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

Toto I to 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 bi II 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

AI ternates (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.

AI ternate 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

CRGeK ,;rOAD

,,,

I',"~

;,;/J

; "1 "I"i /', "i II,)

lUI I:;

f/I/

f"/ Jill ,I )1'<>

~~0 ')00 ~OQ _j I,dII III

/,'J

/,1/1

/,";

11//

1'1

~~j

./~J' 47/ ...?::.,,/ .~:,/;/

"j;//

/~, ;/

/,,/

.;;/

i!7

,; I

11/,

1111

'''1,"

1

1

11

1

111

i:;l

)1:1

j";'

I,)

!I;: :,1 .... l.r ~..,.

~ ; I

!

I

,

"

Ji /:

-II

'"

"t

'""'", ':' , "', '"

'"

'""
.. - "'. .. :~. ':' . .

" ('II w

ce 0

z U>

"

z

Z 0

... <C ce" -~-~- 1 "'

...J<o w Q.~ "-

"' 0 c 0

"' 0

'" 0 , " <0'" '" 0

'" W 0

'" '" " I-~ L;: ..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~;

~~i:~<O~~'~';'{~~ ~~,\"'R":~li\~''''' ....:.::.... r,.",,-B~~:;j ~"?-%l ",:·x·}::- ---

~,;"Ii!t?:~] :b).;"".s'..,.~"r.(:.;;.*~<~ r~~;'.:;t\~~·~ •.~~:·.?Jrf/· . -:'I·....{,;~~....'::;)Jf·'~- ...': M?p'yc/;i"

.,,,

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

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

A

I

"J

I[ .'I JI i " L ~-~ --------- -- - -

-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 of projects.

(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 of projects.

(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 earl ier 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

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

FOR

CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

Chandler, Arizona

Prepared For

THE CITY OF CHANDLER

By

COFFMAN ASSOCIATES

AIRPORT CONSULTANTS

Approved By Chandler City Council

Nove:mber 5,1998

"The contents of this plan do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the

FAA. Acceptance of this document by the FAA does not in any way constitute a

commitment on the part of the United States to participate in any development

depicted herein nor does it indicate that the proposed development is environmentally

acceptable in accordance with appropriate public laws."
TABLE OF CONTENTS . f.r==;-.... --------------------- II ,. CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

P AIRPORT MASTER PLAN