J 

## , , I w 

## , , 

## '" 

# «<; " 

## '" '" 

# I u. <0 <0 

## '" 

## '" z:,; ce 

## '" '" '"**o::~** 

# .. We 

# ; F1

# 0**!:i~ ~;;;**  

# U 'I

.**<l;~** I 

# ,

,

,

35-;' .- "

Figure (, AIRFIELD OPERATIONS AREA 1982-1985 193G-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 

# /, : 

# "., /)<., I ' 

## =-

# //~i~

# ri~& 1/ Il 

# I: )
, ,

# /~I 

# /. JLI
I

ALTERNATE PLAN NO.3 WlIIdan Associates 1981 

## i.mI [7J:] 

# :f//'

I

# ~;**~~,\"'R":~li\~''''' ~~i:~<O~~'~';'{~~**  ....:.::....

### r,.",,-B~~:;j**~"?-%l** ",:·x·}::-

-- -

# ~,;"Ii!t?:~]**:b).;"".s'..,.~"r.(:.;;.*~<~****r~~;'.:;t\~~·~** •.

## ~~:·.?Jrf/· . -:'I·

....

### {,;~~....

### '::;)Jf·'~-

## ...': 

# M?p'yc/;i"

.,,, ;.:.. ,....

..: . .:\ ::.:**.';::':.~::'** 

# A

I 

# I[

.'I 

# JI "J 

# L i "**~-~** --------- 

# -- - - 

# -lj---GEIi'MAN.V ROAO 

# ,sr ;:-

, <:" /'1 '" I I ;,'1/ I\) I**~1** 

### 0/ I 

### Ii>**/~** Q I /1/ <;)**,~I!** \.oJ:" 1'11**~I/J** {/1 

### 1/,/ h 1//1**)~")** '? 700 '00 It'd r---.:... f _ 1 Ii'I**I.'I~** I'" 'I' 

### N**!;'/~** /JIJ**/,~? /~Y**  4'l/ ,4/ /**~"".** ......**~;::::** / /.", ;/

/

II : I

### [:J~J 

# 'L c..:=J 

## . __ ---l

.__ {J(/eCN CReeK ;:;"'AO----

# ·-----1 r---------.- --.-.--_. " '<, I '- I I


## "" , 

# " V-J l;l;: 

# "
, ll:

### Table 9 Alternative III 

### Revenue 

## &Expenses Chandler Municipal Airport
Fc'P"'':lses 1981 1982-85 1986-90 1991-95 1996-2000 Monaqement 

### $ 10,000 

### $ 44,133 

### $ 60,832 

### $ 74,012 86.583 M !'x 0 

### 4,000 18,717 29,604 36,018 43,822 cuel Soles-5010ry 28,000 131,024 159,410 193.947 235,967 Utilities 10,500 49,134 77.712 94,549 115.033 Contractual Svcs. (I) 

### 40,000 187,177 296,048 360,188 438,224 92,500 430,185 623.606 i58.714 919,629



# -**(~{]I)it<JLI'.'])rovements** 

### (includes land) F**I\A-~;tate** 

### 736,600 3,078,400 2.556,900 704,600 LocoI 

### Costs 54,600 395,100 1,011,700 1,063,300 1,180,800 fot,,1 Local Costs 825,285 1,635,306 1.822.014 2,100,429**I~evenue "-_~-**  FllO 

### 12,300 83,200 152,100 184,900 216,000 Fuel Sales 215,700 225,900 631,700 1.066,600 1,529,200 fiedown & 

### HGR (2) 27 ,600 295,162 915,070 1,361,880 1,533,090 fatal Revenue 255,600 604,262 1,698,870 2,613,380 3,278,290 [xcess Revenue 108,500 (221,023) 63,564 791,366 1,177 ,861

(I) 

### A & E 

### Fees are included as a part ofprojects. (2) 

### E3ased on 75% of aircraft to be serviced by City and 25% by cBO's.

-37-Tobie 10 Alternative 

### 112 Revenue & Expenses Chandler Municipal Airport**I~".':nses** 

### 1981 1982-85 1986-90 1991-95 1996-2000 Management 

### $ 10,000 

### $ 44,133 

### $ 60,832 

### $ 74,012 

### $ 86,583 M ," 0 

### 4,000 18,717 29,604 36,018 43,822 Fuel Sales-Salary 

### 28,000 131,024 159,410 193,947 235,967 lJtilities 

### 10,500 49,134 77,712 94,549 115,033 Contractual Svcs. (I) 

### 40,000 187,177 296,048 160,188 438,224 92,500 430,185 623,606 758.714 919.629



# -**(~)i** tal Improvements FAA-State 

### 699,600 3,091,200 2,451,100 726,300



# - Local Costs 

### 54,600 386,200 1,014,800 1,071,000 1,189, 10O 

## rotol Local Costs 

### 147,000 816,385 1,638,406 1,822,214 2,108,724

-

### -

nevenue**~---** leBO 

### 12,300 83,200 152,100 184,900 216,000 Fuel Sales 

### 215,700 225,900 631,700 1,066,600 1,529,200 Tiedown & HGR (2) 

### 27,600 295,162 915,070 I,366,880 I

### ,533,090 Total Revenue 

### 255,600 604,262 1,698,870 2,618,380 3,267,290 Excess Revenue 

### 108,500 (212,123) 60,464 796,166 I, 

### 158,566
(I) A & E Fees are included as a part of projects. 

### (2) Based on 

### 75% of aircraft to be serviced by City and 

### 25% by FBO's.



### -38-

### Table II Alternative 113 

### Revenue & 

### Expenses Chandler Municipal Airport t:;xpenses 1981 1982-85 1986-90 1991-95 1996-2000 Management 

### $ 10,000 

### $ 44,133 

### $ 60,832 

### $ 74,012 

### $ 86,583 M**(~O** 

### 4,000 18,717 29,604 36,018 43,822 ICuel Soles-Salary 28,000 131,024 159,410 193,947 235,967 Utilities 10,500 49,134 n,712 94,549 115,033 Contractual Svcs, (I) 

### 40,000 187, In 296,048 160,188 438,224 92,500 430,185 623,606 758,714 919.629



# - Cop;

### tal Improvements FAA-State 751,000 3,089,200 2,570,600 734,400 I_oeal Costs 54,600 398,500 1,014,200 1.070,000 I , 

### 190,500 

## rotal Loce" Costs 147,100 828,685 1,637,806 1,828,814 2,110,124**I~evenue** ------- Ff30 

### 12,300 83,200 152,100 184,900 216,000 Fuel Sales 215,700 225,900 631,700 1,066,600 1,529,200 Tiedown & 

### HGR (2) 27 ,600 295,162 915,070 I 

### ,361 ,88O 1,533,090 Total Revenue 255,600 604,262 1,698,870 2,613,380 3,278,290 Excess Revenue 108,500 (224,423) 61,064 789,566 1,157,166

(I) A & E 

### Fees are included as a part ofprojects. (2) Based on 75% of aircraft to be serviced by City and 25% by FBO's.

-39-

### Tobie 12 Comparative Cost/Revenue Analysis Period Alto I Alto 2 Alto 3 Range 1982-1985 (221 

### ,023) (212,123) (224,423) ( 12,300) 1986-1990 63,564 60,464 61,064 3,100 1991-1995 791,266 796,166 789,566 6,600 1996-2000 1,177,861 1,158,566 1,157,166 19,295

The City of Chandler Airport Commission examined these three alternatives. It was their determination that Alternative 2 represented the most logical pattern of land acquisition. Since the Cost/Revenue analysis is roughly equal for each of the three alternatives, it wos,their initial recommendation that Alternative 2 be selected as the preferred alternative.

-40-

### Conclusions & 

### Recommendations
Self-sustaining enterprise status is possible for the Chandler Airport. This status can be attoined in the 1986-1990 time period or earlier if revenues are adjusted more rapidly. This status, however, cannot be attained without clear and responsive efforts from the City. Several tasks must be completed to assure this direction. Based upon the results of this study and the determinations of the Airport Commission, we recommend that:
I. 

### The City adopt minimum standards for FBO leases designed to allow new business to begin functioning at the airport.
2. There be an increase in the Federal and State funding application activity. This will aid in placing the airport in a better position to receive funds as they become available.
3. The City begin to attract private investors to aid in building revenue generating facilities on and off the airport.
4. The City proceed to acquire the necessary lands identified for acquisition in concert with FAA and State guidelines as funds become available.
5. Develop a monagement structure capable of accomplishing the necessary administrative tasks.



### -41-

# EXHIBIT 6

# EXHIBIT 7

# EXHIBIT 8

# AIRPORTMASTERPLAN FINALTECHNICAL REPORT FOR CHANDLERMUNICIPALAIRPORT Chandler, Arizona PreparedFor THE CITY OF CHANDLER By COFFMANASSOCIATES AIRPORT CONSULTANTS
Approved By ChandlerCity Council Nove:mber 5,1998

"The contents ofthis plan do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy ofthe FAA. Acceptance ofthis document by the FAA does not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of the United States to participate in any development depictedhereinnordoesitindicatethattheproposeddevelopmentis environmentally acceptable in accordance with appropriate public laws."

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

.f.r==;-.... --------------------- 

# II ,. CHANDLERMUNICIPALAIRPORT P 

### AIRPORT MASTERPLAN