HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report airportTO: CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
September 29, 2010
SUBJECT: "Palo Alto Airport Business Plan" Prepared by R.A. Wiedemann &
Associates, Inc.
To facilitate discussion on October 19,20[0 of the "Palo Alto Airport Business Plan," the report by
R.A. Wiedemann and Associates is being distributed early for Finance Committee (FC)/Council and
public review. The City Manager Rcport (CMR) that contains staffs analysis and recommendations
will be distributed on October 13 for the October 19 FC meeting.
Recently, staff has learned that when the lease with the County terminates or expires the leases of the
Fixed Base Operators (FBO) expire as well. In other words, the FBO leases are subordinate to the
primary lease with the county. If the City and County were to agree to end the lease in 2014, the
FBO leases would end in 2014. The Business Plan assumed that the FBO leases would expire in
2017 even if the County lease was telminated earlier than 2017. he implications of this new
infOlmation will be discussed in the CMR.
Dep t Director of Administrative Services
Department
'l>A:aministrativc Services Department
Palo 14110 AilDOII Business Plan
Prepared for:
The Bill 01 'alo JlIIO, Calilornia
Prepared by:
~ ~, R.A. Wiedemann &
Associat.es, Inc.
A v t A.T 1 0-NCO-N s: V L T I\,N T S
P.O. Box 621 • Georgetown, KY 40324 • (502) 535·6570 FAX (502) 535"5314
www.rawiedemann.com
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan
. Draft Technical Report
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto, CA
Prepared by:
11 r'" R.A. Wiedemann &
~" Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 621 • Georgetown, KY 40324 (502) 535-6570 • FAX (502) 535-5314
SECTION I:
1.1
1.2
1.3
SECTION 2:
2.1
2.2
SECTION 3:
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
SECTION 4:
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
SECTION 5:
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
SECTION 6:
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Understanding & Key Issues ......................................... I
Desired End Products ............................................... 4
Business Plan Outline .............................................. 4
BACKGROUND AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
Current Airport Mission ............................................. 5
Current Airport Management Structure ................................. 6
EXISTING AIRPORT CHARACTERISTICS
Airside Facilities .................................................. 9
Landside Facilities ....... '.' ....................................... 12
Support Services ................................................. 15
Airspace Environment ............................................. 17
Airport Operational Characteristics ................................... 19
Environmental Concerns ........................................... 20
Airport Capital Improvement Program ................................ 21
Market Analysis .................................................. 25
BASELINE FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
Historical Revenues and Expenses ................................... 31
Baseline Forecast of Revenues and Expenses 2010 to 2017 ................ 34
Baseline Forecast of Revenues and Expenses 2018 to 2037 ................ 36
Summary and Findings for Baseline Scenario ........................... 37
AL TERNA TJVE OPERATIONAL STRUCTURES
Common Operational Structures for Airports ........................... 39
Projections of Financial Performance ................................. 42
Summary of Financial Performance Options ............................ 47
FAA Policy on Revenue Diversion ...................... : ............ 49
FAA Policy on Airport Land Release or Airport Closure .................. 50
RECOMMENDED OPTIONS
Description of Options ........... , ... , . , .. , ........................ 55
Implementation Steps for City Operation ofPAO ........................ 56
Implementation Steps for Third Party Operation ofPAO ......... , ........ 59
AccountinglFunding Overview ...................................... 60
Feasibility of Management Options Summary .......................... 63
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
LIST OF TABLES
Table I • PAO Runway Data .............................................. 12
Table 2 • PAO Tilxiways ................................................. 12
Table 3 • Landside Buildings .............................................. 13
Table 4 -Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) 2009·2013 .................. 22
Table 5 • Santa Clara County Tie Down Rates ................................ 27
Table 6 -Facility Comparison ............................................. 28
Table 7 -Service Comparison ............................................. 29
Table 8 • Rates and Charges Comparison .................................... 30
Table 9 • Historical Revenues and Expenses for PAO .......................... 33
Table 10· Monthly PAD Tie·Down Vacancy Percentage and Fees ................ 34
Table II -Baseline Forecast for County Operation ofPAO (2010·2017) ........... 35
Table 12. Baseline Revenues & Expenses for City Operation ofPAO (2018·2037) ... 36
Table 13· City Management ofPA0 with Additional Hangars/Apron (2012.2017) ... 43
Table 14· City Management of PAD with Additional Hangars/Apron (2018-2037) ... 44
Table 15· City Plus FBO Management ofPAO (2018·2037) .................... 45
Table 16 -Third Party Operation of PAO (2012·2017) ......................... 46
Table 17· Summary of Financial Performance Options: Total Net Revenues ........ 48
Table 18 -Summary of Pros and Cons for All Options .......................... 48
Table 19 -Summary of Pros and COl,lS by Factor and Airport Operator ............. 49'
Table 20 • Implementation Steps: City Management Option ..................... 56
Table 21· Summary of City Management Pro Forma: 2012·2037 ................. 58
Table 22 • Implementation Steps: Third Party Management Option ................ 59
Table 23 • Summary of Third Party Management Pro Forma: 2012·2037 ........... 60
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure I· Formal Organization Chat1 ........................................ 7
Figure 2 -Airport Service Area ............................................ 10
Figure 3 • Existing Airport Layout ......................................... 11
Figure 4· Airport Landside Facilities ....................................... 14
Figure 5 -Federal Airspace ............................................... 18
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A -Detailed Survey Results
APPENDIX B • Airport Community Value
ADDENDUM
ADDENDUM A· Palo Alto Airport, CA Economic Impact, 2009
Palo Alto Ai'port
Draft Blls/ness Plan
DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT
Palo Alto Airport Business Plan
1. INTRODUCTION
Feb,uary 2010
T HE PURPOSE OF THIS BUSINESS PLAN FOR the general aviation airport located within tne
jurisdictional boundaries of Palo Alto, California (the "Airport" or "P AO") is to examine tne
feasibility of transferring the direct control, management, and operation of the Airport to the
City of Palo Alto (the "City") prior to tne expiration or earlier termination of the fifty-year ground
lease with the County of Santa Clara, California (the "County") in 2017. In this regard, the City is
exploring its options concerning an opportunity for the early termination of the lease, commencing
as early as in 2011, thus creating the need for study of the administrative, financial, legal and
political implications of taking such action. Of great concem to the City is the potential for
assuming a liability that could require significant City resources to control, maintain and operate.
This plan also will consider the potential management structure options and the projected financial
performance of Airport operations following lease expiration in2017.
1.1 Understanding & Key Issues
Our understanding of the AirpOlt's current setting takes into account a number of long
standing events relating to the Airport, many of whicn occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. In
particular, the Baylands Master Plan l , first published in 1978, has spelled out the primary policy
statement regarding any future growth or development within the Airport's boundaries. Limitations
enunciated by this policy include a directive that there shall be no intensification of activity at the
Airport. As such, previous effOlts to expand the AirpOlt's runway system were rejected, as were
attempts to develop new hangars on the landside area of the Airport.
,
Since the lease with the County was signed in 1967, there have been many significant
changes in the Bay Area. In palticular, the development of Silicon Valley and high-tech industries,
the influx of large numbers of affiuent residents, a growing scarcity of developable land, and a
greater concern for the ecology of the region has taken place over the past forty-plus years. The
lease to the County was seen at the time as more efficient way to operate and maintain the Airport
with minimal cost to the City. The current fixed base operator ("FDO") subleases were signed in
1969. The County ground lease and the FDO subleases by their terms and conditions will expire in
2017, if they are not earlier terminated.
The 102-acre Airport has one runway (13-31), which is 2,443 feet long and 70 feet wide.
Whi Ie it may be unusual that the small Airport has an Air Traffic Control Tower ("A TCT"), the
A TCT ensures safe operations at the Airport, including the occasional stoppage of air traffic to
permit geese to fly across the runway from the adjacent Palo Alto golf course. Another unusual
aspect is that the small Airport has more tnan 500 based aircraft. This fact attests to the strong
demand for local airpolt facilities in the Palo Alto area.
Baylallds Master Plan, 4Th Edition, as Amended, City of Palo Alto, CA, 2008.
,", R.A Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 1
Palo A 110 Airport
Draft Business Pial!
Key issues that are identified in tbis business plan include the following:
Febru{/,y 2010
• Environmental Sensitivity: Tbe importance and recognition by the community of
environmental sensitivity in and about tbe Airport. Tbis factor drives much of the
policy decisions made about the Airport. The Airport boundaries are contiguous to
the City-owned Baylands, Byxbee Park, and the nearby Don Edwards San Francisco
Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Two endangered species found in and about the
Airport include tbe Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and the California Clapper Rail.
• Substantial ConlitructionPro/tibition: Altbough tbe Baylands Master Plan does not
expressly prohibit construction, there has long existed community concerns that the
construction of additional or larger facilities at the Airport may result in intens ified
activity at the AirpOit. Thus the Baylands Master Plan enunciates the City's policy
against intensification of activity at the Airport.
• Views/ted: The Palo Alto community has expressed a strong desire to preserve tbe
viewshed of the Baylands near the Airport, from the vantage of Embarcadero Road.
This preservation effort has served to deter the construction of new T-bangars on
vacant Airport land. An ongoing landscaping project along Embarcadero Road bas
resulted in the growth of natural visual barriers which tend to make the Airport less
visually or aesthetically objectionable. There are plans to extend landscaping along
Embarcadel'O Road so that parked airplanes are less visible.
• Aging Facilities: The City expects the County to reinvest or promote the
reinvestment in capital facilities at the Airport through lease expiration in 2017. The
County has assured the City that, as the County is the ground lease tenant, it will
continue to fulfill its lease obligation to maintain the Airport "as though it were the
sole owner thereof." As 2017 draws near, the City's officials are well aware that
there is little financial incentive for the County to rehabilitate and extend the useful
life of facilities beyond the leasehold term. By reclaiming the Airport prior to 2017,
the City's officials believe such action could assure a higher level of capital
improvement and maintenance of the Airport. The difficulty of adequately
improving and maintaining the Airport is compounded by the condition of soils at
the Airport, which are typical of the relatively unstable coastal tidelands in the Bay
AI'ea due to their sandy and silt-loam nature and the effect of tidal action. These
conditions effectively result in the reduction of the useful life oftbe pavements at the
Airport by almost one-half. For example, though a runway pavement typically bas
a useful life of twenty years, the City anticipates tbat the pavement rehabilitation at
the Airport, which was completed in 2001, will likely require substantial work in the
2012-2013 period.
• FBO SubleUlles: Some level of uncertainty regarding the renewal of the FBO
subleases is perceived to exist and this may impact capital reinvestment in the FBO
facilities, including hangars and pavements. Because the hangars and other buildings
at the Airport will revert to the City's control and possession in 2017, similar
,"r R.A. Wiedemann & ASNociules, Illc. 2
Palo Alto Airport
Drafl Business Pian February 2010
concerns about sufficient maintenance and capital investmentin the airfield facilities
also have arisen. In addition, there is some perception that the current FBO leases
are underpriced and that any new lease would provide the Airport operator with a
larger share of the FBOs' income.
• Rate alld Fee Increases: The County's increase in tie-down rates in 2008 was
viewed by some as a means of recouping money previously spent at the Airport,
prior to lease expiration. The first round of rate increases by 8 percent coincided with
the departure of 31 tie-down tenants. A second round of rate increases planned (but
not implemented due to tenant objections) for June 2009, raised concerns that more
based aircraft tenants would depart from the Airport, thereby potentially undermining
the future cash flow at the Airport. Fue! flowage fees at PAO are now 10 cents per
gallon higher compared to fees charged at the other two County-owned general
aviation airports (Reid-Hillview airport and South County airport).
• Airport Operation: The City lacks in-house expertise and experience to manage and
operate a general aviation airport. This concern has caused the City to consider other
airport management structures that are used by various airport sponsors around the
country, including third party or FBO types.
• Financial Feasibility: Many of the management and policy decisions to be made
regarding the City'S control, management and operation of the Airport will revolve
around the City's ability to make the Airport financially viable as a self-supporting
enterprise of the City. In palticular, the City is not interested in taking on a facility
that drains its resources without any expectation of a return of the General Fund
contributions. Pro formas that can demonstrate whether or not the Airport can
produce positive net revenues (under the most feasible management structure) are
an essential part of the analysis.
• Community RelatiOlls: The value of the Airport as a community asset is influenced
by community participation during the AirpOltDay event, occurring biannually, and
the ongoing use of the Airport by individuals and businesses drawn to the Airport.
Because airport operations occur mostly over uninhabited marshland and water,
airport noise impacts on the community are minimal. The County-and City
appointed Joint Community Relations Committee ("JCRC") representatives work
with the Palo Alto community in regard to noise complaints and as such, there are
a surprisingly low number of complaints about airpolt operations in the area.
• Other Jurisdictions: The City recognizes that key decisions regarding the Airport
warrant the City of East Palo Alto's participation or input in the Airport planning
process. The Airport's northwest boundary abuts East Palo Alto and flight
operations do occur over East Palo Alto in San Mateo County. In addition, the
Airport falls within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County's Airport Land Use
Commission.
,~, B.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 3
Palo Alto Airport
Dra!t Business Plan February 2010
• Economic Impacts of the Airport: As a part of this Business Plan, the value of the
Airport to the community will be estimated. This will include an estimate of the
asset value of existing facilities at the A irport and an estimate of jobs, income, total
output, and taxes that could be generated by activities at the Airport.
1.2 Desired End Products
The desired end products produced as a result of this analysis include the following:
• An assessment of the economic feasibility of City operation of the Airport through
the year 2017.
• An assessment of the economic feasibility of City operation of the Airport in the
post-20 17 period.
• An assessment of the competitive market position of the Airport, relative to other
airports in the service area.
• Pro forma options which project the expected results of different Management and
Operating structures:
City Self-Management
FBO Airport Management
Other Third Party Airport Management
• An assessment of current Airport business operating practices.
• An assessment of the airport community value, to include both physical assets and
economic impacts such as jobs, income, total output, and taxes generated.
1.3 Business Plan Outline
In order to address the issues described above and to produce the desired end products, this
report has been organized to include the following sections:
• Section 1 -Introduction
• Section 2 -Background and Management Structure
• Section 3 -Existing Airport Characteristics
• Section 4 -Baseline Financial Projection
• Section 5 -Business Plan Alternatives
• Section 6 -Recommended Options
• Appendix A -Detailed Survey Results
• Appendix B -Airport Community Value
,"r R.A. Wiedemanll & Associates, ll1c. 4
Palo Alto Airport
Drlt/t Bus/lless Plan
2. BACKGROUND AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
February 2010
A N UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND management structure of the
Airport will enable tbe City to identify challenges and opportunities associated with the
impending change in control and management of the Airport. All aspects of control,
management and operations of the Airport, including, but not limited to, the operating structure
lease agreements, and other management considerations now in place for the County will require
a thorough review by the City when the County lease expires or is earlier terminated.
To help establish the grounds for any changes in management structure, a clearly defined
and realistic mission for tbe Airport is needed to provide an overall goal for guiding the
operation of the facility. To be effective, this mission must reflect the desires and goals of the
community and its elected and appointed representatives. To adequately lay the groundwork for
future management structure decisions, the following topics are discussed:
• Current Airport Mission
• Current Airport Management Structure
2.1 Current Airport Mission
Palo Alto Airport's role is that of a general aviation facility, providing general aviation
services for regional air transportation. Palo Alto Airport accommodates general aviation
activity including all types of small to medium propeller aircraft. The Airport is operated by the
County of Santa Clara's County Roads and Airport Department. The current mission of the
Airport is included indirectly in the County of Santa Clara's County Roads and Airport
Department mission which states:
"The mission of the Roads and Airports Department is to preserve, operate, and enhance
the County's expressways, unincorporated roads, and three general aviation airports in a
safe, timely and cost-effectiv~ manner to meet the needs of the traveling public."
This mission statement is sufficiently general to provide operational leeway to adapt to current
conditions. In addition to the Roads and Airports Department mission statement, the Airport
Land Use Commission of Santa Clara County has the following mission statement:
"To provide for the orderly development of each public use airport and the area
surl'Ounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the
California airport noise standards and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety
pl'Oblems."
In addition to these, there is a County-level Airports Commission whose mission is to act in an
advisory capacity to the Board of Supervisors on matters of policy concerning the operations,
long-term financing, capital improvements and the acquisition of land or airspace for the County
airport system.
I"' B.A. Wledemalln.1Associates.IlIc. 5
Palo Alto Airport
Draft BU8ine,!,! Plan February 2010 ------
In November of 2008 the Palo Alto City Council adopted the following Preamble and
Mission Statement.
The Functious and Value of the Palo Alto Airport:
The Palo Alto Airport is an important civic asset for the nearby communities of
Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills,
as well as other communities. As part of the National Air Transportation System,
it functions to meet the air transport needs for a range of constituents and agencies;
these include business, recreational, medical patient and transplant organ delivery, and
critical emergency services during a disaster or serious incident It is also a designated
reliever airport, accommodating general aviation operations incompatible with local large
air-carrier airports.
The Mission of the Palo Alto Airport Is:
• To operate a safe, efficient and cost-effective airport providing for general aviation
operations within limits imposed by its size and location,
• To operate in conformity with all applicable laws and Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) requirements.
• To be self-supporting and operate without cost to the City's General Fund.
While there are diverse opinions, the Palo Alto Airport is considered by some as an asset
to the community, providing air transportation infrastructure needed for both business and
personal travel.
2.2 Current Airport Management Structure
As mentioned, PAO is owned by the City and has been leased to the County since 1967.
The current lease expires in 2017, but an early end to the lease is being explored. The current
management of the Airport is subject to County organizational structure. In this regard, Figure I
presents an OrganiZational Chart, showing the direct lines of responsibility and formal
communication for airport management. The Organizational Chart shows the lines of
responsibility from the County's Director of County Airports to his Assistant Director, with staff
input from the County's Noise Program Manager. The line of responsibility continues down
through the Assistant Director of County Airports to the individual Airport Operations
Supervisors. Palo Alto has been assigned one half-time Supervisor and two Airport Operations
Workers. The current formal organizational chart for the Airport Operations is shown in Figure
I. Other staff shown in the Chart include the Airports Business Manager and the Administrative
Assistant Not shown in the Organization Chart are the levels above the Director of County
Airports. In this regard, the Director of County Airports reports to the County Roads and
Airports Department. The Roads and Airports Department is made up of four divisions:
Administration, Road Operations, Infrastructure Development, and Airport Operations. That
Department, in turn, repolts to the County Executive who rep0l1s to the County Board of
Supervisors.
IlIr R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, inc. 6
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Bllslness Plan
Ken anlts
NolBj:liPrpUram tIlemagnr:
Alln. Grlllln,
Mmll1!slratlvo AU[stMit
Robert Lizarraga
Jim Meldo
ernosto Mondlola
John Sutor
Operations
Airport Opel'ations
B.arl HOfjak9fr
Dt[flJlto-r of Gplmty A!ri)llll$
Erlll pelersan
As"lfj,allj P.rl.l!~lor of
(lpunly Alrpofw
I1f!1aOtl Valle
I
t r
J
PAD AI,pon Opprllllonfi Superllfsor
,I
Mlko SI.b.ok )
I Sal Lombardo I
\ ' t
.... "" .. _ ................ "
PAO Operatlon$
Figure I -Formal Organization Chari
February 2010
E1
The County Airports Division policy is to staff the Palo Alto Airport during all hours of
operations, or for 74 hours each week. The day-to-day operation of the Airport is the
responsibility of the Airport Operations Supervisor. The Airport Operations Supervisor's
position incorporates all facets of Airport administration along with responsibility for the
equipment and maintenance of grounds at the AirpOlt. The Airport Operations Supervisor must
have a working knowledge of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations relating to aviation.
From an administrative standpoint, the Airport Operations Supervisor oversees two Airport staff
members. Two full-time Airport Operations Workers perform a variety of tasks including
maintenance of facilities and equipment, landscaping, janitorial duties, tracking tenants, billing
transient aircraft, repair and maintenance of runway facilities (such as runway marker lights,
windsocks, and signs). The Palo Alto AirpOli Operations Supervisor spends two days per week
at South County Airport.
Airport Staffing
The rationale for staffing the Palo Alto Airport was developed by the County using the
following mathematical relationships:
W EA. Wiedemalln & Assoc/ates, Inc. 7
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan
• Annual Staff-hour Needed (74 hours/week times 52) = 3,848 hours
February 2010
• Divided by Average Productive Hours/Worker (80% times 2080) = 1,664 hours
• Equals Full-Time Equivalents Needed = 2.3
With 2.6 full-time equivalent staff positions budgeted, the Department has an excess of 0.3 staff
position. This excess can be used to cover for sick. leave, vacation time, and other unexpected
staffing issues.
,", R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 8
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan
3. EXISTING AIRPORT CHARACTERISTICS
February 2010
P ALO ALTO AIRPORT IS ONE OF FIVE airports located in Santa Clara County, California
(Figure 2). The Airport occupies a 102-acre site within the urban limits of the City.
Access to the Airport is directly off Embarcadero Road.
The original Palo Alto Airport facility was developed in 1923 and was situated near
Newell Road and Embarcadero. In 1929 Stanford University was designated by the Aeronautics
Branch of the Department of Commerce as Aviation Ground School Number One and the
Airport was then moved to a location near EI Camino on Stanford land (the current site of the
football stadium parking lot). In 1935 the Airport was moved to the Baylands in what was then
San Mateo County. Then in 1954 the Airport was moved further into the Baylands to its present
location in order to make way for the Palo Alto golf course. In 1963 the county boundaries
changed and the Airport was back within Santa Clara County. The Airport is owned by the City
but is under lease to the County until 2017. An early termination of the lease is being considered
as a palt of this Business Plan.
3.1 Airside Facilities
Runway Information
The Airport has one runway (13-31) that is 2,443 feet in length by 70 feet in width
(Figure 3). Runway 13-31 will need rehabilitation by 2012. Parallel to the runway and 128 feet
southwest of the runway centerline, is a 30 foot wid~ taxiway (Taxiway 'Z'). Table I identifies
the existing runway data. The Airport's design aircraft is a light twin-engine aircraft (B-1) such
as a Beechcraft Baron or Piper Seneca. That designation aircraft has a wingspan of 49 feet or
less, an approach speed of less than 121 knots, and a maximum takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds.
The Airport elevation is 4 feet above mean sea level.
There is also an unlighted helipad located west of the terminal building. Although it is
fully functional, the helipad does not confonn to the heliport design criteria set forth in FAA
Advisory Circular 150/5390-2B, Heliport Design, because of set-back guidelines. The current
Airport Capital Improvement Plan calls for the confonnity to these guidelines through the
construction of a helicopter landing pad and parking area in 201112012.
The existing design standards for the Airport are listed on the AirpOlt's CUlTent Airport
Layout Plan (ALP) as Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-1. By way of explanation, an ARC is
used to relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the
airplanes intended to operate at the airpOlt. The coding system has two components: the aircraft
approach category and the airplane design group. The first component is depicted by a letter (A,
B, C, D, or E) and is related to the aircraft approach speed. The second component is depicted
by a Roman numeral and is related to the airplane wingspan. The categories of each component
are described as follows:
IMI R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 9
Palo Alto Airport Business Plan , ~ r RA Wiedemann &
Associates, Inc.
, AVIATION CONSU~.:'I'ANTS Airport Service Area
Figure
2
-:::J o
j
t! o
C.
L.. «
t:n c: .--f/) 'x w
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan February 2010
I Table 1-PAO Runway l)ata I
Item Runway 13-31
Length 2,443'
Width 70'
Surface Asphalt
ARC B-I
Lighting Medium Intensily Runway
Marking BasiclNon~Precision
Weight Bearing Capacity Single Wheel -12,500
Navigalional & Visual Aids GPS&VORDME
• Aircraft Approach Category is based upon 1.3 times an aircraft's stall
speed in their landing configuration at their maximum certificated landing
weight:
A: Speed less than 91 knots.
B: Speed 91 knots or more but less than 121 knots.
C: Speed 121 knots or more but less than 141 knots.
D: Speed 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots.
E: Speed 166 knots or more
• Airplane Design Group is based upon wingspan:
I: Up to but not including 49 feet.
II: 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet.
III: 79 feet up to but not including 118 feet.
IV: 118 feet up to but not including 171 feet.
V: 171 feet up to but not including 214 feet.
VI: 214 feet up to but not including 262 feet.
Table 2 shows the taxiways and their descriptions.
Table 2 -PAO Taxiways
Taxiway Description
Z Full Parallel Taxiway
A-E Connecting Taxiways
G Transition Taxiway from Tie-Downs to
Parallel Taxiway
Taxi-lane I -J Lanes Between Tie-Downs
3.2 Landside Facilities
Landside facilities provide for revenue production at most general aviation airports. As
such, a thorough inventory of these is important to the Business Plan. The landside facilities at
the Palo Alto Airport (except the terminal building) are located southwest of Runway 13-31 and
IN' R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 12
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan February 2010
are accessible from Embarcadero Road. They include a terminal building, FBO facilities,
fueling facilities, conventional hangars, T-hangars, aircraft parking apron, and auto parking
facilities (Table 3 and Figure 4). The aircraft hangars are completely controlled by the respective
FBOs as a part of their lease agreements. However, these buildings will revert to City control
when these leases expire in 2017.
Table 3 -Landside Buildings
Building Descriplion
Building A: Two Hangars and Office Space Two Maintenance hangars 5,200 sq ft and 12,800 sq reel of
office space. Office Space has heating and air-conditioning,
120v eleclrical service and flve restrooms.
Buiiding B: Maintenance Hangar 9,350 sq feet. Metal hangar building with concrete foundalion
and floor. Standard 120v and 220v electrical service; metal
roof, sliding doors and two gas heaters on timers.
Building C: Five T-hangars and Two End Five T-hangar spaces and two end units. All steel construction
Units including roof with concrete floors. No heat; l20velectrical
service. One end unit has small restroom with shower.
Building D: 12 Box Hangar Spaces 12 box hangar spaces approximately 1150 sq reet each. Wood
frame and sliding door huilding with tar and gravel roof;
concrete floors. Minimal J 20v electrical service, no heat or
restroom facilities.
Building F, G: Eight T-hangar spaces and two Each building has eight T-hangar spaces and two end units.
end units each Metal framing and siding and roofs, sliding doors with man-door
accesS and asphalt floors. Minimal 120v electrical service.
Building E, H: Nine T-hangar spaees and two Each building has nine T-hangar spaces and two end units.
end units each Metal framing and siding and roofs, sliding doors with man-door
access and~sphalt floors. Minimal120v electrical service.
Building r Six large T-hangar spaees and two end units. One of which has
a second floor mezzanine, and is equipped with a restroom.
,I Office Building 5,600 sq ft~!flce seace
Conventional Hangar 24,000 SQ ft hangar space
Civil Air Patrol Building This 1,300 sq ft building is located ncar the FAA Air Traffic
Control Tower. It is used by the Civil Air Patrol.
Terminal Building A small temporary modular building located off of Harbor Road.
The primary function ofthe general aviation terminal office
facility is to serve as the focal point for GA pilot and passenger
transfer between ground transportation and general aviation
aircraft though the FBO facility assists with this.
FAA Air naffie Control Tower The FAA Air Traffic Contl'el Tower at PAO i. a three story
building, constructed in the 1960s. The tower Cllb has roughly
SOO sq ft. It is sta!red by 8 FAA personnel and serves to
improve SlIfety and coordination ofPAO aircraft operations in
the San Francisco airspace environment.
Apron Area
Paved tie-downs are used for outside aircraft storage. In P AO' s case, tie-downs are a
major pmt of the revenue stream for the Airport Sponsor. Currently, there are a total of 441
paved tie-downs spaces and 85 hangar spaces at the Airport. Of these, 86 tie-downs and 85
hangar spaces are controlled by the FBOs. Some larger aircraft may use more than one tie-down
space at a time. Paved apron space is used to accommodate both based and transient aircraft
R,A, Wiedeman!! & Associates, Inc. 13
.
:
!
:
, ~ r RA Wiedemann &
A<!sociates, Inc.
AVIATION C:ON$U!.,TANTS
Palo Alto Airport Business Plan Figure
4 Airport landside Facilities
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan February 2010
parking needs. The current Airport capacity for based aircraft includes both tie-down and hangar
spaces and as such, has been estimated as high as 526 based aircraft.
Automobile Parking
Automobile parking spaces at the Airport are limited due to the small landside area
assigned for this function. There are approximately 210 on-Airport parking spaces. There are
three different parking locations on the Airport as shown in Figure 3. These locations include
parking in front of the FBO building, remole parking near the FAA Tower, and parking at the
Airport terminal building. During peak periods, spaces other than those near the term inal
building are filled and additional parking off the Airport is used. In this regard, the Golf Course
parking lot is used by Airport patrons simply because it is close to the FBO building and there is
no charge. Given the lack of space for auto parking, it is not likely that additional parking spaces
will be developed in the future.
3.3 Support Services
This section describes the many support services and related facilities at the Palo Alto
Airport. Services offered to general aviation users of the facility include fueling, aircraft
maintenance, aircraft storage, aircraft rental, air traffic control services, and flight training. The
facilities include aircraft refueling facilities, aircraft storage buildings, the FAA Air Traffic
Control Towel', and FBO offices and hangar facilities.
Fixed Bpse Operators
Palo Alto has two primary FBOs and several Specialty Aviation Service Operators
(SASOs) located at the Airport:
Primary FBOs
• Roy-Aero Enterprises, LLC manages approximately 9.7 acres of subleased land at Palo
Alto that contains offices, hangars, and tie-down rentals.
• Dr. Brandt: A sublease tenant of Dr. Brandt is Rossi Aircraft, which is the only full
service FBO on the field. Rossi offers 100 Low Lead AvGas (IOOLL) and Jet A fueling
from trucks between 6 am to 7 pm daily. They also offer aireraft maintenance and
management.
In keeping with the Baylands Master Plan primary policy statement regarding any future growth
or development in the Airpolt area, limitations include a directive that there be no intensification
of AirpOlt activity. This policy has been interpreted as meaning a limitation of two FBOs at the
Airport. These FBOs have historically had tenants of their own that perform some limited or
specialty services related to aviation. SASOs located at PAO include:
On-Airport SASOs
• Advantage A viation offers maintenance, a flight school, and aircraft sales and rentals.
• Peninsula Avionics offers avionics installations, repairs and services.
R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. IS
Palo Alia Airport
Draft Bllsiness Plan
• Jorgenson-Lawrence offers aircraft sales and management.
February 2010
• Palo Alto Fuel Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of Roy-Aero Enterprises that provides
IOOLLAvGas.
• Z.P. Aircraft Maintenance offers aircraft maintenance.
• Flight Schools, Flying Clubs, und Charter Services: The Airport is home to six flight
schools. Advantage Aviation has a 2,800 square foot flight training facility and a 10,000
square foot hangar that it uses for training and aircraft storage. Centurion Flight Serv ices,
Shoreline Flying Club, Sundance Flying Club, Stanford Flying Club and Wesl Valley
Flying Club offer aircraft rentals and flight training. West Valley Flying Club is the
largest nonprofit flying club in the nation. They have 42 aircraft available and two flight
simulators at Palo Alto Airport. They also account for approximately 80,000 annual
operations at Palo Alto Airport.
Palo Alto Airport has three companies that offer charter services at the Airport:
o Centurioll Flight Services: 24 hour charter, instruction, rental and aerial
photography.
o Executive Helicopter: offers rental and charter services;
o Advalltage A viatioll Charter LLC: offers chartering services with two types
of aircraft: the CE-182T (Cessna Skylane) and the BE-C90 (Beechcraft King
Air).
Fuel Storage and Dispensing Equipment
The Airport has a total of five above-ground storage tanks (AST) for fuel -Jet-A, and
100LL. Fuel is dispensed via trucks owned by Rossi Aircraft, Inc, or from Palo Alto Fuel
Services, which operates the on-airport fuel island that offers self~serve 100LL fuel 24 hours per
day by credit card.
Air Traffic Control Tower
The Airport has an Air Traffic Control Tower that operates between the hours of 7 am to
9 pm. The Tower is three stories in height and has 800 square feet of cab space. The FAA
employs eight certified controllers with an additional four controllers in training.
Fire Protection
General Aviation (GA) airports such as Palo Alto are not required to have specific on
airport rescue or firefighting staffing. GA airports typically receive these services from the local
community emergency agencies. Fire protection for the Airport is provided by the City of Palo
Alto from its Fire Station 3 on Embarcadero Road (roughly 1.6 miles from the Airport). Menlo
Park Fire Protection District serves as the first responder 10 potential aircraft accidents should
they occur north of San Francisquito Creek.
Emergency Staging Area
The Palo Alto Airport assists as an aerial medical evacuation (medevac) staging area,
emergency training location, earthquakes staging area, and an evacuation staging arca. The FAA
1Mr RA. Wiedeman" & Associates, Inc. 16
Palo Alio Airpo/'t
Draft Business Plan February 2010
can provide emergency communications from the Control Tower, if needed. In addition, the
Airport is used by the Civil Air Patrol, Doctors without Borders, and the Red Cross.
Restaurant
Due to the Airport's small land area, there is only one main non-aviation tenant at the
Airport. The Abundant Air Cafe, which is located adjacent to the FBO building, is a restaurant
that offers free Wi-Fi, a frequent diner card, and patio parties. The restaurant is meant to serve
Airport users, but can serve others as well.
3.4 Airspace Environment
One critical component of an airport's operating location is the airspace environment in
which it is situated. In busy airspace terminal areas, air traffic from on~ airport affects traffic
and capacity at a nearby airport. From a business perspective, potential delays caused by
airspace congestion can be costly to based aircraft owners. As such, the proximity of San
Francisco International Airport (SFO), Moffet Field (NUQ), and San Jose International Airport
(SJC) can impact FAA-controlled instrument operations at PAO. In this regard SFO is within 18
miles, NUQ is within 5 miles, and SJC is within 12 miles.
Airspace Structure
Airspace structure is classified as Uncontrolled, Controlled, Special Use, or Other.
Uncontrolled Airspace is defined as all airspace that has not been designated as Controlled and
within which Air Traffic Control (ATC) has neither the authority nor responsibility for control.
Controlled Airspace, on the other hand, is supported by ground/air communications, navigation
aids, and air traffic services. The specific FAA airspace classifications are listed below:
There are five classes of Controlled airspace (Figure 5) and one class of Uncontrolled
airspace:
• Class A: All airspace above 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL).
• Class B: An area with a 20 Nautical Mile (NM) radius around the nation's busiest
commercial airports. SFO has Class B airspace which overlies PAO airspace.
• Class C: An area with a 10 NM radius around busy commercial airports. SJC
has Class C airspace.
• Class D: An area with a 5 NM radius (or larger) around moderate activity
commercial and military airports.
• Class E: GeneraVenroute controlled airspace beginning 700 feet Above Ground
Level (AGL), or 1,200 feet AGL and extending upward to the overlying Class A
area.
• Class G: Uncontrolled airspace from the surface to 700 feet AGL, 01' 1,200 feet
AGL.
There arc a number of factors pertaining to Controlled airspace that impact pilots flying
through California airspace. Fit'st, regardless of weather conditions, ATC authorization is
B.A. Wiedemann & Associates, file. 17
Palo Alto Ai/port
Draft Business Pial! February 2010
required prior to operating within the Class B airspace over the SFO. Further, it should be noted
that large turbine powered airplanes operating to or from a primary airport must operate at or
above the designated floors while within the lateral limits of the Class B airspace. Smaller
aircraft can "fly under" the Class B area floors hut are cautioned against flying too close to Class
B area boundaries, especially where the floor of the Class B area is 3,000 feet or less or where
normal visual cruise altitudes are at or near the floor of higher levels. At PAO, the airspace
ceiling that lies under the Class B airspace transitions from 2500 feet (north of the airport) to
4,000 feet beginning just south of the runway.
. ~'""O" ,o»,n,,",,. ~ ~ r R.A. Wiedemann &
Associates, Inc. Federal Airspace
In addition to these restrictions, all aircraft operating at or above 10,000 feet (MSL), or
within 30 miles of a Class B airspace primary airport, or within and above all Class C airspace
up to 10,000 feet MSL, or within 10 miles of certain designated airports, need to be equipped
with Mode C transponders. These devices automatically report to A TC the location and altitude
of an aircraft.
Air Traffic Control Assessment
Discussions with the Air Traffic Manager at the PAO Air Traffic Control Tower
indicated that many of the airspace restrictions associated with SFO and SJC do not materially
impact PAO traffic. In this regard, most of the PAQ air traffic uses Visual Flight Rules (VFR)
and as such, do not have to wait for Instmment Flight Rule (IFR) clearance from the FAA.
R.A. Wiedemanl! & Associates, Inc. 18
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan ,February 2010
Rather, they receive clearance from the local Tower to take off and land visually, as long as they
stay beneath the Class B and Class C airspace located nearby. Occasionally, the direction of air
traffic flow from SFO or SJC may interrupt VFR traffic at PAO for short periods oftime.
For IFR traffic, PAO pilots must wait for FAA clearance on a first-come-first-serve basis.
That is, requests are forwarded from the PAO Tower to the FAA's Terminal Radar Control
facility (TRACON). The TRACON will work these requests in with other area airport requests
for IFR clearance. During poor weather, waits at the PAO airport are usually no longer than 15
minutes. This is clearly acceptable, given the much longer waits at some other busy terminal
areas across the nation. Overall, it can be stated that the existing airspace and air traffic control
environment is not detrimental to operational use of the Airport. As such, the potential operation
ofPAO by the City would not be adversely affected by this constraint.
3.5 Airport Operational Characteristics
The Airport's operational characteristics form the basis for fl,lture projections of revenues
and expenses. At PAO, there has been a fairly high level of aircraft activity for many years.
There are a number of factors contributing to this activity, including the lack of alternative
airports in the nearby area, along with a high level of disposable income in the Silicon Valley.
These two factors tend to concentrate the aviation activity at small airports in the area like PAO
and San Carlos (SQL).
The typical profile of aircraft type at PAO is a small, single engine or light twin engine
aircraft. In April, 2009, there were 472 total aircraft based at the Airport. Of these, there were
approximately 423 single-engine and 47 twin-engine aircraft. In addition, there were 2
helicopters based on the field. In 2008, there were 166,828 aircraft operations (an operation is
either a landing or a takeoff - a landing and takeoff are two operations). Although there has
been a recent decline in the total number of based aircraft, the Airport has historically operated at
almost fulliandside capacity for many years.
One reason for the high number of aircraft operations at PAO is the significant amount of
training that occurs via West Valley Flying Club. In this regard, West Valley may account for as
much as 50 .percent of total operations or around 80,000 per year. This is significant when
considering that other flying clubs on the Airport such as Sundance, Stanford, and Advantage
Aviation, offer flight training as well.
From a financial standpoint, the greater number of based aircraft at an airport, the greater
the revenues that can be generated for the airport Sponsor. These revenues are derived from
leases for tie-down spaces and from FBO leases. An exodus of based aircraft can significantly
impact the bottom line for the Airport.
Airport User Survey
In early April 2009, an AirpOit User Survey was developed and mailed to aircraft owners
who based their aircraft at the Airport. Approximately 500 surveys were distributed. Prior to
this mailing, the Airport User Survey was launched via www.Zoomerang.com so that
R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 19
Palo Alt() Airport
l)raft Business Pian February 2010
respondents could either complete and mail in the survey or complete it online. The online
survey was administered via web link from the home page of the City of Palo Alto website
(www.citvofpaloalto.org). Surveys were requested to be retm'ned by May 1 SI, During this
period, a total of 145 visits were recorded on www.Zoomerang.com and 64 surveys were
completed. Additionally, 78 hard copy surveys were submitted, for a total of 142 responses to
the Airport User Survey. Ninety of the 142 survey responses listed an address, representing 19
different cities and towns within California. Of these, 20 responses were attributed to a Palo
Alto address.
In summary, there were several key points expressed as a result of the survey of Palo
Alto Airport users:
• A total of$3,280,135 was spent by 129 Palo Alto Airport users on their aircraft in
2008.
Average annual spending per aircraft was estimated at $20,900.
• One hundred and thirty-seven aireraft users reported an estimated 115,466 annual
operations (57,733 takeoffs).
• Impact oJ price increases: Approximately 77 pereent of respondents indicated that
either any increase at all, or any increase that is significant (greater than CPII
inflation or not competitive with other airports), will cause them to relocate
their aircraft.
• The top three airports tbat based aircraft users would consider moving to are:
Moffett Federal (if available in tbe future) 36.9%
San Carlos Airport 26.2%
Mineta San Jose International (if available) 12.9%
Business users indicated that they rely on the use of the Palo Alto Airport for:
• Convenience to their office facilities or commute to other office locations
• Conducting business at the airport
• Providing aviation-related services which are dependent on an airport location.
3.6 Environmental Concerns
Tbe importance and recognition of the environmental sensitivity of the Airport area
cannot be overstated. Not to diminish tbe importance of this subject, this section covers only the
major topics regarding environmental concerns and is not meant as an exhaustive inventory of
these issues. As a part of the Baylands Area, the Airport coexists with the nearby Don Edwards
San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge and Byxbee Park recreation area. There are two
endangered species in the vicinity of the PAO, including the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and the
California Clapper Rail. The FAA Tower stops operations twice a day for a flock of geese that
fly from their nesting area to the golf course and back.
IMI R.A. Wiedemann &; Associates, Inc. 20
Paio Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan February 2010
The predominant land uses in the Airpolt environs are wetlands, bay waters, golf course,
commercial and limited residential. The City of East Palo Alto, located in San Mateo County, is
adjacent to the northwest portion of the Airport. The Baylands Master Plan 1 (2008) has spelled
out the primary policy statement regarding any future growth or development in the Airport area.
Limitations imposed by this policy include a directive that there should be no intensification of
Airport activity or changes that will significantly intrude into open space. As such, previous
efforts to expand the airport runway system were rejected, as were attempts to develop new
hangars on the landside area of the facility.
The Palo Alto Airport is also located in a FEMA-designated "Special Flood Hazard Area
Inundated by 100-Year Flood." Due to this designation, any new structures that are to be
occupied must be 8 feet above mcan sea level (AMSL). Since the Airport is 4 feet AMSL, all
new occupied structures will have to be raised 4 feet to meet the 8 feet AMSL category. Non
occupied structures do not need to be elevated. San Francisquito Creek has flooded seven times
since 1910, with record flooding in 1998, causing major flooding on Airport property. As
buildings reach their useful life, rebuilding of these structures will have to comply with these
standards.
Other Environmental Concerns:
The County Master Plan for Palo Alto Airport also lists some of the following
environmental concerns:
• Subsidence: The area consists of marshland that was drained and filled with dirt. The
City'S "1998·2010 Comprehensive Plan" shows the Palo Alto area as having historical
subsidence levels of from 2 to 3 feet.
• Ground Shaking and Liquefaction: The Airport is located in a seismically active area.
• Dam Failure Inundation Area: The Airport area may be subject to seismically-induced
flooding from dam failure of Felt Lake, Searsville Lake, and Lagunitas Reservoir darns.
Perhaps the greatest impact on the financial performance of the Airport would be the
environmental concerns that place caps on the development of buildings at the Airport. This
stems from the desire to limit activity at the Airport that was described in the Baylands Master
Plan.
3.7 Airport Capital Improvement Program
The Airport is eligibJe for capital project funding assistance from Federal Aviation
Administration through the Airport and Airway Improvement Program (AlP), which is
periodically reauthorized. The latest occurred in January 2004, when the FAA Reauthorization
Legislation was signed into Jaw as the "Vision 100 -Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act."
To take advantage of this program, the Airport is required to prepare, update annually, and
submit to the FAA a five-year Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) to apply for federal
Baylands Master Plan, 4'1. Edition, as Amended, City of Palo Alto, CA, 2008.
R.A. Wiedemm11l & Assaciales, Inc, 21
Palo Alto Ailporl
Draft Business Plan February 2010
grants. These grants typically fund 95 percent of eligible development costs. AlP eligible
projects include the planning, design, and construction of projects associated with public use
nonrevenue generating facilities and equipment of the Airport. Typical AlP eligible projects
include: airport master plans and airport layout plans; land acquisition and site preparation;
airfield pavements, e.g. runways, taxiways, and transient aprons; lighting and navigational aids;
safety, security, and snow removal equipment; selected passenger terminal facilities; and
obstlUction identification and removal. In addition, some revenue producing projects can be
funded from an airport's entitlement grants if there are no runway or safety projects at that
airport. These items can include hangars, fueling facilities, automobile parking facilities, private
use areas of terminal facilities, and other revenue generating facilities. Highest funding priority
according to FAA's rating procedure is generally offered those projects that are safety related
such as obstnlction removal, runway safety area improvements, and facility improvements to
meet current FAA Airport Design Standards.
Currently the AlP program provides an annual eutitlement grant of up to $150,000 per
eligible general aviation airport for qualifying projects. An airpolt can delay getting this funding
for 1,2, 01' 3 years to accumulate enough revenue to completc a project if it cannot be funded for
$150,000 or does not get fully fundedJrom other sources.
Table 4 -Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) 2009-2013
Year Project Description in Priority Order Federal Stat.' Sponsor Total
200912010 Signage, Runway/Taxiway Marking
Changes lAW FAA RSAT $142,500 SO $7,500 $150,000
Recommendations
200912010 Pavement Maintenance for Existing
'Runway, Taxiways and Aircraft parking $285,000 $0 $15,000 $300,000
201112012 Reconfigure Taxiways G and Z to comply $380,000 $0 $20.000 $400,000 with FAA Stand ards
2011 [2012 ,Constl'uct Helicopter Landing Pad and $237,500 $0 $12.500 $250,000 Parking
2011f2012 Construct Exit Taxiway D $114,000 $0 $6,000 $120,000 ,
201112012 Construct Additional Transient Aircraft $427,500 $0 $22,500 $450,000 Parking Areas
,~ Overlay Existing Runway and Taxiways $1,900,000 $0 $100,000 $2,000,000
rrOTALS $3,543.500 $0 $186,500 $3,730,000
• It IS assumed that the State WIll not have funds available for the Airport thus makmg the CIty responsIble for the
local and state share (4.75 percent state and 0.25 percent local).
Other AlP FUlldillg Categories
State Apportionment Funding: This is a portion of the FAA's funding that is set aside
based on the number and types of airports in the State. The funding is provided to airpOlts in the
State depending on priority and needs for qualifying projects.
1M1 B.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 22
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan February 2010
Discretionary Funding: The remammg budget is then prioritized based on Safety,
Security, Capacity, and other criteria. The FAA estimates how much is needed to complete the
funding for the top projects that are not fully funded that year by other grant methods.
Sometimes an airport will not receive funding either from entitlements or apportionments to fund
a project. When this occurs, discretionary funding can be used to fill funding gaps for important
projects.
Congressional Earmark: This funding is procured for very specific projects that may not
get enough priority in the FAA system but are deemed necessary by a Congressional
Representative. This is typically undertaken for high cost projects that cannot be funded
completely using other methods. This funding comes out of the FAA's Airport Improvement
Program before the rest is apportioned to each FAA district. Congressional earmarks have come
under criticism in recent months and may be removed as an option for federal lawmakers in the
future.
State I<'unding
All State grant pl'Ograms for California airports are funded from the Aeronautics Account
in the State Transportation Fund. Tax revenues, which are collected on general aviation (GA)
fuel, are deposited in the Aeronautics Account. GA jet fuel is taxed at 2 cents per gallon and
AvGas is taxed at 18 cents pel' gallon. These taxes generate about $7 million per year. The
Aeronautics Account has several other revenue sources (interest that is earned on its cash balance
and sale of documents sueh as the State aeronautics ehart). It should be noted that although
technically available, State funding has not been offered recently due to budget shortfalls.
Annual Grants: These are State grants to eligible airports for discretionary use subject to
applicable laws and regulations, with prior approval from the Department. The Annual Grant
($10,000 per year) can fund projects for "airport and aviation purposes" as defined in Section
21681(f) of the State Aeronautics Act. Also, the Annual Grant can fund fueling facilities,
restrooms, showers, wash racks, and operation and maintenance. The Annual Grant can provide
part of the sponsor's match for projects that are funded by FAA grants as long as the project is
otherwise eligible for State funding. If the Aeronautics Account does not have sufficient funds,
the Annual Grant amount is reduced in proportion to the funds available. Up to five years' of
Annual Grants may be accrued at the sponsor's discretion.
AlP Matching Grants: These are State grants to eligible airports for eligible projects
subject to programming and allocation by the California Transportation Commission (CTC).
This grant assists the sponsor in meeting the loeal match for Airpolt Improvement Program
(AlP) grants from the FAA. An FAA AlP grant can be matched with State funds. By statute, the
Department typically matches 5 percent of the AirpOlt Improvement Program (AlP) federal grant
amount, as a non-federal match, when the federal share is at either 90 percent or 95 percent of
the project cost. The federal share was 90 percent prior to 2003. Thc Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act of2003, VISION 100, increased the federal share of airport funding from 90
percent to 95 percent of project cost. This impacted the State matching grants. At 90 percent
federal contribution, the State match was 4.5 percent, the local match was 5.5 percent. At 95
percent federal contribution, the State match is 4.75 percent, and the local match is 0.25 percent.
1~' R.A. Wle!lemalll! & Associate .. , [lie. 23
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan February 2010
Based on urgency legislation enacted in 2002, the Department may also increase its match to the
full 10 percent required non-federal match for certain "security projects" at eligible airports.
Acquisition and Development (A&D) Grants: These are state grants to eligible airports
for eligible projects subject to allocation by the CTC. Sponsor Eligibility Act Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) can receive funding to either prepare or update a comprehensive land use
plan (CLUP). An A&D grant can fund projects for "airport and aviation purposes" as defined in
Section 2l68l(f) of the State Aeronautics Act. An A&D grant cannot be used as local match for
an FAA grant, but an AlP Matching grant may be used for this purpose. However, an A&D
funded project can be constructed in conjunction with an FAA-funded project. Project services
(engineering, design, etc.) are limited to 12 percent of the actual construction cost of a project,
including change orders that have been approved by the Department. For land acquisition,
"project services" means appraisal, title and escrow fees. The minimum amount of an A&D grant
is $10,000. The maximum amount that can be allocated to an airport in a single fiscal year is
$500,000. This $500,000 maximum can occur as a single grant or mu Itiple grants. The local
match can vary from 10 percent to 50 percent of the project's cost. The match rate is set annually
by the CTC. (A 10 percent rate has been utilized for the past 15+ years.) The Annual Grant may
not be used for the local match to an A&D grant.
Local Sponsor Funding
Local funding of capital projects for publicly-owned general aviation airports can be
accomplished either through a public sponsor's enterprise fund or in some cases, the local
general fund. This expenditure may be offset by airport-generated revenues. Public bodies may
also issue general obligation (GO) 01' revenue bonds. These bonds are usually reserved for large
capital projects. A revenue bond is backed by a promise to pay the principal and interest
represented by the bond with revenues generated by the project that it funds. As the issuance of
revenue bonds does not affect the general borrowing power of the issuing party, it represents an
attractive funding mechanism to a local political jurisdiction. Independent underwriters must
evaluate revenue bonds, and the proposed bonds must demonstrate a reasonable expectation of
repayment. As some airport facilities generate more indirect benefits to the community than
direct revenues, they may not always meet this test.
Private Enterprise Funding
Private investors are also a potential source of funds for revenue producing development.
Tenants and/or investors may finance the construction of facilities from which they derive
income. While the direct revenues to an airport are usually limited to the lease charges for the
land underlying the facilities, the local sponsor does not need to obtain its own funding for these
improvements. Additionally, the increased activity resulting from the airport improvements
often increase the number of based aircraft, which in turn, generate additional revenue associated
with fuel sales and other aviation services.
W R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 24
Palo Alto Ailport
Draft Business Plan
3.8 Market Analysis
Airport Market Area
February 2010
Figure 2 (presented earlier) illustrates the Airport service area including other nearby
public-use airports. For the Palo Alto Airport, the service area is roughly based on the location
of alternate airport basing locations. This can range from a 30-minute driving distance to a 60-
minute driving distance, depending upon the level of traffic and time of day. Within the PAO
service area are located ten public-use airports and one former military base. Three of these
airports offer airline service: San Francisco International, Metropolitan Oakland International
(OAK), and San Jose International. The other general aviation airports located within PAO's
service area are: HalfMoon Bay, Hayward Executive, South County, Reid-Hillview, San Carlos,
and Livermore Municipal. Moffet Federal Airport, a former miliary airfield, is currently
controlled by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Ames Research Center and is
considered private-use. Limited operations are allowed there for military aircraft, NASA flight
testing, blimps, and some private aircraft.
Facilities
Table 6 provides a comparison of airport facilities at public-use airports within the
serviCe area of the Palo Alto Airport. Of the listed airports, seven have runways of 5,000 feet or
greater. These airpol1s can accommodate business jet activity. The only private-use airport in
the analyisis, Moffett Federal, has the longest and widest runway in the service area (9,202 feet
by 200 feet). Hayward Executive is the largest public non-commercial airport in the service area
with runway dimensions of 5,694 feet by ISO feet. Palo Alto has the shortest runway in the
service area with a primary runway length of2,443 feet by 70 feet. All the airports in the service
area have instrument approach procedures of some type, and all the airports but Half Moon Bay
and South County have air traffic control towers.
Based Aircraft
There are a reported total of 2,797 aircraft based at the airports within the Palo Alto
Airport's service area. The vast majority of these (87 percent) are single engine aircraft. Of the
126 jet aircraft in the service area, 100 (79 percent) are located at three commercial service
airports (OAK, SFO, and SJC). At general aviation airports, IS based jets are located at
Hayward Executive, 10 are located at Livermore Municipal, and one is based at San Carlos.
With a total of 472 aircraft on the field including 47 multiengine aircraft and two helicopters,
PAO is operating below its historical high operational levels. Vacancies on the aircraft apron tie
down area have risen from zero in 2003 to 49 in 2009. Almost all of the airports in the service
area have waiting lists for aircraft hangars, including Palo Alto. However, PAO does not have
any waiting list for tie-down space.
Aviation Services
Table 7 presents the availability of various aviation services at each of the area airports.
Listed services at Palo Alto include major airframe and powerplant repairs, flight instruction,
1MI R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 25
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Bllsilless Plall February 2010
charter services, avioncs, aircraft sales, aircraft rentals, glider, air ambulance, and aerial survey.
Palo Alto Airport offers more services than any other general aviation airport in the service area.
Hangars and Tie-downs
Monthly tie-down spaces are available at all of the service area airports contacted except
Half Moon Bay due to weather and Moffett Federal due to being a private military airport.
Prices for tie-down spaces range from $60 to $150 at the various facilities (Table 8). Palo Alto
Airport has the highest tie-down rates in the service area.
Aircraft storage space in conventional hangars is currently available at Half Moon Bay,
though the one hangar that is available does not provide complete shelter from the weather. All
the other area airports including FAO report no vacancies in conventional hangars. The cost of
conventional hangar space at Palo Alto Airport is in the mid-range of the competing airports in
the service area.
Five airports in the service area have T-hangars on the field; however, availability is
limited as there are waiting lists at all but South County Airport. In 2005, 100 T -hangars were
developed at South County Airport and in 2009, there is still a 40 percent vacancy rate. By
contrast, the wait time for T-hangars at PAO is between one and ten years. Thus, "location" is a
critical aspect ofT-hangar demand. Prices on T-hangars range from $212 to $1,200 per month.
Monthly T-hangar rates at Palo Alto Airport are priced between $850 and $1,200 per month -the
highest in the service area. Monthly rates at some airports depend on age and condition ofthe T
hangars and can vary widely between airports, and even on the same airport.
Fuel Prices
Avgas is available at seven of the service area airports. The highest per gallon prices (as
of May, 2009) was found at Hayward Executive Airport ($4.79). The lowest price was found at
Half Moon Bay and Livermore Municipal Airport at $3.95 per gallon. All fuel prices change
frequently, however. Jet Fuel is available at five airports in the service area. The lowest price
($3.42) was found at South County. The highest price was found at Hayward Executive Airport
($4.56). Palo Alto had the second highest Jet Fuel cost at ($3.89). Adjustments in pricing may
be required to maintain and lor increase market share offuel sales.
Prices Compared at Santa Clara County-Operated Airports
When considering only the airports that Santa Clara County manages, the pncmg
structure associated with these three airports emerges (Palo Alto, South County and Reid
Hillview). Tie-down fees for these airports range from a low of $86 per month at South County
to a high of$188.50 at Palo Alto (Table 5).
,M' B.A. Wiedemann & Associates, file. 26
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan February 2010
Table 5 -Santa Clara County Tie Down Rates
Aircl"aft Weight/Fuel Fee Ti.".Down;Rental RatesIMonth & Fuel Flowage Fees
Reid-Hillview South County Polo Alto
o to 3,500 lb, $120.50 $86 $129.50
3,501 to 5,200 lb, $140 $100 $150
5,201 to 10,200 lb, $157.50 $112.50 $168.50
10201 to 17,000 lb, $175.50 $126 $188.50
Fuel Flowal(e Fees $0.10 $0.10 $0.20
Conventional hangar space is only offered at PAO and costs $400-$500 dollars per month. The
Palo Alto Airport also has the highest single engine T-hangar rates at $850 per month while T
hangar rates at South County are $600 pel' month and $573 per month at Reid-Hillview. Since
vacancies exist at South County, the lower prices for T-hangars are rerulonable. Overall, the
important pricing difference involves tie-down fees. The Palo Alto Airport has the highest tie
down fees of any of the service area airports. This fee structure is causing some PAO tenants to
relocate to less expensive alternative airports. Aireraft owncr and pilot attitudes toward the
pricing structure are documented in the survey that was conducted (Appendix A). Finally, it
should be noted that fuel flowage fees for PAO are ten cents higher per gallon than at Reid
Hillview or South County.
1M' R.A. Wledemanll & Associates, Inc. 27
Pulo Alio Airport
_ Draft Business Plan
--~~~~"
Table 6 -Facility Comparison
Airport Airport OwnerShip Acres Number of Based Aircraft Runway
Code -----
Jet Multi-Single Heli-Other Total First
LxW
Palo Alto' PAO Public 102 -47 423 2 -472 2443' X 70'
~alfMoon Bay HAP Public 325 -2 37 1 -40 5,000' X 150'
Hayward Executive HWD Public 543 15 42 339 14 -410 5,694 X 150'
South County' EIG Public 179 -10 71 2 -83 3,100' X 75'
Moffett Federal' NUQ Private --25 10 15 -50 9,202' X 200'
Reid-Hillview' RHV Public 179 -27 291 3 -321 3,100 X 75'
San Carlos SQL Public 110 1 40 321 10 -372 2,600' X 75'
ILivermore Municipal LUX Public 643 10 36 551 4 -601 5253' X 100'
Commercial Airports
San Francisco SFO Public 5,207 4 3 1 2 10 11,870' X 200' International -
Metropolitan OAK Public 2,600 29 9S 141 12 -277 10,000' X 150' Oakland Int'l
San Jose Int'l'
SJC Public 1,050 67 24 68 2 161
2 parallel -11,000 X 150'
TOTAL 126 351 2,253 67 -2,797
Source: Airport Master Record as Published 7 April 2009 (www,gcrLcoml5010WEB & www,airnav_com),
• Airport located in Santa Clara County
W R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc.
Se<:ond
LxW
3,lOT X 75'
8,127' X 200'
3,099' X 75'
2,600' X 75'
2,699' X 75'
10,602' X 200'
6,212' X ISO'
4,599' X 100'
February 2010
Navaids Tower
Highest
GPS Yes
GPS No
GPS Yes
GPS No
lLS Yes
GPS Yes
!
GPS Yes i
ILS Yes !
ILS/GPS Yes
ILS Yes
ILS/GPS Yes '
28
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan
~~~
Airport
Palo Alto *
HalfMoon Bav ~~~~ -
Hayward Executive
South County*
Moffett Federal*
Reid-Hillview'
San Carlos
Livermore Municipal
Commercial Airports
San Francisco
International
Metropolitan
Oaldand Int'l
San Jose Jnt'I*
~~
Frame Puwer
Repairs Repairs
Major Major
Major Major
Major Major
Major Major
. -
Major Major
Major Major
Major Major
Major Major
Major Major
Major Major
~~
Table 7 -Service Comparison
~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~
FligltJ Charter Avionics Aircriift
Instruction Service Sales
Yes Yes Yes Yes
----
Yes Yes --
Yes Yes -Yes
. ---
Yes --Yes
Yes Yes Yes -
Yes Yes -Yes
Yes Yes ' Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes
~---~~
~ ~ ~
Source: Airport Master Record as Poblished 7 April 2009 (www.gcrLcoml50IOWEB & www.airnav.com).
* Airport located in Santa Clara County
\Nf R..A. Wiedemlt1Ut & Associates, Tnt:.
FebruaryJ,91f)
~ ~~ ~~
Aircraft Other
Rentals
Yes Glider, Ambulance, Aerial Survey
-
Yes
~~
Yes
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
~ ~ ~ -----
-Air Freight
Yes Air Freight, Cargo
Yes Air Freight, Cargo
~ ~~ ~" ~ ~~
29
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business PliIJt
Airport Tie-Down
February 2010
Table 8 -Rates and Charges Comparison
Convelttional Hangars T-Hangars Fuel Wal.ting List
(Hangars) I $/month Available $!month Available $1 month Available 10011 Jet A -L JI
Palo Alto' I $129.50-Yes $400-$500 No $850-$1,200 No $399 $" .9 I Yes I
$188.50 . '.0
HalfMoon Bay
Hayward
Executive
South County'
Moffett Federal'
Reid-Hillview'
San Carlos
Livermore
Municipal
Commercial
Airpons
San Francisco
International
NIA
$60-$75
$86
NlA
$120.50
$157
$118
Single $76-
$87
Twin $105
Mettopolitan $ 17/night
Oakland Int'I
N!A
Yes
Yes
NIA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
$425
$750-$1,080
NIA
N!A
N/A
$359 old
$533-$639 new
$515-$554
$1,253 -$1,549
$35Q/night
$20-$30/night
No
N/A
N/A
NIA
No
No
Yes
Yes
San Jose Int'I' $40lfuel 1 Yes I $100-$150!night I No I
Source: RA Wiedemann & Associates Inc. Telephone Survey 5-26-09
N/C No Charge
N/A Not Available
• Airport located in Santa Clara County
W R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc.
N/A
$212-$412
$600
N/A
Single $468-$573
Twin $795-$865
N/A
$293-$389
NIA
N!A
NIA
N/A
No
Yes
NlA
No
N/A
No
N/A
NlA
N/A
$3.95
$4.79 $4.56
$3.99 $3.42
NIA NIA
$4.01
$4.10 S3.80
$3.95 $3.72
$6.65 $5.51
$4.76 $4.05
$5.37 $5.24
No
140 planes
(7-9 years)
No
N/A
1 year
60 planes
3 to 10 years
30
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan
4. BASELINE FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
February 2010
THIS SECfION IDENTIFIES HISTORICAL REVENUES AND EXPENSES attributable to Palo Alto
Airport and projects those revenues and expenses first to the year 2017, and then from
2018 to the year 2037. The forecast to 2017 has one baseline projection that will serve as
both the County pro forma and the City pro forma. This projection represents a baseline or status
quo revenue and expense seenario for the Airport with no revenue enhancement projects
included. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the City and County cost structures
for operating the Airport are identical.
Unless the lease with the County is terminated sooner, the County's responsibly will
officially expire in 2017 as will the two FBO leases and all other contracts relating to the Airpolt.
In 2017 all hangars and tie-down spaces will revert back to the City'S control. Thus, a baseline
projection of financial performance was made for the City's operation of the Airport for the
period 2018 to 2037. In a later section, alternative projections of financial performance will be
developed based upon comparisons between various types of management structures. To
properly frame these financial statements, this section is organized to present the following:
• Historical Revenues and Expenses
• Baseline Forecast of Revenues and Expenses: 2010-2017
• Baseline Forecast of Revenucs and Expenses: 2018-2037
• Summary and Findings for Baseline Scenario
4.1 Historical Revenues and Expenses
Table 9 shows the historical revenues and expenses for 2000 through 2008 taken from the
statement of revenues and expenses for PAO provided by the County. This total does not
include the annual contributions to the Airport from the County for capital development grants.
Those contributions are not considered revenues from operations by this analysis. Rathel', this
analysis is geared to identify the actual revenue producing ability of the Airport, along with its
actual operating costs.
Revenues to the County from Palo Alto Airport are derived from the following;
• Aircraft Storage (Tie-downs): The County currently operates 355 tie-downs ranging
from $129.50 to $188.50 per month. Of these, 49 are vacant. The 2008 revenues of
$506,728 produced an average of $138 per tie-down, per month. Thus, the vacancies
created an opportunity cost to the County that averaged $81,100 in 2008. In addition to
these public tie-down spaces, there are 86 private tie-downs and 85 hangar spaces which
are under FBO control.
• FRO Lease Revenue: There are two FBOs at PAO that have [eases with the County.
Roy-Aero Enterprises LLC leases 9.706 acres at $O.l9/square foot. This equals
approximately $8,275 per acre which is $80,300 annually. The County also receives 6
percent of the revenue from 45 of Roy-Aero hangars and six end units which totaled
$28,640 in 2008. The other FBO, Airport Management Group, Inc. (AMG) leases 3.024
1"' R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 31
Pilio Alto Airport
Draft Busilles,\' Plan February 2010
acres at $0.2025/square foot. This equals approximately $8,800 per acre which is
$26,676 annually. The ground rent remains fixed for the FBOs until the next scheduled
five-year interval reappraisal (December 2009 and December 2014 for Roy-Aero, and
December 2013 for AMG)
• Fuel Flowage Fees: The fuel flowage fee at Palo Alto is the highest of all County
operated airports at $0.20 per gallon. Reid-Hillview and South County Airports have fuel
flowage fees of $0.1 0 per gallon.
• Transient Aircraft Revenue: Transient aircraft are required to pay a fee when occupying
a tie-down at the Airport. Of PAO's 441 tie-down spaces, 36 space are allocated for
transient aircraft. Tie-down rates are detennined by aircraft size and duration of stay.
• Otlter Facility Revenue: This category captures all revenue that is not attributable to the
other categories. This includes vending income, auto parking fces, charter landing fees,
government credit card rebates, and tie-down waiting list fees. For 2008, this category
also included a rental car lease from Enterprise (valued at $32,800). That lease was
canceled by the rental car company in June, 2009. Thus, future years for this category
will yield significantly less revenue than the 2008 total.
Operating Expenses do not include depreciation expenses, since they are non-cash
expenses and are reflective of the Airport's asset base rather than income and expense
production. Operating Expenses were derived from the following:
• Salarie~ .. and Benefits: This includes direct salary and benefit costs for two Airport
Operations Workers and one part-time Airport Supervisor. It also includes the allocated
percentage (31.07 percent in PY08) of Airports Administration staff salaries and benefits.
The breakdown for this line item in 2008 is $232,950 for Operation staff (including the
supervisor) and $187,617 for Airports Administration staff.
• General Administration: The General Administration Expenses allocation for PAO for
FY08 was 31.07 percent of the Airports Administrative costs not related to salaries and
benefits. Airport Administrative costs includes insurance, communications, professional
services, roads and Airports Departmental overhead charges and the County's General
overhead charges.
• Aviation Services: This expense category incorporates P A 0 operating expenses such as
utilities, terminal building expense, non-capital maintenance, and other miscellaneous
expenses of operating the Airport.
The historical operating revenues and expenses shown in Table 9 for PAO represent
aggregated totals of several accounting sub-categories.
1Mr R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, 1nc. 32
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan
~~~~~
REVENUE~XPENSES
Operating Revenues:
Aircraft Storage
Lease Revenue (FBOs)
Fuel Flowage
Transient Revenue
. Other Facility Revenue
Total Operating Revenue
Operating Expense
Salaries & Benefits
General Administration
Aviation Services
Total Operating Expenses
Net Operating Income
FY2000
320,303
96,068
40,477
14,494
3,338
474,680
295,575
187,784
99,757
583,116
(108,436)
Table 9 -Historical Revenues and Expenses for PAO
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY 2006
419,978 507,129 485,504 487,893 489,231 489,035
124,930 121,038 130,047 123,830 131,249 133,563
44,922 54,964 54,478 53,941 57,883 59,967
58,026 31,776 35,973 24,447 27,068 24,627
N/A 37,854 21,654 32,955 20,046 19,465
647,856 752,761 727,656 723,066 725,477 726,657
315,137 357,903 368,712 371,150 424,954 436,301
142,571 156,256 171,457 161,621 174,533 123,449
91,206 115,980 122,937 72,919 118,667 128,860
548,914 630,139 663,106 605,690 718,154 688,610
98,942 122,622 64,550 117,376 7,323 38,047
February 2010
~~~
FY2007 FY2008 Av Growth
RateJYr*
506,122 506,728 5.88%
129,953 134,905 4.30%
82,664 110,974 13.43%
27,329 31,419 10.17%
15,384 50,141 40.31%
761,452 834,167 7.32%
377,014 420,567 4.48%
159,281 179,147 -0.61%
148,382 114,800 1.76%
684,677 114,514 2.62%
76,775 119,653 N/A
• The average grow1h rates per year are developed by calculating the compound grow1h rates between the starting year (FY 2000) and the ending year (FY 2008)
for each line item.
1MI B.A. W'tedemann & Associates, Inc. 33
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan Februaty 2010
As shown in Table 9 historical operating revenues have grown much more quickly than
historical operating expenses. During the period, operating revenues have grown at an average
annual rate of 7.3 percent. Operating expenses, on the other hand, have grown at a rate of 2.6
percent per year. Beginning in 200 I, the Airport began generating surplus net operating
revenues. While these have fluctuated from year to year, they have averaged almost $60,000
since 2000.
Significant actions by the County that have increased revenues within the past couple of
years include:
• Increases in tie-down rates at PAO, to levels above those for Reid-Hillview and South
County.
• Increases in fuel flowage fees at PAO, which are double those for Reid-Hillview and
South County ($0.20 versus $0.10).
• Securing an agreement with Enterprise Rent-a-Car to locate at P AO in 2008. That lease
was cancelled by Enterprise, eliminating that windfall for future years.
The increased vacancy rate for PAO tie-downs has been attributed by some to the downturn
in the national economy and the increase in prices for tie-down spaces. Table 10 presents an
historical look at the tie-down vacancy percentages and tie-down fees for an average aircraft
size:
Table 10 -Monthly PAO Tie-Down Vacancy Percentage and Fees
Year Total Vacant % Vacant
2000 367 88 24%
2001 367 7 2%
2002 360 0 0%
2003 360 0 0%
2004 354 8 2%
2005 351 11 3%
2006 357 32 9%
2007 357 16 4%
2008 355 33 9%
2009 355 49 14%
4.2 Baseline Forecast of Revenues and Expenses -2010 to 2017
As mentioned previously, a projection of revenues and expenses was developed for the
Baseline Forecast, showing the effects of minimal changes to the current operational structure at
the Airport. In essence, this projection considers the financial production of the Airport as it is
today, with little change through the year 2017. The analysis is designed to determine whether
01' not PAO could be self-supporting from an operating standpoint between now and the
expiration of the current lease agreements. The projection applies to both the County and City
operation of the Airport. Table 11 presents a projection of revenues and expenses for PAO, for
the period from 2010 to 2017.
1~r R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 34
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Bllsiness Plan February 2010
Forecasting assumptions used in the projecti~n included the following:
Revenues
• A postponement of the currently-proposed increase in Tie-Down fees (Aircraft Storage)
until 2011. At that time tie-down prices were increased by the proposed 8 percent
increase, with CPT increases every year thereafter (4 percent is the projected Cpr).
• Reappraisal of the FBO leases occurs in 2013 for Dr. Brandt, and 2014 for Roy Aero. It
is assumed that a minimum 50 percent increase in rents will be assessed at these dates.
• No increase in Fuel f1lowage Fees or Transient Revenues over the period.
• A decline of more than $32,800 in Other Facility Revenue from the 2008 level of
$50,141 due to the loss of Enterprise Rent-a-Car lease.
Expenses
• Growth in Salaries & Benefits Expense by 4.25 percent per year throughout the period.
• Growth in General Administration Expense by 4 percent per year througb 2017.
• Growth in Aviation Services Expense by 4 percent per year tbroughout the period.
Non-Operating Expenses
• A local share capital expenditure of $50,000 annually was added to the forecast to cover
potential capital improvement costs and matching fund requirements for federal and state
grants. This amount would cover almost $2.0 million in FAA grants pel' year at a
matching rate of 2.5 percent. The pro forma assumes that the City would have projects
included in some years that were not eligible for federal or state funding.
Table 11-Baseline Forecast for Connty Operation ofPAO (2010-2017)
AvGrowth
YEAR 2008' 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Rate!Yr
OJ)crA~ln!l Revenues
Aircraft Stnmge $506,72R $506.700 $547,236 $569125 $591.890 $615566 $640.189 $665.796 $692.428 4.60%
Lease Revenue (P130s) $134.905 $134900 5134.900 $1349{)O $134.900 $157200 $202400 $202400 $202400 5.96%
Fuel Flowage $110.974 $111000 $111.000 SIII.ooO Slll.ooO SIlI.OOO SII1,OOO $111.000 $lll,OOO 0.00%
Transient Reventre $31.419 $31.400 $31400 $31.400 $31400 $31.400 $31,400 531.400 $31,400 0.00%
! Other Facility Revenue $50141 517.300 $17300 $17,300 $17300 $17,300 517300 $17.300 $17300 0.00%
, Total Ollcratine Revenue $834167 S801300 8841836 5863,725
i Qperathu! Exne)lSfS
$886490 $932466 $1Q02289 $1027896 $1054,528 4.00%
Salaries & Benefits $420.567 $457.075 $476,501 $496,752 $517 864 $539.873 $562818 $586.738 $611674 4.27%
iGeneral Administration $179147 $193,765 $201516 $209,576 $217959 $226.678 $235745 $245.175 $254982 4.00"A.
Aviation Services $114800 $124,16& $129.135 $134300 $139672 $145259 $151069 SI$7112 $163397 4.00"/0
TofAI Ooendillll Ex lenses $714,514 $775008 $807,152 $840628 $875495 $911810 5949632 $989025 51030053 4.16%
~et Operfltlnl!; fncome Sl19653 $26292 $34684 $23097 510 995 $20656 $52657 $38871 $24 475 ·1.03%
: Non·Oneratinl! Expenses ~ .Local Share Caoital Costs $0 $50000 $5000{) $$0000 $50000 S50000 $50000 S50000 0.00"/0
iTotal Net Revenues 5119653 ';;23,708 -$15316 .,'126,903 -$39005 -$29344 $2657 .,'III 129 ';;25525 NIA
* 2008 Actual, 2010-2017 Forecast
•• Forecast decrease represents loss of $32,800 Enlerprise Rent-a-Car lease.
,"r R.A. Wiedemflllll & Associates, Illc. 35
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan February 2010
Within the Baseline scenario, the FBDs are responsible for capital expenditures on their
hangars and other revenue producing facilities. These are not eligible for Federal funding as
long as they are under private control.
Under these difficult revenue generation conditions, the Airport would show a net
operating surplus of $231,700. However, if local share capital development costs of $50,000
annually are included, there is a net revenue loss of -$168,300 over the eight-year forecast
period. This projection can be considered the worst case scenario for the City or County
operation of the Airport -continually increasing costs and very slow revenue growth. In all
likelihood, revenues will increase more than predicted through growth in the areas that have been
held constant in the forecast.
Tfthe City ends its lease with the County by July, 2011, losses (totaling -$129,200) from
that point forward would belong to the City. It is the Consultant's opinion that the City can
perform slightly better than the County due primarily to fewer personnel required to operate the
Airport. That is, PAD will not require the County's noise program manager, and the City would
not have to pay an allocation percentage for administrative staff to run multiple airports as the
County does. Rather, the salaries and benefits for PAO staff would be limited to those working
at the airpOit and an administrative allocation added for functions such as accounting, invoicing,
and professional services. Nevertheless, the costs shown in Table II were assumed to apply to
both the County and the City operational scenarios.
4.3 Baseline Forecast of Revenues and Expenses: 2018-2037
In the twenty years after 2017 when the current leases expire (assuming no early
cancelation or extensions of the leases), the City will have complete control over all of the
hangar and FBD facilities at the Airport. Thus, in 2018 the City should experience a revenue
windfall from the Airpott, based upon the ability to rent hangars and tie-down spaces that were
under FBD control. Table 12 presents a summary of the revenue and expense pro forma for
baseline performance of PAO under City operation. The revenues and expenses are shown in
increments in order to display the entire 2018-2037 period within the Table.
Table 12 -Baseline Revenues & Expenses for City 01 eration ofPAO (2018-2037)
Av('1tQwth
Year 2018 2022 2027 2032 2037 RateIYr
Operating Revenues
355 Space Aircl'l1fi Apron $720,125 $778,887 $842,445 $947,636 $1,024,963 1.02%
86 Space FBO Apron $161.040 $180,670 $195,413 $219,813 $237,750 1.02%
Hangar/Office Rentals $1,199 100 $1 402777 $J,706,693 $2,076,453 $2,526323 4.00%
Fuel Flowa.e $111,000 $111,000 $111,000 $111,000 SI11,OOO 0.00%
Transient Revenue $29,000 $29,000 $29,000 $29,000 $29,000 0.00%
Other Facility Revenue $17300 $17,300 $17,300 $17,300 $11300 0.00%
Total OJ)cratilig Revenue $2,243,565 $2,519,634 $2,901,851 $3,401,202 $3946336 3.02%
Operating EXilense
Salaries & Benefits $637,670 $753,183 $927429 $1 141986 $1,406181 4.25%
R.A. Wiedel1Ulnn & Associales, Inc. 36
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Busilless Plan February 2010
Table 12 -Baseline Revenues & Expenses for City O~ eration of PAO (2018·2037)
AvGrowth
Year 2018 2022 2027 2032 2031 Rate/Yr
, General Administration $391,772 $465,337 $566 154 $688,812 $838046 4,00%
Aviation Services $170546 $199,515 $242741 $295,331 $359316 4,00%
Total Olleratin2 Expenses $1205988 $1418,035 $1,736324 $2 126 129 S2,603,543 4.13%
Net Operating Income $1037577 $1101599 $1165,527 $1,275073 $1342,793 1.37%
Non-Operating Costs
Local Shure Caoital Costs $338000 $395412 $481 079 $585,307 $712115 4.00%
Total Net Revenues $699577 $706187 $684,448 $689,766 $630678 ..(}.50%
Assumptions for the 2018 to 2037 period that differ with those of the 2010 to 2017 period
include the following:
Revenues
• A total of 86 new tie-down spaces (former FBO apron) are available for revenue
production to the City.
• Former FBO hangar and office rentals are available for revenue production to the City.
Thus, the City would be collecting these rents rather than the FBO,
• While, no growth in Fuel Flowage was projected. Transient Revenue and Other Facility
Revenue was projected to grow at the rate of inflation.
Expenses
• Salaries and Benefits are assumed to grow by 4.25 percent per year.
• General Administration increased by 50 percent to account for additional administrative
workload related to former FBO rental properties (collections and lease administration).
CPI adjustments were included for future years.
• Aviation Services was forecast to increase by 4 percent per year to reflect projected CPI.
• A Non·Operating Capital Development and Maintenance account was created to reflect
local share capital improvement costs and to invest in maintenance of revenue producing
facilities. Beginning year was estimated at 5 percent of the estimated existing hangar and
building value. cpr adjustments were included for future years.
Cumulative net operating revenues to the City under this baseline projection for the years 2018
to 2037 were estimated to total almost $13.7 million.
4.4 Summary and Findings for Baseline Scenario
For the Baseline Scenario, cumulative net operating revenue surpluses were shown for
both the 2012·2017 and 2018·2037 periods for City operation of the Airport ($231,700 and
$23,743,500, respectively). However, when non-operating costs are added, the 2012-2037
period shows a cumulative net deficit of -$168,300 in total revenues. For the longer term (2018-
2037), total net revenues (which include non-operating costs) were estimated at $13,678,500.
R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 37
!
Palo Alto Airp0l1
Dl'flft Business Plan February 2010
The Baseline projections did not include discussions of alternate methods of managing or
operating the Airport. They also did not include projections associated with any additional
hangar development at the Airport. Those discussions and analyses are presented in the next
section of this report.
1~r R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 38
Palo Alto Allport
Draft Business Plan
5. AL TERNATIVE OPERATIONAL STRUCTURES
Februmy 2010
THIS SECTION CONSIDERS DIFFERENT OPERATIONAL STRUCTURES FOR PAO and estimates the
economic consequences of implementing those options. In particular, the City is
interested in the potential use of alternate management for the Airport either in the form of
an FBO or some other third party management arrangement. In Section 4, baseline pro formas
were developed to estimate the financial outcome of City management of the Airport from the
years 2012-2037. This section presents analysis for the following:
• Common Operational Structures for Airports
• Projections of Financial Performance:
Baseline City Management Option: 2012-2037
Additional Hangar/Apron Option: 2012-2037
City Plus FBO Management Option: 2012-2037
Third Party Management Option: 2012-2037
• Summary of Financial Performance Options
• FAA Policy on Revenue Diversion
• FAA Policy on Airport Land Release 01' Airport Closure
5.1 Common Operational Structures for Airports
As the City decides which management option to employ for the Airport, there are a
number of pros and cons for using different structures. If the goal of the City regarding the
Airport is identified, it may be easier to develop a matching operational structure. This report
provides the background and projected economic outcomes for different management structures
so that sound decisions can be made for the future of PAO operation. Four options for airport
management are identified as follows:
• Continued County Operation of the Airport
• City Operation of the Airport
• Joint FBO and City Operation of the Airport
• Third Party Management
In all four options, the City must retain ownership of the Airport to satisfY Federal Aviation
Administration Airport Improvement Program grant assurances, as well as State of California
Aeronautics grant aid requirements. These are further discussed in Section 5.5.
Continued County Operation of the Airport
In this option, the City would re-negotiate a lease with the County for its operation of the
Airport. The viability of this option would depend upon the County's desire to continue
operating the Airport and the City's endorsement of that arrangement. Under this option, the
existing lease would be kept in place through the year 2017, followed by a new lease with the
County. It is possible that in a newly renegotiated lease, the City could assume ownership of all
existing FBO property and the associated revenues. The City would then become the landlord of
,", R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 39
Palo Allo Alq)orl
Draft Business Pin" February 2010
the hangars, apron area, and fueling operation at PAO. Revenues from this operation could be
significant. On the other hand, under this scenario, there would likely be little or no control of
County pricing policy or reinvestment in airport facilities.
City Operation of the Airport
If the City is to be the sole operator of the Airport, there are several changes in the
staffing and management structure needed. In general, the City would need to implement the
following:
• Retain an Airport Manager several months before actually taking possessron of the
Airport. In addition, an Assistant Airport Manager and a part time City worker would
need to be assigned to the Airport, once it was under City control.
• Set up of an Enterprise Fund (or similar fund) for Airport operation, where charges from
other City departments could be recorded as costs against Airport revenues. In addition,
a new expense category would include AirpOlt Operations.
• The City would begin billing airpOlt apron tenants and collecting lease revenues from
FBOs.
Although not required for general aviation airports like PAO, an airport operations manual
should be developed that would spell out daily, monthly, and annual responsibilities of personnel
and City administration, show contact names and numbers, and describe emergency and security
procedures.
Typically, many municipal airports have unelected airport boards or advisory/oversight
groups that function to advise or assist in managing the Airport and its operations. These
advisory groups vary widely in authority and complexity. Some have complete operational
control of their airports while others are advisory only. Prior to the City of Palo Alto taking back
PAO, it is recommended that an advisory group be formally chartered that would report to the
City. These positions are usually appointed with staggered terms and usually represent a cross
section of airport users and stakeholders. Most have a good knowledge of aviation, business,
government, and the community.
Joint FBO and City Operation of the Airport
This option is only slightly different from the complete City management of the Airport.
In this l'cgard, the City would contract with an FBO to provide management personnel for the
Airport. The City would still be required to provide legal and other City services to the Airport
under General Administration, but the actual day-to-day operation and management at the
AirpOit would be undertaken by the PBO. As the FBO must staff the facility for its own
business purposes, it could also provide watchful management of the Airport for the City,
including:
• Daily Airport inspection
• Minor maintenance
• Apron and Itinerant Ramp management
'WI R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 40
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan
• Reporting to City and attendance at Council Meetings
• Interaction with FAA Control Tower Operations
February 2010
These and other tasks would be assigned to an FBO. By using personnel already located at the
Airport, the City should save significantly on labor costs using this method.
Third Party Management of the Airport
Third party management of an airport is sometimes called "airport privatization,"
depending upon how inclusive of services the agreement or lease is. However, this generally
does not mean divestiture by the governmental owner of the airport. In general, the
governmental sponsor still maintains ownership of the airport and benefits from privatization by
not paying for the operation of the facility. The public has a right to be secure in the knowledge
that this service won't suffer at the hands of a private, for-profit enterprise. This assurance is
provided through the fact that th ird party airport management is generally not a complete
divestiture. In most cases, this type of management structure includes an ongoing public-private
partnership.
There are a number of versions of the Third Party Management structure that have been
implemented in the U.S. These range from true "privatization" where the owner is paid to let a
third party run the airport for profit, essentially "leasing the airport," with no owner involvement.
A second model involves fuJI third party leasing of the governmental owned airport, sometimes
with payments to the owner, but with allowance for profit taking from leases and rents (usually
of facilities the third party builds or acquires outright with their own funding). A third model
involves the hiring of a third party to operate the airport that is still owned by the governmental
entity. In each option, the responsibility for grant-in-aid applications for ait'POlt improvement
projects and the required local match funding has to be determined.
A number of airline and large general aviation airports have tried leasing and
privatization as a means of more efficiently operating their facilities. Generally, there are four
basic reasons to use third party management:
• Capital Infusion
• Efficiency Gains
• Revenue Windfall
• Opportunity to Reinvent the Airport
Some airport owners have little or no interaction with the operation of their airports and
instead, use their contractors as extensions oftheir municipal governments. For existing airports,
the simplest form of privatization is contracting out management of the airport on a relatively
shOlt-term basis. Larger economic benefits generally can be obtained via a long-term lease of
the airport. One particular benefit of contracting out is that measurable pelformance
requirements can be specified, with appropriate penalties for failure to meet them.
It should be noted that the FAA has expressed concern that the sale or long-term lease of
an airport would violate the obligations undertaken by the municipal owner as a condition of its
-:;;:;;,-------------~---------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~.-
1M' R.A. Wie(lemalln & Associates, fllc. 4]
Palo Alto Alrpo/'t
Draft Business Plan February 2010
federal grants. The most significant of these is the obligation not to divert an airport's revenues.
Federal law requires that public airport revenues be used for capital and operating costs. The
FAA considers sale or lease proceeds to be airport revenue that cannot be transferred to other
municipal uses. Therefore, the financial incentives for U.S. public airports to privatize or use
third party management are constrained and they may even impede efforts to privatize because of
a consequentially higher cost of capital and a reduced ability to generate more revenues. For
Palo Alto Airport, any lease agreement to manage the Airport would require that revenues from
the lease over and above expenses could not be diverted to other uses. In short, the City of Palo
Alto could not earn money from the Airport to use elsewhere. All money made at the facility
would have to be reinvested in the Airport. This provision of the Federal law is being reviewed
for general aviation airports and may be changed at some time in the future.
5.2 Projections of Financial Performance
Different management structures and hangar totals will produce different amounts of
revenue at PAO. Prior to implementing any strategy, the development of desktop models to test
the economic outcomes is important. For PAO, a number of operational structures have been
suggested for the future, including:
• Baseline City Management Option: 2012·2037
• Additional Hangar/Apron Option: 2012·2037
• City Plus FBO Management Option: 2012·2037
• City Plus Third Patty Management Option: 2012·2037
Each of these options and their respective financial performance is presented in below.
Baseline City Management Option: 2012·2037
The financial pro formas associated with the Baseline City Management of PAO were
presented in Section 4 of this repolt. To recap, those projections showed slow revenue growth
(slower than general price inflation) and normal expense growth (exceeding projected price
inflation). With these assumptions, the following total net revenues (which included capital
development costs) were estimated:
• ·$129,200 for 2012·2017
• $13,678,500 for 2018·2037
The significant revenue production in the second period is due to the reversion of private hangars
to City ownership and control.
Additional Hangar/Apron Option: 2012·2037
If additional hangar and apron space is developed at the Airport,there is an opportunity
to increase financial performance over the Baseline projections. This section is not meant as an
endorsement of the additional revenue producing facilities. Rather, it simply serves as a means
of estimating the economic value of this option. Any decision to pursue these additional
IMI R.A. Wledemallll&Associates.IlIc. 42
Palo Alto Aitport
Draft Business Plan February 2010
revenues must be made by the City, in concert with its Airport stakeholders and funding
agencies. Table 13 presents the short term (2012-2017) financial pro forma for what could be
considered a full landside development option. For the purpose of this report, the "lands ide" at
PAO refers to Airport areas that have buildings and aircraft storage. They do not include the
runway and associated taxiways, runway protection zones, or safety areas. This pro forma
contains the following assumptions:
• Early termination of the lease with the County for operation of the Airport -2012
assumed as first full year of City operation.
• City development of hangars using debt financing (principal of $4,550,000 for 20 years at
5 percent interest).
• Additional apron area secured through FAA grants.
• Deliberately low projections of Fuel Flowage Fees, Transient Revenue, and Other
Facility Revenue.
Table 13 -City Management ofPAO with Additional Hangars/A]lron (2012-2017)
Av Growth
Palo Alto 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Rote/VI'
Opera tine Revenues
Aircroft Storage $569,125 $591,890 $615,566 $640,189 $665,796 $692,428 4.00%
Additional Tie-Down Rental $35,352 $36,766 $38,237 $39766 $41,357 $43.011 4.00%
Additional Hangar Rental N/A NlA $393,000 $408,720 $425,069 $442,072 4.00%
Lease Revenue (FBOs) $134,900 $134,900 $157,200 $202,400 $202,400 $202,400 8.45%
Fuel Flowage $111,000 $111,000 $111,000 $111,000 $111,000 $111,000 0.00%
Transient Revenue $29,000 $29,000 $29,000 $29,000 $29,000 $29,000 0.00%
Other Facility Revenue $17,300 $17,300 $17,300 $17,300 $17,300 $17,300 0.00%
Total Opcratine Revenue $896 677 $920856 $1361303 $1448375 $1,491,922 $1,537,211 11.38%
Opel'ating Expense
Salaries & Benefits $496,752 $517,864 $539,873 $562,818 $586,738 $611,674 4.25%
General Administrotion $209,576 $217,959 $226,678 $235,745 $245,175 $254,982 4.00%
Aviation Services $134,300 $139,672 $145,259 $151,069 $157 112 $163,397 4.00%
Interest on Debt Service NlA $224,600 $217,700 $210,300 $202,600 $194,600 ·3.65%[
Total Operating Expenses $840,628 $1,100,095 $1,129,510 $1,159,932 $1,191,625 $1,224,653 7.82%
Net Operating Income $56,049 -$179,239 $231793 $288,443 $300,297 $312,558 41.02%
Non-Oneratin2 Costs
Debt Service Principal NlA $136,100 $143,000 $150,400 $158,100 $166,100 5.11%
Local Share Capital Costs $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 0.00%
Total Non-Oneratine Costs $50,000 $186,100 $193,000 $200,400 $208,100 $216,100 34.01%
Total Net Revenues $6,049 -$365,339 $38,793 $88,043 $92,197 $96,458 N/A
1~r R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 43
Palo Allo Alrporl
Draft Bltsiness Pial! FebrUilJ'Y 2010
Cumulative net revenues for the six years shown in the table total -$43,800, which is an
improvement of $124,500 over the Baseline pro forma. Principal payments on the debt service
range from $136,100 per year to $166,100 beginning in 2013.
For the longer term, the net revenue production is much higher. Table 14 shows the pro
forma for the 2018-2037 period, assuming the development of additional hangar and apron area
at PAO. Net revenue production includes both the FBO facilities that transfer at the end of the
current lease in 2017, plus the additional hangar and tie-down fees from the development of
these facilities. Cumulative net revenues for the 2018-2037 period total $20,500,700.
Table 14 -City Mana~ emcnt ofPAO with Additional Hangars/Apron (2018-2037)
AvGrowth
YEAR 2018 2022 2027 2032 2037 RatefYr
Oncl'1diul! Revenues
355 Space Aircraft Apron $720125 $778,887 $842,445 $947,636 $1.024,963 1.88%
86 Sl)1!CC fEO Apron $167040 $180,670 $195.413 $219,813 $237750 1.88%
Additional Tie-Down Rental $44.732 $48382 $52,330 $58,864 $63661 1.88%
Additional Hangar Rental $459754 $497,270 $531848 $605,005 $654374 1.&&%
Hangar/Office Rentals $1 199 100 $1,402777 $1706693 $2,076,453 $2,526323 4.00%
Fuel Flowage $111000 Sill 000 $111 000 $111,000 $111,000 0.00%
Transient Revenue $29000 $33,926 $41276 $50,219 $61,099 1.88%
Other Facility Revenue $17300 $20,239 $24623 $29.958 $36,448 1.88%
Total Operating Revenue $2748051 83,073151 $3511 628 $4098948 $4,715,624 2.88%
OD .... tiO. Expense
Salaries & Benefits $637,670 $153.183 $927,429 $1,141,986 $1406,181 4.25%
Oenel'Ul Administration $397,772 $465,337 $566,154 $688,812 $838,046 4.00%
A vlatlon Services $181757 $212630 $258697 $314144 $382934 4.00%
~~t on Debt Service $186 100 $147,500 $87100 $9,600 N/A N/A
Total Operating Expense, $! 403 299 $! 578650 $1839380 $2 155,142 $2627,161 3.36%
Net Operating Income $1344752 $1,494,501 $1,672 248 $1,943,806 $2088463 2.34%
Non-Operatill~ Costs
Debt Service Principal $174,600 $213,200 $273.600 $351,100 NIA NlA
Local Share Capital Costs $338,000 $395412 $481,079 $585,306 $712,115 4.00%
Total Non-Oncrating Costs ,~512 GOO 5608612 $754679 $936,406 5712,115 1.75%
Total Net Revenues 5832152 $885,889 $917569 $1,007400 $1,376348 2.68%,
R.A. Wiedemann & Associales, Inc. 44
!
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan
City Plus FBO Management Option: 2018-2037
February 2010
This option considers the City control of the Airport with assistance from an FBO that is
contracted to provide aviation services to Airport users, along with airport management services
for the City. Savings from this option are primarily from labor costs, in that no duplication of
labor hours occurs from having both the FBO and City personnel stationed at the Airport. As the
FBO must have personnel at the Airport to conduct business, cross-utilization of these personnel
can occur relative to Airport management. As mentioned previously, it is believed that this
option is restricted to the post-20t7 period, unless the existing FBO contracts are purchased by
the City. It is possible that negotiations could occur that would permit FBO management in the
2012 to 2017 period, however, the outcomes of such negotiation are subject to a great deal of
speculation.
Table 15 presents the pro forma for the City Plus FBO Management Option. As shown, a
flat fee for FBO management services was estimated to begin in 2018 at $342, I 00 (representing
$250,000 in 2010 current dollars), increased by price inflation. However, this number would
likely be negotiated through a Request for Proposals process during the 2017 timeframe,
coinciding with the replacement ofFBO agreements.
Table 15 -City Plus FBO Manallement ofPAO (2018-2037)
Av Growth
YEAR 2018 2022 2027 2032 2037 Rate/Y,
OIJel"ating Revenues
355 Space Aircraft Apron $720,125 $778,887 $842445 $947636 $1 024,963 1.88%
!
86 Space FBO Apron $167040 $180,670 $195413 $219,813 $237750 1.88%
Hangar/Office Rentals $1199100 $1.402717 $1,706693 $2016453 $2526,323 4.00%
Fuel F!owR!!.e $111000 $111 000 $111000 SlIl 000 $111,000 0.00%
Transient Revenue $29,000 $29,000 $29000 $29,000 $29,000 0.00%
Other Facility Revenue $17,300 $17300 S11,300 $17,300 $17,300 0.00%
Total Operating: Revenue $2,243565 $2519634 $2901851 83401202 $3946336 3.01%
OTlcratin2: Exnense
FDO Management Fee $342 100 $400,209 $486,915 $592407 $720753 4.00%
General Administration $397,112 $465,337 $566,154 $688,812 $838,046 4.00%
Aviation Services $181,757 $212,630 $258697 $314,744 $382,934 4.00%
Total O"el'at!n~ Expenses $921,629 $1078,176 $1311766 $1,595963 $1,941733 4.00%
Net OpC!.~H~£' Income $1321936 $1,441458 $1 590,085 $1805239 $2004603 2.22%
~:On.ratin~ C.sts
Local S~are Capital Costs $338,000 $395,412 $481,079 $585,307 $712,115 4.00%
Total Net Revenues $983,936 $1,046046 $1,109,006 $1219,932 $1292 488 1.45 %
,", R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 45
Palo Alto AlrpOl'!
DI'II[t Busilless PIIIII February 2010
The only change in this option relative to the City Management Option is the lower cost
of on-airport personnel. In this case, the FBO should be able to perform these services for
significantly less than it would cost the City to provide through its employees. Cost savings to
the FBO are based primarily upon the cross-utilization of management personnel (which are
already attending the Airport during business hours). Cumulative net revenues over the 2018 to
2037 period are estimated to total $22,646,400.
Third Party Management Option: 2012-2037
The Third Party Management Option could take the form of either management only or
an all-inclusive master lease of the entire Airport. If Third Party Management is used in the
2012-2017 period, it would likely involve the management-only scenario, as the existing FBO
leases or obligations may prevent a master lease of the entire Airport. Under the management
only scenario, a third party contractor would manage and operate the airport with their
employees. Services would include all airport operations and procedures, community outreach,
asset management, property management, maintenance and repairs, tenant administration,
marketing and promotion of the Airport, development, and construction management, airport
planning, grant submittals, processing and adherence, fueling, and all other services required to
operate the airport. The City would make all policy and leasing deeisions. Payment to the
Contractor would involve the payment of all costs plus a percentage of gross revenues (usually in
the 5 to 10 percent range). For this business plan, it was assumed that the Contractor would
provide labor for the Airport management and operation, rather than having City employees
operate the Airport. Table 16 presents the pro forma for the short-term Third Party Management
option. As shown, cumulative net revenues to the City for this option total $816,200 for the
period.
Table 16 -Third Party Operation ofPAO: 2012-1017
Av Growth
YEAR 2012 2013 2014 20t5 2016 2017 RatelYr
Opcratin2" Revenues
Aircraft Storage $569,125 $591,890 $615566 $640,189 $665,796 $692,428 4.00%
Lease Revenue (FBDs) $134,900 $134,900 $157200 $202,400 $202,400 $202,400 8.45%
Fuel Flowage $111,000 $111,000 $111000 $111,000 $111,000 $111,000 0.00%
Transient Revenue $31,400 $31400 $31400 $31,400 $31,400 $31,400 0.00%
Other Facility Revenue $17300 $17300 $17300 $17,300 $17,300 $17,300 0.00%
Total Olleratin~ Revenue $863725 $886490 $932,466 $1,002,289 $1,027,896 $1054528 4.07%
Operating Expense
3rd Party Labor $270,400 $281216 $292,465 $304,163 $316,330 $328,983 4.00%
3rd Party Fee $86373 $88649 $93,247 $100,229 $102,790 $105,453 4.07%
General Administration $209,576 $217,959 $226,678 $235,745 $245,175 $254.982 4.00%
: A viation Services $134,300 $139672 $145259 $151,069 S157,1l2 $163397 4.00%
TQt~[ Ollcrathl2: Expenses $700649 $727496 $757,649 $791,206 $821 407 $852815 4.01%
NetOpcl'flting Income $163076 $158994 $174,817 S211,083 $206,489 $201,713 4.34%
I.' R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Illc. 46
Palo Allo Airport
Draft Bus/ness Plan
YEAR
Non·Onel·atin. Ex "en,.,
Local Share Capital Costs
! Tofal Net Revenues
Table 16· Third Party Operation of PAO: 2012·1017
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$50,000 $50000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
$113,076 $108,994 $124811 $161,083 5156489
February 2010
AvGrowth
20t1 R1!teiYr
$50,000 0.00%
$151 113 6.05%
For the long term (2018·2037), the Third Party Management option could involve a
master lease for the entire Airport. In this regard, a third party contractor would typically be
responsible for all Airport operations, operational costs and employees, community outreach,
ail'port planning, grant preparation and local grant match contribution for federal and State
financial assistance, financing and redevelopment of existing revenue producing facilities,
marketing and promotion of the Airport, tenant administration and retention, property
management, asset management, and fueling. Under this scenario, the Contractor would collect
all revenues and pay a minimum base rent to the City with a percentage rent option as well. In
this regard, the City could expect between 70 and 80 percent of the pro forma net revenues to be
paid at year-end after all accounting for revenues and expenses has been made or audited.
Leases of this kind are typically set for a minimum 25 years and longer if a substantial
investment is required. They would also need Federal Aviation Administration and State
Aeronautics approval for this option.
For this analysis, the long-term City Plus FBO Management pro forma was used as a
means of projecting Contractor revenues to the City. In this regard, it was assumed that a check
for 75 percent of the projected net operating revenues would be written to the City each year.
While negotiations may be able to increase the percentage, it was assumed that conservative
approach was needed. Thus, for the period 201 &-2037, checks totaling $16.98 million would be
written to the City by the Third Party Management eompany.
5.3 Summary of Financial Penormance Options
The previous section presented a number of different management and facility options
along with their financial performance. To better compare each option, a summary table was
developed that shows the important economic measures of each alternative. Again, it is
understood that there are other criteria hesides financial performance for selecting a prefurred
alternative for PAO. Thus, non-economic factors may well determine the future course of the
AirpOlt's management and operation. Table 17 presents a summary of total net revenues for
each of the management options.
R.A. Wiedeman" & Associates, lite. 47
Palo Alto Airporl
Draft Business Plan February 2010
Table 17 -Summal'Y of Financial Performance Options: Total Net Revenues
MANAGEMENT OPTtON 2012-2017 2018-2037 Total Net Revenues
Baseline City Management -$129,200 $13678500 $13,549,300
Additional Hangarl Apron -$43,800 $20,500700 $20,456,900
City Plus FBO Management N/A $22646400 $22,646,400
Third Party Management $816,200 $16984800 $17,801,000
As shown, the City Plus FBO Management option produces the greatest surplus of net
revenues over the entire period. The Baseline City Management option has the lowest total net
revenues of the four options. Even with net losses for two of the options in the 2012 to 2017
period, the 2018 to 2037 period provides more than enough revenues to offset these initial losses.
A summary of pros and cons to the City relative to each option was developed to
condense the positive and negative factors associated with the four alternative management
structures presented here. Tables 18 and 19 present these factors by alternative and by Airport
operator.
Table 18 -Summary of Pros and Cons for All Options
Pros I Cons
City Operation of the Airport (Baseline City Manne.ment Option)
I) Greater control of all factors, relative to County I) Responsibility for aU finances and management of
control of Airport the Airport
2) Positive net revenues over long term 2) Must deal with all staffing issues.
3) Monitor and control investment in capital assets. 3) Airport can become political issue
4) Ability to "espond to Airport users and resident 4) Potential financial risk
neighbors.
Additional Hanllar/Apron
I) Highest revenue stream of.1I options I) Polential change of Airport viewshed
City Plus FBO Management
I) Lower lahor costs 1) Less control of d"y-to-day management function.
2) Higher net revenues relative to 3" Party Management
and Baseline Projections
3) FBO responsibility for technical aviation issues.
Third Party ManRIl.ment
1) Indirect responsibility for operating the Airport. I) Least amount of control over day-to-day operation
2) Airport operates as a profit center, providing periodic and management of Airport.
payments to City. 2) Dependent upon financial stability and strength of 3"
3) -Mav reoresent lowest financial risk of all options. Party Operator.
R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Tile. 48
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan
Table 19 -Summary of Pros aud Cous by Factor and Airport 0
Factor/Operator County City FBO/City
General Fund Benefit None None None
20 Yr. FAA Obligation City City City
Lease Term 2017 N/A TBD
Control over Fees None Complete Complete
Control over Revenue None Complete Complete
Control over Expenses None Complete Complete
General Fund Risk None Limited/Loan Limited/Loan
Planning Control Complete Complete Complete
Reinvestment Status Quo Yes Yes
Management Control None Complete Limited
Income/Loss Proiections None Complete Limited
5.4 FAA Policy on Revenue Diversion
February 2010
erator
3r • Party
None
City
TBD
Limited
Limited
Limited
LimitedlLoanl3,d
Party
Complete
Yes
Limited
Limited
Airports receiving Federal Assistance must restrict their use of airport revenue for strictly
prescribed airport purposes (Title 49 U.S. Code 41707(b), 47133). When airport revenue of a
federally assisted airport is used for other than airport capital costs and operations, with few
exceptions, it is generally considered an unlawful airport revenue diversion. The FAA issued a
policy statement on this issue, which went into effect February 16, 1999. According to the
policy, any airpott that receives Federal financial assistance must sign assurances, as part of the
Grant Agreement, that the revenue generated by the operator will be used only for purposes
related to the airport. The assurance also prohibits the diversion of airport revenue to non-airport
use. The policy statement tends to offer general guidance, with only limited discussion of the
application of the airport revenue-use restriction to specific situations.
The FAA relies upon several means for monitoring compliance with its revenue use
requirements and interpreting those requirements:
• The sponsor's annual auditing report on revenue use required by statute.
• Single audit reports as authorized.
• Investigations prompted by third-party complaints pursuant to 14 CFR, Part 16.
• Department of Transportation, Office ofInspector General Audits
• Publicly available FAA Chief Counsel and DOT General Counsel Opinions.
• Guidance letters issued by Airpott Division Staff based on specific fact situations
presented by operators.
Information on the application of the airport revenue-use requirements to a specific situation is
developed through these monitoring activities. Thus, information pertaining to revenue diversion
cannot be found at a central location, but is contained in all of the above sources. It is important
to remember that revenue diversion is typically "alleged" and not an obvious finding in most
cases. Cases such as these require in-depth investigations conducted by FAA and, when required
or requested, by the Office ofInspector General (OlG) within the Depmtment of Transportation.
1Mr R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 49
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan February 2010
The origin of this policy was with airlines that believed it was unfair to charge them high
rates that created surplus revenues which were then spent off the airport on non-aviation projects.
A lawsuit at Los Angeles International Airport helped define cost structures that were permitted
and those that were not. For example, an airport sponsor cannot give excess land to its own
parks department for athletk fields. Rather, market rates have to be charged and applied to
airport revenues.
For Palo Alto, the concept of revenue diversion is important, since there is likely to be a
significant surplus net revenue stream for the long term future. This money can be reinvested in
the Airport's infrastructure. For example, revenue producing hangars can be reconstructed when
they reach the end of their useful life. A new/replacement terminal building can be developed
with this money. Other pl'Ojects, as needed, could be funded from this surplus as well.
5.5 FAA Policy on Airport Land Release or Airport Closure
If the City desired to release some of the Airport property (but not close the Airport), they
would first have to examine the funding stream that has come through both the State of
California and the FAA to determine the number and size of grants received by the Airport. Any
land purehased with an FAA grant is "obligated" to the FAA for airport use. As part of the
Federal grant assurances and associated regulations, all property that has been included as part of
the airport property, cannot be sold or used for non-aviation purposes without a formal approval
by the FAA. This policy has several purposes but is primarily intended to protect property
acquired for a public airport from being arbitrarily diverted from public use. In fact, all that is
required for allport property to be subject to this federal obligation is that the property has been
depicted on a federally approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The property in question need not
be acquired with federal funds to be federally obligated.
Per FM Order 5190.6A, Airport Compliance Requirements:
Any property described as part 0/ an airport in an agreement with the United States or
defined by an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) is considered to be "dedicated" or obligated/or
airport purposes by the terms o/the agreement.
Notwithstanding this federal policy, FAA will allow property to be used for non-aviation
purposes or sold outright for airport-compatible developments upon completing a formal FAA
land release process. Thereafter the property may be used "or disposed of" for non-aeronautical
uses. Briefly, the requirements of the land release are summarized below:
J<'AA Land Release
A formal request is submitted to the FAA, which may be in the form of a letter with
accompanying documentation. In the case of PAO, the request would include the following:
• What specifically is being requested (long-term lease, release for sale, etc.).
• Why the release is requested (Le., such as· economic development).
• A justification of why the property is not needed for airport purposes.
R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 50
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan
• The specific properties involved, with an illustration.
• How the property was acquired by the Airport.
• The present condition and use of the property.
• Anticipated future use after disposal.
• The current fair Market Value (FMV), per appraisal.
February 2010
• How the property sale revenues will be used fbr Airport needs (certifY compliance with
FAA's Revenue Use Policy, dated 2116/99). Sale revenue may not be diverted for other
City purposes.
• Provide a comparison onhe relative advantage or benefit to the Airport or City from the
sale, as opposed to retention for rental income.
ALP Update (Pen & Ink Change)
As the release of the property is a change to the ALP, an ALP update must also be
submitted for FAA/CalTrans review and approval. As part of this submission, the formal airport
property map would also be updated, indicating the final date of the release or sale of the
affected parcels. A boundary survey is typically required.
Environmental Approval
In coordination with FAA, an environmental review may also be applicable (e.g., federal
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment). If the FAA agrees with the justification to
release the property for the overall public benefit, the proposal will be published in the Federal
Register for comment. After receiving public cemment, and assuming the FAA determines that
the land is not needed for present or foreseeable airport purposes, the release would be complete.
Note that the City may be required to document how the proceeds from the sale or lease of the
property is retained by the City exclusively for funding airport needs, as well as other obligations
that may be established in the release. Release of airport property is common for locations that
have reasonable airspace protection (i.e., from local zoning) and that can be realistically shown
to be surplus to the airport's needs through tbe airpOlt planning process or other justification. It is
not uncommon for a land release request to require over a year to execute, depending on its
complexity.
Airport Closure
The closure of a public-use airport can be a time consuming and costly legal challenge
for a municipal airpOlt owner. This is particularly true for airports that have:
• Aeccpted land from a federal program,
• Purchased property using FAA funding, or
• Taken a federal grant for airport improvements within the last twenty years.
The FAA requires a thirty day notice of intent to close a facility. During this time, the FAA will
petform a review of the proposed closure to determine if the airport sponsor is obligated to keep
l.r R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Illc. 51
Palo Alto Ail'pol·t
Draft Bu.,if/elis Plan February 2010
the airport open and operating, per the grant assurances outlined in the Airport Improvement
Program (AlP) and/or any deed restrictions existing for federally deeded property.
FAA Grant Assurance Requirements
It is the policy of the FAA to not approve the closure of an airport that has accepted
federal funds (AlP grants) or is under a deed restriction from the Federal Surplus Property Act.
In fact, according to the Airport Compliance Division of the FAA, they have never approved an
airport closure under those circumstances and no airport owner has heen successful in closing
their facility without FAA approval.
. Airport owners who have accepted ALP funding are obligated to the federal government
to comply with the grant assurances outlined in each AlP grant. Typically, the assurances of the
AlP grants last for twenty years. However uses of AlP funds for property acquisition obligate
the grantee indefinitely (Le., the requirement does not expire). Below is an excerpt from the
FAA's "Airport Grant Assurances" as they relate to the duration and applicability of the
obligations agreed to by the airport owner (Le. airport sponsor) when they accept federal
funding:
B. Duration and Applicability.
1. Airport development or Noise Compatibility Program Projects Undertaken by a Public
Agency Sponsor. The terms, conditions and assurances of the grant agreement shall remain in
full force and effect throughout the usefitllife of the facilities developed or equipment acquired
for an airport development or noise compatibility program project, or throughout the useful life
of the project items installed within a facility under a noise compatibility program project, but In
any event not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date of acceptance of a grant offer of Federal
funds for the project. However, there shall be no limit on the duration of the assurances
regarding Exclusive Rights and Airport Revenue so long as the airport is used as an airport.
There shall be no limit on the duration of the terms, conditions, and assurances with respect to
real property acquired with federal funds. Furthermore, the duration of the Civil Rights
assurance shall be specified in the assurances.
As noted, there is no limit to the duration of these obligations on property that was purchased
with AlP funds. Additional!y, Section C, Paragraph 19 of this document further make public
airport closure infeasible per regulation, stating:
C. Sponsor Certification. The sponsor hereby assures and certifies that:
19. Operation and Maintenance.
a. The airport and all facilities which are necessary to serve the aeronautical users of the
airport, other than facilities owned or controlled by the United States, shall be operated at all
times in a safe and serviceable condition and in accordance with the minimum standards as may
be required or prescribed by applicable Federal, state and local agencies for maintenance and
operation. It will not cause or permit any activity or action thereon which would interfore with
its use for airport purposes.
'M' R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, 1nc. 52
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan February 2010
These assurances obligate an airport sponsor to keep the airport open at all times and not
allow any action that would interfere with its use as a public-use airport. By the virtue of this
assurance, the airport owner has agreed to keep the airport open to be used as an airport for the
applicable duration of the obligation.
Repayment of Grant Ilnd Revenue Diversion
In addition to the grant assurances, the grant agreement does not have provisions for
repayment of federal monies in order to cancel the grant and associated terms and conditions. Per
FAA policy, because of the important role that each airport has in the NPIAS, the FAA would
not support any effort to rescind the contract (grant) obligations. An additional obligation of an
airport owner is that any money earned by the sponsor operating the airport can only be spent on
the airport. Publicly owned airports cannot "divert" their revenue off of the airport. The FAA
Airpott Compliance Division has stated that if an airport is closed without FAA approval, any
revenues earned on or from that property are considered airport revenues and must be paid back
to the FAA. In other words, if the FAA denies permission to close the airport, they will consider
it to be airport property no matter what the use is. If the land is sold, the sponsor could be
'obligated to repay the FAA up to three times the sale price. Below, US Code, Title 49, 47107 and
47133 dictate the procedures and penalties of revenue accountability and diversion:
Sec. 471 07. Project grant application approval conditioned on assurances about airport
operations.
(n) Recovery oj Illegally Diverted Funds.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days afier the issuance oj an audit or any other report that
identiftes an illegal diversion oj airport revenues (as determined under subsections (b) and (I)
and section 47133), the Secretary, acting through the Administrator, shall-
(A) Review the audit or report;
(B) Perform appropriate Jact finding; and
(C) Conduct a hearing and render a final determination concerning whether the illegal diversion
oj airport revenues asserted in the audit or report occurred
Sec. 47133, Restriction on use oj revenues
(a) PROHIBITION-Local taxes on aviation fuel (except taxes in effiet on December 30, 1987)
or the revenues generated by an airport that is the subject oj Federal assistance may not be
expended Jor any purpose other than the capital or operating costs o/--
(l) the airport;
(2) the local airport system; or
(3) any other local Jacility that is owned or operated by the person or entity that owns or
operates the airport that is directly and substantially related to the air transportation oj
passengers or property.
(5) PENALTY FOR DIVERSION OF AVIATION REVENUES-The amount oj a civil penalty
assessed under this section Jor a violation oj section 47107(b) oj this title (or any assurance
made under such section) or section 47133 oj this title may be increased above the otherwise
applicable maximum amount under this section to an amount not to exceed 3 times the amount oj
revenues that are used in violation oj such section. '.
R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc.. 53
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan
Landmark Airport Closure (Meigs Field)
February 2010
There have been cases in the past where airport sponsors chose to disregard federal
requirements and closed their airport without FAA permission. Perhaps the most well publicized
closure is "Meigs Ficld," which was closed by the City of Chicago in 2003 without approval. In
this particular instance, the airport was not obligated via grant assurances as it had not received
AlP funding within the durations outlined above. Additionally, Meigs Field, like PAD, was not
federally deeded property, so there were no deed restrictions applicable. The City of Chicago did
however close the airport without providing notice to the FAA. Based upon that violation, the
FAA levied a fine against the City of Chicago of $33,000, which was the maximum penalty at
that time ($1,100 per day for thirty days).
In addition, the FAA also fined the City $1 million for diverting ail'port revenue by using
airport money to pay the contractors for the demolition of the runway. Records indicate that the
city spent an additional $550,000 on legal fees disputing the fines. In total, the closing of Meigs
Field cost the City of Chicago over $I.6 million. If the airport was obligated by grant assurances
(such as the case with PAD) the FAA would have ordered the City of Chicago to reopen the
Airport at the city's expense. Note that due to the national publicity and outcry from airport and
pilot groups that continued for years, Congress increased the fine for Failure to NotifY the FAA
of Airport Closure from the previous $1,100 per day to $10,000 per day. The regulation is
entitled the "Meigs Legacy Amendment."
R.A, Wiedemann & ASSOciates, Inc. 54
Plilo Alto Airport
DI'II/I. Bus/ness Plan
6. RECOMMENDED OPTIONS
February 2010
THE RECOMMENDED OPTIONS FOR PAO MANAGEMENT AND operation have been reduced to
two, after discussions with City staff. These two options were determined to be the most
likely scenarios and they present a contrast to each other in terms of costs and City
involvement. This section summarizes the attributes of each option, along with probable
implementation tasks and costs.
6.1 Description of Options
Upon the completion of the analysis of management alternatives, discussions were held
with City staff concerning the reduction of four alternatives to a final two options. The City was
interested in seeing the differences between having the City operate the Airport and having a
third party firm operate PAO. Of course, there is a third option do nothing -that would default
to having the County operate the Airport as it has for more than 40 years.
City Operation ofthe Airport
As described in Section 5 of this report, the City'S operation of the Airport would require
the implementation of the following:
• Retain an Airport Manager (preferably several months before actually taking possession
of the Airport). In addition, an Assistant Airport Manager and a part time City worker
would need to be assigned to the Airport, once it is under City control.
• Set up of an Enterprise Fund (or similar fund) for Airport operation, where charges from
other City departments could be recorded as costs against Airport revenues. In addition,
a new expense category would include Airport Operations. A discussion of Enterprise
Funds is included in Section 6.2 of this report.
• The City would set up a billing system for Airport apron tenants and collect lease
revenues from FBOs.
Typically, many municipal airports have unelected airport boards or advisory/oversight
groups that function to advise or assist in managing the Airport and its operations. These
advisory groups vary widely in authority and complexity. Some have complete operational
control of their airports while others are advisory only. Prior to the City of Palo Alto taking back
PAO, it is recommended that an advisOt'Y group be formally chartered that would report to the
City in an advisory capacity. The Joint Community Relations Committee already exists and may
provide the structure or basis for the City'S formal advisory board. These positions are usually
appointed with staggered tel'ms and usually represent a cross-section of airport users and
stakeholders. Most have a good knowledge of aviation, business, government, and the
community.
Revenues and expenses generated from this management option were estimated in
previous sections and it was found that operating revenue surpluses were positive for both the
2012-2017 and 2018-2037 periods ($231,700 and $23,743,500, respectively). However, when
non-operating costs are added, there is a cumulative net'deficit for the 2012-2017 period for PAO
R.A. Wledemaltn & Associates, IIle. 55
Palo Alto All'porl
Draft Bus/lless Plall February 2010
of -$129,200. For the longer term (2018-2037), total net revenues (which include non-operating
costs) were estimated at $13,678,500. Refinements to these numbers are provided in this section
to include potential start-up costs and one-time expenditures.
Third Party Management of the Airport
Third party management of an airport is sometimes called "airport privatization,"
depending upon how inclusive of services the agreement or lease is. Under this option at PAO,
the City would still retain ownership of the Airport, however, it would 110t be involved
significantly with the day-to-day operation of the facility. For the near term (2012-2017) it is
envisioned that a third party would be retained to operate the Airport for the City. Because of
existing lease agreements with current FBOs it may not be possible or cost-effective to lease the
entire Airport to a third party. However, for the longer term (2018-2037), this management
model would be expanded to involve full third party leasing of the Airport with payments to the
City, .but with an allowance for profits to a third party operator from leases and rents.
For lhis business plan, it was assumed that the Contractor would provide labor for the
AirpOlt management and operation, rather than having City employees operate the Airport. As
such, eumu lative net revenues to the City for this option were forecast to total $816,200 for the
20L2-2017 period. For the longer-term period (2018-2037), the City would receive almost
$16.98 million from the Third Party Management company. Total net revenues from this option
would be $17,800,900 for the entire 2012-2037 period.
6.2 Implementation Steps for City Operation of PAO
If the City decides to openite the Airport with its own staff, there are a number of
implementation steps that would need to be initiated, along with some start-up cost items. This
option assumes that there will be an early termination of the lease with the County and that the
City will take the Airport back under its own management by 2012. The recommended steps and
their approximate timing are shown in Table 20.
Table 20 -Implementation St.eps: City Manaeement Option
Action Item DescriDtion MII.stonerrril!~er Point
I -Negotiate with County e lOr early termination of lea,e wlCounty Upon deeision of City
Council
2 -Transition books and leases Work with County to set up administration 3 months before Airport
takeover
i 3 -Retain Airport Manager Hire professional airport manager 2 months before Airport
takeover
4 -Arrange for mowing Decide to either pay City or buy mower 2 months before Airport
takeover
5 -Retain administrative worker Hire administrative worker to manage Airport I month before Airport
accounting takeover
6 -Remin Other Airport Staff Hire assistant manager and part time worker 2 weeks before Airport
takeover
7 -Provide Office Furniture If needed, furnish Airport Manager's offiee I week befure Allport
takoover
RA. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 56
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plall February 2010
As shown, the first step involves a negotiation with the County to set the date of the early
termination of the lease. This requires a City Council decision and County concurrence.
Assuming that is completed, the next milestone is a transition of the accounting system at three
months prior to the transition date for Airport management. That transition would involve
setting up an Enterprise Fund for the Airport, with accounts similar to those used by the County.
In addition, lease agreements used by the County for their tenants could be used after minor
changes for City lease language and standard provisions.
At two months prior to taking back the Airport, a professional airport manager
(Accredited Airport Executive), would be hired. During that time, the AAE would become
acclimated to the position, observe the County operation of the Airport, and develop an Airport
Operations Manual for tbe facility. Although not required for general aviation airports like PAO,
an Airport Operations Manual should be developed that would spell out daily, monthly, and
annual responsibilities of personnel and City administration, show contact names and numbers,
and describe emergency and security procedures. Later, at one month prior to the takeover, an
administrative person could be hired to keep the books for the Airport, send out invoices, and
coordinate with the City regarding the Airport accounting system. The month prior to start-up
would be used for training, development of letterhead (if needed), set up for utilities, and
reporting to FAA.
At two months prior to taking back the Airport, the City should decide whether to have
existing park staff mow the Airport or purchase a mower for Airport personnel. This early
decision is needed since the potential purchase of mowing equipment requires advance notice for
funding and acquisition. It is not unusual for Airport management and staff of small airports to
participate in mowing activities. However, with the golf course next door, which requires
frequent mowing and grooming, perhaps an arrangement can be made with Open Space and
Parks Division staff to mow the Airport. Currently, there arc about eight acres of open property
along Embarcadero Road and several acres to either side of the runway and taxiway that would
require periodic mowing. Some airport sponsors provide municipal equipment for their airport
staff to use in mowing airport property. The decision to mow the Airport with Airport staff
would require the acquisition of mowing equipment -which would bc the most significant cost
of transition. Mowing equipment for this size facility can cost between $15,000 and $20,000.
The equipment does not have to be new.
Finally, the hiring of an assistant manager and part time staff worker could occur two
weeks prior to stsrt-up. Training for these positions can be accomplished relatively quickly. In
addition, the office used by County personnel will need re-equipping once it is vacated.
Therefore, a computer, telephone, and other office furniture and equipment would need to be
provided. It is not known whether any of these items are already available from the City, but
total costs for new equipment would be less than $5,000.
Start-up Costs
Overall, start-up costs are estimated to be $25,000 or less for the City'S operation of
PAO. These costs would include mowing machinery (tractor and mower) and office
equipmentJfurniture. If labor costs arc factored in, the early employment of the Airport
,", R.A. WiedemtlllH & Associates, Illc. 57
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan February 2010
management and administrative staff could add another $35,000 to the cost. Overall start-up
costs would be less than $60,000, much of which could be absorbed in the pro forma. For
example, the budgeted non-operating expenses of $50,000 for that first year could be devoted
toward start-up costs. For 2012, the pro forma budgets $840,600 for operational expenses. Start
up costs, including salaries and benefits, would total roughly 7 percent or less of this budgeted
amount.
Revenues and Expenses
Under the City Management Option, a revenue and expense pro forma was developed
using the assumptions developed in Section 5 of this report. Year-by-year totals of revenues and
expenses are presented in Table 21.
Table 21-Summary of City Manal!ement Pro Forma: 2012 -2037
Non-Operating
Year Operating Revenues Operating Expenses CaDital EXDenses Total Net Revenues
2012 $863725 $840,628 $50,000 -$26903
2013 $886,490 $875,495 $50,000 -$39,005
2014 $932,466 $911,810 $50,000 -$29,344
2015 $1 002,289 $949632 $50000 $2,657
2016 $1,027,896 $989,024 $50,000 -$11,128
2017 $1,054,528 $1,030,052 $50,000 -$25,524
2018 $2,243,565 $1,205,988 $338,000 $699,577
2019 $2,291,529 $1,255,822 $351,520 $684,187
2020 $2,376,898 $1,307,717 $365,581 $703,600
2021 $2,428,776 $1,361,758 $380,204 $686,814
2022 $2,519,635 $1,418,035 $395,412 $706,188
2023 $2,575,746 $1,476,639 $411,229 $687,878
2024 $2,672,484 $1,537,668 $427,678 $707,139
2025 $2,733,174 $1,601,221 $444,785 $687,168
2026 $2,836,209 $1,667,403 $462,576 $706,230
2027 $2,901,851 $1,736,323 $481,079 $684,448
2028 $3,011,633 $1,808,095 $500,323 $703,216
2028 $3,082,631 $1,882,836 $520,335 $679,460
2030 $3,199,645 $1,960,669 $541,149 $697,827
2031 $3,276,437 $2,041,723 $562,795 $671,919
2032 $3,401,202 $2,126,130 $585,307 $689,765
2033 $3,484,260 $2,214,030 $608,719 $661,511
2034 $3,617,339 $2,305,568 $633,068 $678,703
2035 $3,707,174 $2,400,893 $658,390 $647,891
2036 $3,849,169 $2,500,164 $684,726 $664,280
2037 $3,946,335 $2,603,542 $712,115 $630,678
1MI R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 58
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan February 2010
6.3 Implementation Steps for Third Party Operation of PAO
Third party operation of PAO could occur in two distinct ways. The first would involve
keeping the existing leases with the County and its tenants in place until 2018. At that time, the
City could negotiate with a third party for operation of the Airport. The second option would be
an early termination of the lease agreement with the County and retention of a third party
operator for the Airport. For the first option, no analysis is needed for the 2010-2017 period.
For the second option, there are strategies needed for both the short and long term periods. Thus,
this ana lysis assumes an early termination in order to present potential methods of operating the
Airport using a third party management firm.
Assuming the City opts for third party management of PAO in the short term, it would
require a two-step process. TIle first step would involve operation of the Airport from the time
that the lease with the County is terminated until the end of 2017. It is assumed that the existing
FBOs still would hold the same or similar lease terms with the City that they now hold with the
County. Onee those leases expire in 2017, the City has exclusive claim to all hangars and other
revenue-producing facilities on the Airport. At that time, a second set of leases could be
negotiated with on-Airport FBOs and a third party airport operator. These new leases should
consider shorter renewal or renegotiation periods, giving the City flexibility to change terms and
conditions more frequently in eoncert with market conditions. Table 22 presents a summary of
the implementation steps associated with this management option.
, Table 22 -Im llementation Steps: Third Party Management Option
• Action Item Desc)'iption . MJlestonefTl'igger Point
• Negotiate with County Set date for early termination of lease Upon decision of City Council w/County
Negotiate with current FBOs Transition revenues to City 6·9 months prior to takeover
Solicit 3rd Party Operator Issue RFP for 3rd Party Operator 6·9 months pdor to takeover
Operate Airport through 2017 Gauge working relationship, finaneial From takeover date through 2011 pOliorman.e
I Issue new RFP Expand 3rd Party Operator scope January 2017
Because the terms and responsibilities associated with a third party operator are subject to
negotiation, the City can be as involved or non-involved in the operation of the Airport as
desired. It is suggested that oversight of the facilities be retained by the City under any
agreement, such that capital re-investment, when needed, can be assured.
Start-up Costs
If mowing the facility is ineluded in the Third Party Management agreement, then there
would be no equipment acquisition start-up costs for the City under this option. The City would
need to set up aecounting systems to accommodate the Airport and the revenues and expenses
that would be associated with the City'S responsibilities under a negotiated agreement.
However, if most of those responsibilities were given to a thit'd party operator, the City would
simply account for surplus revenues genemted at the Airport.
R.A. Wiedemmln & Associates, Inc. 59
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan
Revenues and Expenses
February 2010
Under the Third Party Management Option, a revenue and expense pro forma was
developed using the assumptions developed in Section 5 of this report. Year-by-year totals of
revenues and expenses are presented in Table 23. The column "Total Net Revenues" describes
the Airport's projected financial production, while the "Total to City" shows the portion of Total
Net Revenues that would accrue to the City after paying the Third Party Operator.
Table 23 -Summary of Third Party Mana2ement Pro Forma: 2012 -2037
Year Total Revenues Total Expenses Total Net Revenues Total to City
2012 $863,725 $750,649 $1l3,077 $113,077
2013 $886,490 $777,496 $108,994 $108,994
2014 $932,466 $807,648 $124,818 $124,818
2015 $1,002,289 $841,206 $161,083 $161,083
2016 $1,027,896 $871 406 $156,490 $156490
2017 $1,054,528 $902,814 $151,714 $151,714
2018 $2,243,565 $1,259,629 $983,936 $737,952
2019 $2,291 529 $1,310,014 $981,515 $736,136
2020 $2,376,898 $1,362,415 $1,014,484 $760,863
2021 $2,428,776 $1,416,911 $1,01l,865 $758,899
2022 $2,519,635 $1,473588 $1,046,048 $784,536
2023 $2,575,746 $1,532,531 $1,043,215 $782,411
2024 $2,672,484 $1,593,832 $1,078,652 $808,989
2025 $2,733,174 $1,657,586 $1,075,588 $806,691
2026 $2,836,209 $1,723,889 $1,112,320 $834,240
2027 $2,901,851 $1,792,845 $1,109,006 $831,755
2028 $3,01l,633 $1,864,559 $1,147,074 $860,306
2028 $3,082,631 $1,939,141 $1,143,491 $857,618
2030 $3,199,645 $2,016,706 $1,182,938 $887,204
2031 $3,276,437 $2,097,375 $1,179,062 $884,296
2032 $3,401,202 $2,181,270 $1,219,932 $914,949
2033 $3,484,260 $2,268,521 $1,215,740 $911,805
2034 $3,617,339 $2,359,261 $1,258,077 $943,558
2035 $3,707,174 $2,453,632 $1,253,542 $940,157
2036 $3,849,169 $2,551,777 $1,297,392 $973,044
2037 $3,946,335 $2,653,848 $1,292,487 $969,365
6.4 Accounting/Funding Overview
A fund is a group of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that
have been segregated for specifiC activities or objectives. The two main categories of funds that
municipalities use are Governmental Funds and Proprietary Funds. The governmental fund
category includes the general fund, special revenue funds, capital projects funds, debt service
funds and permanent funds. The proprietary fund category includes enterprise and internal
service funds.
IMI R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 60
Palo Alto Airport
DI'a/1 BUS/lless Pian February 2010
The focus of this section is on enterprise funds and how they differ from general funds,
since that is the type required for the Airport. In this regard, an enterprise fund is used to
account for a business-like activity within a government, while the general fund is the primary
operating fund of a governmental unit.
General Fund
The general fund is the primary governmental fund type. Government Accounting
Standards Board (GASB) Codification, Section 1300.104a states that the purpose of a general
fund is "to account for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in
another fund." In most governments, the general fund is a very active fund and can become quite
complex due to the range of activities, such as administration of the vat'ious branches of
government. General funds have all the characteristics of governmental funds. Revenues are
generally recognized when measurable and available. Expenditures are recognized when the
liability is incurred.
A governmental entity can have only one general fund for financial reporting purposes. If
several such funds exist, they are usually combined into one fund for financial reporting
purposes, as long as they are all part of the general government. Most general funds arc required
by statute to have a budget approved by the legislative body. The approved budget sets the nature
and scope of financial operations by setting amounts for sources of revenues and for purposes of
expenditures and provides the legal authorization for expenditures.
Enterprise Fund
Enterpl'ise funds arc used to account for the acquisition, operation and maintenance of
governmental facilities and services that are entirely or predominantly self-supporting by user
charges. The operations of enterprise funds are accounted for in such a manner as to show a
profit or loss similar to comparable private enterprises. Enterprise funds are created as a means
to ensure that no tax dollars go towards providing for the annual operating cost and future capital
improvements of the activity that is operated as such. Communities who accept this general law
statute do so with the intent that user fees will be set at appropriate levels to cover the activity'S
operating cost and capital improvements. The theory behind this practice is that the users ofthese
services should pay for all costs, as they are the ones who use it.
Enterprise funds are no longer solely used to account for governmental activities that are
like commercial activities. As defined by GASB 34, enterprise funds may be used to report any
activity for which a fee is charged to external users for goods and services. The need for an
enterprise fund is triggered if anyone of the following criteria is met.
• The activity is financed with debt that is secured solely by a pledge of the net revenues
from fees and charges of the activity. Debt that is secured by a pledge of net revenues
from fees and cha!'ges and the full faith and credit of a related primary government or
component unit -even if that government is not expected to make any payments -is not
payable solely from fees and charges of the activity. (Some debt may be secured, in part,
R.A. Wledelll(1II11 & Associates, Illc. 61
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Bllsilless Pial! February 2010
by a portion of its own proceeds but should be considered as payable "solely" from the
revenues of the activity.)
• Laws or regulations require that the activity's costs of providing services, including
capital costs (such as depreciation or debt service), be recovered with fees and charges,
rather than with taxes or similar revenues.
• The pricing policies of the activity establish fees and charges designed to recover its
costs, including capital costs.
State unemployment compensation funds, turnpike authorities, lotteries, airports, and
public colleges and universities are examples of activities that may be accounted for as enterprise
funds. Once it is determined that an activity should be accounted for in an enterprise fund, a
separate fund should be established tor each distinct service provided by the governmental unit.
Separate accounting entities facilitate tbe measurement of costs incurred to dcliver each service.
Segment information disclosure may also be required for enterprise funds.
Some communities have actually established enterprise fund operations that are not self
supporting and are supported by taxes to a certain degree. This mainly happens when fees are sct
too low and revenues taken in do not cover operating expenses andlor capital improvements.
Conversely, some communities opt not to establish enterprise funds and aHow any surplus
generated to be added to its general fund surplus and used to fund other operations not associated
with the activity. This practice is not permitted at airports that have grant assurance covenants
with the FAA because of its ban on revenue diversion (see Section 5.4).
If the City decides to operate the Airport, an enterprise fund would be used to account for
Airport revenues and expenditures. By law, an "enterprise" fund is self-sustaining, meaning tbat
all expenditures must be directly related to tbe operation, maintenance, repair, and management
of the City's Airport. Revenues to the Airport enterprise fund would be kept separate from other
municipal funds and lIses and cannot be co-mingled with funds for any other activities.
Internal Service Fund
An internal service fund is created to provide goods or services to other funds,
departments or agencies of the primary government and its component units, or to otber
governments, on a cost-reimbursement basis. For PAO, services provided to the Airport
enterprise fund from other units of City government would be reimbursed on a cost basis. Thus,
if mowing of Airport property is provided by the Open Space and Parks Division, a
reimbursement to tbat Division would be made from tbe Airport Enterprise Fund and charged to
the Aviation Services account.
'Mr R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Ilic. 62
Palo Allo Airport
Draft Business Plall
6.5 Feasibility of Management Options Summary
February 2010
Revenue surpluses over the entire forecast period are estimated to total $13,549,200 for
the City Management Option and $17,800,900 for the Third Party Management Option. It
should be noted that all of these revenue surpluses must be reinvested in the Airport according to
FAA revenue diversion policy directives. That is, after paying all expenses, the City cannot use
surplus revenues to invest in non-Airport activities. It should also be noted that the current FAA
regulations permit recovery of costs up to six years previous. Thus, if surplus revenues are
generated under the City Management Option in year 2018, the City is permitted to recover
losses back to year 2012. Given this policy both options appear feasible. The City Management
Option would require an ability to absorb roughly $130,000 in losses for the first six years of
operation, followed by repayment and revenue surplnses from that point forward. It is believed
that the Third Party Management Option wonld be self-supporting from its inception.
1KI R.A. Wiedemllllll & Associates, lI.e. 63
Appendix A:
Detailed Survey Results
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan
Appendix A -Survey of Airport Users
February 2010
In early April, 2009, an Airport User Survey was developed and mailed to aircraft owners
that based their aircraft at Palo Alto Airport (Figure A·I). Approximately 500 surveys were
distributed. Prior to this mailing, the Airport User Survey was launched via www.Zoomerang.eom
so that respondents could either complete and mail in the surveyor complete it online. The online
survey was administered via web link from the home page of the City of Palo Alto website
(www.cityofpaloalto.org). Surveys were requested to be returned by May I". During this period,
a total of 145 visits werc recorded on www.Zoomerang.com and 64 surveys were completed.
Additionally, 78 hard copy surveys were submitted, for a total of142 responses to the Airport User
Survey. A total ofl9 different cities and towns within California were represented in the responses.
AIRPORT USER SURVEY
1. Please list type of aircraft (specifY make & model)
A total of 129 based aircraft owners at Palo Alto Airport responded to this question. Aircraft
types included 148 single-engine aircraft and 9 multi-engine aircraft for a total of 157 aircraft (some
respondents owned multiple aircraft). Nine other user surveys were submitted by users that do not
base their aircraft at PAO. They represented an additional 9 single engine aircraft, to bring the total
number of aircraft represented to 166.
2-3. Please estimate the total allnuallevel of spending associated with your aircraft at your
home airport:
Using the cumulative totals for several expense categories, the average annual spending per
PAO based aircraft respondent included:
• $6,706 Annually for Fuel
• $5,999 for Maintenance
• $3,052 for Storage
• $2,350 for Aviation Related Taxes
• $2,276 for "Other."
• TOTAL = $20,893
Combining all averages from these categories results in an average annual aircraft spending of
$20,893 (fuel, maintenance, storage, aviation-related taxes, and other) for the 129 respondents to this
question. Total spending for the 129 respondents to this question equaled $3,280,135. Some
respondents did not specify annual spending breakdown by category as specified in the survey,
providing just total annual spending.
1M' R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. .4.}
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan
GITy,gpAUJ ALTO
Arn:f'lf(t f.collcmfc fMformatfcn
E~OJ1Omlc Impa~1 Afie6smeJ1! of
P410 Alto Airport
AIRPORT USER SURVEY
I. Ai!l"~: ______ ... ___ .. ~ ___ _
J. lI'i''''~ I!r """'"",(1/1; _~~ ___ ~_"""._ •• __ • __ ._ " _____ ~ " .. _~ __ ~_~'w~~._._.
A .. ", ,WNIO !II.thl.\I ... l1'h\1jl~lJIt~I'iQt1l«blH_lhln oi'cr,,',' r""" Mi1tOAiplIt
Iii. I.
1A.Wt'''''I\(! '-_~ _____ •
h"'<-!IIIiMIiIIiI~
"" lOll(
Pakl All" Airpol"l MtMty Informal/oft
1 .. __ -
.~~-,
'-------
SI"..,Sl .. ~ •• _. __ • Uot!U\I._ ... _.~'j; tlflff"', ___ "._~'It
6. ,*lk ... ~I"*t.llVli>AkIWp(i\t..ri1iwli''''"1''''Io ... '''IItW''f'\Va'I\O .. :'''",,~
fI«l'f~~~ _______ _
~;rt~ttIitTi4lMitli#r.mIHMtf«l;;'nM)WlII/(I't"'oM~l,nJII''\i'''II\Ittr,t\i;4flt\l'Ii'!ll.\lttl'i' -
o;{~~~«r\ll!l'
____ SIi\QOlI»t'l1l _III'I\ki:IIIJttM<F~ __ ._.f\<ijl-l!·kw~
____ 5Il!,"Co.I'tf~., . ____ t.4l1lil$,!~~""JI1II __ ~~F .. (t""lli':.tlfIIrIIl)
e...111j>l11'l'I: __ ~ __ ••••••••• _________ ,
Figure A-l -Airport User Survey
8flS!luus/Avfnrhm (fefrJt}()lI$h!ps
February 2010
---' f'¥X\6lI_~
"" --'" ,.. "'"
.~~.I\:t4~ ..... t<n~lMdl'MJtW~)o1N(m>lX4rrW$_
fo Rd,," 11>10 &owr. YCII!h, &»u IlllklIMMJ0W4l\t.1ot1o,l'Itkl@il'»IW. <1 ~. Q-..... ;.I
~~~ (::r\~I,IIIt.tA¥p:<I~lI'\'tYt.,.,
Tllrwk YOII For YCllr Re$j1cf/su
C-4y';P~~
A.;hIlni>t'lrt\ISIiM.'\1~'\"1i1l1
PD~IJl("J.I
Ptl<!JJI;),CA9.1»l
Alii ~WIIM
If the three flying clubs that responded were removed from the survey results (and the 23
aircraft that they represented in their answers) then the average annual spending at PAO per aircraft
is reduced to $18,462. Average breakdowns by eategory of expenditure for non-flying elub aircraft
were: $5,319 per year for fuel, $5,610 for maintenance, $3,195 for storage, $1,783 for aviation
related taxes and $1,957 for "other."
4-5. Estimated Yearly Takeoffs at Palo Alto Airport and expected changes in the future:
Survey responses indicated that 137 aircraft users accounted for an estimated 115,466 annual
operations (57,733 takeoffs). One of the flying clubs reported having 80,000 annual operations. If
all three flying clubs removed from the total, the 134 remaining respondents averaged 206 annual
operations for a total of 27,466 operations.
Of these respondents, 99 indicated that their activity would remain the same over the next
five years. Thirty respondents expocted to increase their activity by a total of 11,200 operations
over the next five years. Eleven respondents indicated that they expected their activity to decrease,
and four of these are leaving PAO all together. Three respondents said that they arc either going to
sell their aircraft or move due to high tie-down fees. The four respondents that stated that they were
1M' R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc, A-2
Palo Alto Airport
Business Plan
going to leave spent a combined $33,896 per year on their aircraft at PAO.
2010
6. Is there a pricing point at Palo Alto Airport that would cause you to relocate your aircraft
to a different airport?
One hundred and eighteen airpOit users responded to this question. Six respondents indicated
that there was not a pricing point that would cause them to move. The following is a sample of the
different types of responses:
Percent of Total
• If prices increase, may relocate aircraft,
business, or family 28.0%
• Must slay competitive with other airports 17.0%
• Have already reached pricing point/too high 11.1%
• If increase is greater than CPllinflation 11.0%
• Yes, there is pricing point, but unspecified 11.0%
• Will sell aircraft or already have 10.2%
• Unclear 5.9%
• Will not move -unaffected by pricing 5.1%
• Yes, but not near that level yet 5.1%
If several of these responses are combined, it hecomes clear that significant changes in pricing in
the future will cause the relocation of aircraft and in some cases cause businesses to move to other
areas. Additionally, fUlther price increases will cause some existing users to sell their aircraft (some
already have). When these categories are taken cumulatively, approximately 77.3 percent of
respondents indicated that either any increase at all, or any inerease that is significant (greater than
CPl/inflation or not competitive with other airports), will cause them to relocate their aircraft. Due
to the overwhelming response to this question, many responses are reprinted at the end of this
section verbatim.
7. If pricing or airport availability were to cause you to move your, aircraft. would you be
willing to actually base your aircraft at any ofthefollowing alternative airports?
Moffett Federal (if available in the future)
San Carlos Airport
Mineta San Jose International
Reid Hillview
Hayward
South County Airport
HalfMoon Bay Airport
Other (specify):
Percent of Total
36.9%
26.2%
I2.9%
9.4%
9.0%
3.0%
2,6%
There were I6 respondents that specified other airports. Three identified Livermore, two
,"r R.A. Wiedema"n & AssocIates, IIIC. A-3
Palo Allo Airport
Draft Business Plul! February 2010
identified Watsonville and the rest were various other facilities in other counties, cities, and states.
8. Please estimate the percentage use (Business/Personaf) of your aircraft?
A total of 135 Airport users responded to this question. The Airport users indicated that 66
percent used their aircraft for personal reasons, while 32 percent used their aircraft for business
reasons, and 2 percent flew for other reasons. If these responses are weighted by the number of
flights flown, 83.2 percent of the flight.~ were used for business reasons, while 16.4 percent offlights
were used for personal reasons and 0.4 percent of flights were flown for other reasons.
9. If possible, please explain the importance of the bu.~iness use of your aircraft to your
company or business
There were 90 responses to this question. Answers included the following general
categories:
% of Responses
• Aircraft is critical. No aircraft, no business 20.0%
• Important part of business, allows good service 29.9%
to existing clients and opens new markets
• Provides access to hard-to-reach places where 15.5%
driving is too time-intensive
• Use aireraft to commute to/from work weekly 10.0%
• Offers time savings and increased effectiveness 7.7%
for executives who travel a lot
• Aircraft offers cheaper, faster, more convenient 6.6%
transportation than commercial flights
• Other miscellaneous 11.3%
Taken cumulatively, almost 90 percent of respondents to this question said their aircraft ranges from
critical importance (110 aircraft, no business) to a cheaper, faster, and morc convenient mode than
commercial travel for business.
Summary of Airport User Survey Results
In summary, there were several key points expressed as a result of the survey of Palo Alto
Airport users:
• A total of $3,280,135 was spent by 129 Palo Alto Airport users on their aircraft in
2008.
Average annual spending pel' aircraft was estimated at $20,900.
• One hundred and thirty-seven aircraft users that reported an estimated 115,466
annual operations (57,733 takeoffs).
,", B.A. Wiedemtmn & Associates, Inc. A-4
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Bu"ille"" Plall February 2010
• Impact of price increases: Approximately 77 percent of respondents indicated that
either any increase at all, or any increase that is significant (greater than
CPI/inflation or not competitive with other airports). wi II cause them to relocate their
aircraft.
• The top three airports that based aircraft users would consider moving to are:
Moffet! Federal (if available in the future) 36.9%
San Carlos Airport 26.2%
Mineta San Jose International 12.9%
Business users indicated that they rely on the use of the Palo Alto Airport for:
• Convenience to their office facilities or commute to other office locations
• Conducting business at the airport.
• Providing aviation-related services which arc dependent on an airport location.
Comparing the results of this Airport user survey with those from the Palo Alto Airport
Association (PAAA) membership survey conducted in 1995, there are a couple of similarities.
These s imi/arities are:
• Terminal Facility/Services: The 1995 survey noted a need for a nice restaurant on
the airfield or within a block for pilots and to encourage fly-ins, in addition to better
restroom facilities. and enhanced services such as pilot's lounge with access to
weather information where pilot's could share operations and maintenance
information. Respondents to the 2009 Airport User Survey mentioned that the
existing restaurant is closed too often, that restroom facilities were inadequate, and
there is an overall lack of services offered at the Airport.
• Business Impacts of the Airport: The 1995 survey mentioned a number of facility
improvements that are necessary to support continued and effective business use,
such as: A WOS for night-time operations; ability to contact Bay Approach when the
A TCT is not manned; and, a full-service FBO to serve transients. Respondents to
the 2009 Airport User Survey reiterated how important pricing was, in terms of
supporting the economics of aircraft use for business purposes.
Detail of Question #6 -Pricing Point
During review of the responses to the Palo Alto Airport User Survey, it became clear that
pricing is a very important issue for users. Listed below are the responses to Question #6, 'Is there
a pricing point at Palo Alto Airport that would cause you to relocate yow aircraft to a difJerent
airport?' This verbatim listing provides insight into attitudes of airport tenants toward pricing
changes at the Airport.
I"' R.A, Wiedemalln&Associates.llle. A-5
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan February 2010
• Eventually the airplane is my primary commute vehicle and Palo Alto is the best location.
Palo Alto has to stay comparable to others.
• Yes would move to Palo Alto if hangar were available for $350 pel' month.
• Yes $ I 25/month for a tiedown is somewhat expensive. If this increases or their charges are
imposed, I would consider not using my plane for commuting to PAO.
• This airport is already more expensive than others. There are no hangars available at the
airports.
• Use fees for landing and taking off or much higher tie downs would lead me to consider
alternatives. Limited access to PAO would likely impact whether I do business in Palo Alto
or immediately surrounding area.
• Yes the hangars rental are very high and we may move to Oregon. State taxes are out of
control with the "use tax." Oregon does not have this.
• Yes, if the tie down fee increases beyond a reasonable amount.
• I currently pay $250 for my hangar in Jackson. It would be hard to justify paying more than
that for a tie-down in Palo Alto.
• Closeness to home is the best feature ofPAO.
• As a flight school we will move if the economic climate at PAO is 110t conducive to our
business.
• The point at which I lose money or decide the risk isn't worth the profit.
• Tie down expenses are killing us. Please do not raise them. Alternatively, we need a volume
discount.
• It's already so high that I think often about relocation.
• It is hard to provide a specific number, but ifthe tie-down or tax fees go up too much higher
than current levels I would either relocate the airplane or sell it. I do not tie the airplane
down at SJC, for example, because the fees are simply too high to be acceptable. I cannot
afford to pay for even the current hangar rent atPAO, for example, and tie down the airplane
in an attempt to maintain reasonable operating costs.
• My tie-down space is the single largest annual expense after maintenance. In the past 13
years I've had the plane at PAO, the cost has increased with the cost of living, which is fail'
enough, though expensive. However, if the cost were to be increased beyond the rate of
inflation--especially in these recessionary times--I would have to look for alternatives, either
relocating the plane or selling it.
• No. I am moving to the Lake Tahoe area later this year and will maintain a pali-time
residence in Palo Alto.
• Yes, but not sure what that point is. It depends on the options available. One option would
be to sell the plane. Very undesirable!
• There is no single factor (price point) that would cause us to move. I do not think current
prices are unreasonable. I wish you would spend more money on improving the airside
facilities and less on security fences.
• If hangar and fuel prices increase too much above nearby airports
• A further increase in tied own fees would likely push me to seriously consider moving the
plane to San Carlos Airport.
• Tiedown is already too expensive.
• Yes, though it also depends on pricing at neighboring airports such as San Carlos and Reid
~"r R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. A-6
Palo Alto Airport
Draft Business Plan
Hillview.
• Yes -very difficult.
February 2010
• Yes, The hanger prices are 3x that of other regional airports. I chose PAO because itis close
to home/work. I am considering moving the airplane.
• No.
• If tie-down rent went up any more, I was going to move to RHV. However, I just sold the
airplane.
• Yes. While Palo Alto is the most convenient for us, there are several alternatives that are
close enough to consider if the price difference is significant.
• If there was a substantial increase in storage and/or fuel costs, I would go to Moffett, if
available. The other airports mentioned don't make any sense.
• Palo Alto is already a profitable airport and the city profits in many ways from the general
aviation flights that are provided. Greed in the form of unwarranted fee increases would
cause me to seriously seek alternative location for my plane.
• If the tie down and other fees and charges increase to an unreasonable level.
• The other local choices are San Carlos, San Jose, and Hayward. San Carlos and Hayward
are slightly less expensive but farther away. San Jose is much more expensive and farther
away.
• I can drive to Hollister and keep the plane in a hanger for the same price as the increased
county outside tiedown rates. My new rate will be $30S/mo. I plan to move my airplane
outside of Santa Clara County.
• Fuel I can always buy somewhere else, but increased tiedown fees would drive me away at
about 10% more than I am paying now.
• If it became much more expensive than it currently is.
• Tie-down fees are important for me as that is a fixed monthly fee.
• Yes, I'm already there. I'm in the process of making arrangements to move my airplane to
either SQL (where I have a hangar with another airplane), Hayward, or Reid-Hillview.
• I'm close to it now, but ifSJC and Moffett remain GA non-options, I'll probably just sell the
plane rather than relocate it. Relocating anywhere else would make flying inconvenient
enough that I probably wouldn't fly enough to warrant keeping a plane.
• I'm losing money now renting the plane through West Valley Flying Club so any significant
increase might tip me to sell it.
• Hangars are way too expensive, when compared to other counties. lOOLL fuel is also too
expensive. Why is it so much cheaper at, say, Tracy or HalfMoon Bay or Gustine? You're
losing my fuel business by pricing it so high. Knocking about 10-20 cents per gallon off
would dramatically increase business.
• I had no idea that I was spending this much, annually, on my airplane. This simple exercise,
for the sake of responding to this survey, gives me pause as it is. Any meaningful price
increase will see me retiring from flight.
• I don't know.
• Will move if price increases.
• There probably is, but I do not have a specific price point in mind at the moment.
• Yes. Don't know at what point I would move.
• Remaining married is fundamentally incompatible with further increases in hangar rent, and
,~, R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. A-7
Palo Alto Airport
Drilft Business Plan February 2010
my hangar is dominant in cost of my aircraft ownership. We are not wealthy, and this
expense isa point offriction at home. If the cost were to rise substantially, I would be forced
to sell this aircraft that I built myself and is the fulfillment of my life's dream.
• Any landing fees will cause me to relocate. Any more rent increases may also mean that the
aircraft needs to be relocated.
• Have not thought about it that way.
• Not really. I live in San Francisco and choose to keep my plane because of the tower,
maintenance facilities and tie·down cost.
• Yes ... not sure.
• Tie down costs above $175.
• No .• I would sell the airplane.
• No.
• Yes. High storage and fuel costs drive away owners, particularly where business expenses
aren't suppolting costs.
• I am currently a renter of aircraft based in Palo Alto. Palo Alto Airport rental pricing I
believe is on the high end of the range in the Bay Area already. However, I would accept a
modest increase in fees rather than closure of the airport.
• Very near my limit now. Reid·Hillview is slightly farther to drive, and historically
maintained my plane (annual = thousands/yr, $13k last year includes an incident repair).
Longer runways and drier environment.
• That "point" was reached in summer of 2007. Losses were extreme· had to sell my
airplanes at the rate of I per year (IRS limit). Two sold in 2008 & 2009 . third going next
year.
• Storage fees would have to be $100 more per month than nearby airports to make us
relocate.
• Of course! I own 3 aircraft and I have already moved 2 of them to places like Watsonville
and Central California. We fly because we love flying not necessarily afford it. When family
financial pressures overcome the joy we find other alternatives. Everyone flies
commercially. Where do we think these pilots come from? I have two sons less than 25 and
they are both pilots. Why? The familiarity is passed down from generation to generation.
PAO should embrace flying and look for Fed Gov support as well. Flying is a contribution
to our nation· a precious resource. We need to recognize that. I have been at PAO for over
25 years . in the nineties I moved to San Carlos for two years because pricing became
outrageous.
• Hard to answer •• pricing point for hangar/tie·down? For fuel? For maintenance? Or a
combo of the above? The answer is YES, but I'm not sure how to quantify it.
• It is very close to that point now. I am considering a move to San Carlos due to prices and
the extreme neglect that the county is showing to PAO. Runways are degenerating,
increasing wear on the aircraft. We pay more for less than any other airport. Additionally,
unused space on the airpOli needs to be developed for more hangars· which would also
increase revenue for the city/county.
• We are already at the limit of hangar cost. Would consider moving to tie down if hangar
costs increase. Another issue is the decline of services at Palo Alto Airport.
• Yes. Aviation is already too expensive and each cost increment pushes me closer to selling
,", R.A. Wiedemann & Associate:~, Inc. A·8
Palo 04110 Airport
Business Plan
the airplane.
FebrualY 2010
• Yes, iftiedown/storage costs were to escalate from their current level or local fuel taxes were
to make Palo Alto uneconomic to refuel.
• Yes but depends on pricing at other local airports.
• If you can't afford to stay you will be forced to move.
• A very small amount ok, but very large, no. Pricing very high now. If you have a pricing
problem give the Airport to San Mateo County.
• Reduce fuel cost, current providers have monopoly contracts. Build more hangars to
increase revenue.
• Yes if affordable hangar space became available. Yes if the tie down fees increased
disproportionately or if I can't get the maintenance and services that I need.
• Yes overall expense currently high relative to use.
• You are very close to my limit.
• Yes if rent, fuel, operation fees, storage fees as well as use friendliness became untenable,
we would move to a more user friendly airport.
• Difficult to say, but 8 percent is very steep.
• No.
• More than San Carlos, or reduction in service.
• If significantly more overpriced than San Jose or Reid Hillview we would move. However
we like it here.
• Obviously. Is this some sort of make work project for bureaucrats? This has been done
multiple times for decades since I have been at PAO.
• No-Location is important for business purposes.
• Yes. I am basically fixed income, and ifI can't fit aircraft ownership into my budget, I will
sell the aircraft (which would likely move it away from Palo Alto).
• It's getting close to my limit now.
• Yes. The prices are considerably higher than the rest of California.
• At this point no. The only real variable is the tie-down. It would be cheaper anywhere else
but at this point is not offset by the convenience. I am considering a move to get a hangar
in spite oftne convenience factor.
• Taxes and parking fees are very high. Ifthey increase more then the cost of living I will sell
or move.
• Possibly; convenience is worth about 10 -20 percent at the moment.
• Yes, if parking and fees exceed fair market value for the bay area.
• Could consider relocating if storage and other use taxes were increased by 10-20 percent
over other nearby airports.
• The tie down fee, changed by the count at this time is excessive and to go up even further
(8% each year) it is out of line with surrounding airports. Probably >$150 per month
tiedown would make me move.
• Yes, if tie-downs exceeded San Carlos significantly, I'll relocate to San Carlos.
• I don't have another choice since I have a hangar at PAO.
• No. When I can't afford it, will sell plane and stop flying
• If fees increase to much I may move to nangar equipment in Hayward since turbine
operations are permitted there.
'Nr R.A. Wiedemann & Associales, Inc. A-9
Palo Alto Ai/port
Draft Business Plan February 2010
• The $120.50 is substantial compared to other airfields. A full hangar can be gained for that
elsewhere.
• This is a difficult question. Of course there always is a price that would cause me to move
but we are a long way from that price.
• If! gave a price point, I might be charged that much. Palo Airport users already pay much
more than other airports in the area. It should be $ I 00 per month or less.
• No-within reason.
• Palo Alto has relatively poor asphalt surfaces, a lot of potential conflicts with birds and a
regular cross-wind. If tiedown prices are raised too high the convenience of having my
aircraft close will be outweighed by costs.
• Of course but I don't know what it is off hand.
• Palo Alto is relatively most convenient for me than Reid Hillview. I'm willing to pay a small
premium for this convenience maybe 10 or 15 percent.
• Flying is a hobby for me now, and an expensive one so I am looking to manage expenses
where I can.
• Any increase in costs at Palo Alto compared to costs and another local airport.
• Although the airport management does a good job, it has always (last 25 years personal
knowledge) seemed that the city doesn't appreciated the asset that the airport represents. If
some of the proposed improvements were made (i.e. new terminal, shade hangars, etc., we
would be willing to accept a raise in price.
• Hayward is closer and cheaper and offers better services even a maintenance stall for
owners. I can get a hangar for $2 I 4 per month.
• The parking/tiedown fee is one of the highest. If it is to be increased by 10 percent I would
have to rethink about relocating.
• Hangar pricing is the big factor for me. It will either come down or I will relocated
• Definitely and it is approaching that pricing point now. $129.50 per month is simply far too
much to pay and is higher than any other airport far and wide San Carlos-San Carlos tie
down rates are S20 cheaper per month than Palo Alto's. I was/previously at San Carlos and
would go back.
• The price point has been reached. Parking at Livermore is $75 per month. Palo Alto is
$129.50 per month. A few years ago there was a 2 year parking spot wait list. Now there
are 30 to 40 empty spaces.
• If the fees at Palo alto were to be greater than other airports by a significant amount I would
definitely relocated.
• Any increase in cost that is greater than the current CPI makes me increasingly considering
moving. That said Palo Alto Airport is essential for the conduct of my business and my
transp0l1ation.
• Over $200 per month and property tax would get me to ask "is it w0l1h it" to feed the
financial wants wishes of Palo Alto.
• Palo Alto Aero is an intermediary. We should pay the county and city not a private company
for hangars.
• My aircraft is currently hangared. Because of that, it looks like new and most owners of new
aircraft would be happy to pay fair market rent for hangar space. Other than that no.
• Probably there is, but it would depend on the alternative airports pricing.
'Mr R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, [lie. A-10
Palo Allo Airport
Draft Business Plan
• Convenient to home.
• If costs grew by 1 .5x I would sell my plane.
• It's too expensive now.
February 2010
• An increase in tic-down cost move to South County or Byron. Fuel at PAO is higher than
most others.
• Yes if the tie-down fees were raised too much then it would be worth my time and move to
a nearby field.
• Yes, we are pretty much there. Any significant increases.
• Yes you have already passed it my airplane is for sale.
• Yes rates are high as is. Overall price of flying is increasing while my income has
dramatically decreased.
• Any increase over inflation would have me move to Half Moon Bay
• Not sure.
• Yes. Other locations within 20 miles are cheaper.
~~r R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. A.ll
Appendix B:
Airport Community Value
Pulo AUo Airport
Business Plan -Airport Contntll'2n""ity,-,-~::al=-ue,,-________________ ..:F,..:e:::br:.:u::a;,,;ry..:2:,:0:.:1::..0
Palo Alto Airport Business Plan
Airport Community Value
1. INTRODUCTION
I N RECENT YEARS, THE VALUE OF AIRPORTS has come under closer examination from both
govemment officials and the general public. In many communities, this has resulted in
higher expectations of financial performance and economic benefits. Measuring this
performance and some type of return on investment is critical to the argument for future capital
improvement projects. For Palo Alto, the value of the Airport to the community may be
important in the decision-making process surrounding the early "re-acquisition" of the Airport
from County management and control. Therefore, the determination ofPAO's economic impact
and contribution to the local economy is the first half of this work. The other half of the equation
is the determination of the asset value of the Airport, so as to equip decision makers with
information about the City's capital investment at the Airport.
When examining the economic health and well-being of a business, it is customary to
examine both the income statement and the balance sheet Similarly, the Airport Community
Value (ACV) measurement examines the "income statement" (as measured by the IMPLAN
economic modeling) and the "balance sheet" (as measured by the depreciated or useful life value
of PAO assets). Previous economic impact studies have focused only on the "income" side of an
airports economic value. The existing value of airport facilities should also be included in the
airport's economic impact. This would take the form of an estimate of replacement costs or
existing facility wOlih (including useful life depreciated values of facilities). With a baseline
value sueh as this, measurement of the total value of an airport is possible.
Given these analytical needs, this report is organized to include the following sections:
• Economic Activity Generated by PAO
• Existing Value of Airport Property and Facilities
• Summary of Airport Community Value
IMI R.A. Wiedemann & Assoc/ates, Inc. B-1
Pilla Alto AIrport
Bltslness Pial! -Airport Community Value F eoruary 2010
2. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY GENERA TED BY PAO
THIS SECflON PRESENTS THE METHOD AND FINDINGS used in measuring the economic
activity of PAO. In this regard, the economic activity can be measured by estimating the
number of direct jobs, income, and output at the Airport. In addition, there is a ripple
effect of these jobs and income on the community. Just as the nation is experiencing a negative
multiplier effect of job cutbacks, individual communities experience similar processes -both
positive and negative -only at a smaller scale.
2.1 The Multiplier or Ripple Effect
Previous economic impact studies show the multiplied effect of spending money on an
enterprise. As an example, if a new firm comes into an area and employs 50 people and also
purchases some local goods and services, the economic impact is attributable to the company's
direct outlays plus the respending of these outlays by firms supplying goods and services to the
new film. There are generally two types of ripple effects: (I) those associated with firm-to-firm
transactions, and (2) those derived from the wages and salaries allocated to employees in these
firms. The wages and salaries paid to the 50 new employees are spent and respent several times
within the community. Retail establishments that have nothing to do with the nature of the new
firm's business are affected by its presence as the new employees spend their income on clothes,
automobiles, restaurant meals and so forth. Thus, for every dollar of new wages and salaries, an
additional '25 to 75 cents of income might be generated elsewhere in the area. As supplier
companies providing inputs to the new firm expand their own production and allocate more
resources to wages and salaries, a further consumption-generated ripple effect occurs.
When all the effects are taken in the aggregate, a new job often generates the equivalent
of another job (summed up over many partial jobs in different parts of the area's economy) if the
community is large and has a sophisticated consumer I'etail base. In smaller communities, a new
job can generate between one-third and two-thirds additional jobs. Ripple or multiplier effects
work in both a positive way (when a new airpOlt is built or an existing airport expands) and in a
negative manner (when an enterprise goes out of business or an airport closes). For example, the
closure of a military base has a much greater economic impaCt than simply the loss of direct
employment or expenditures at the facility.
Numerous studies have been conducted to establish respending multipliers for various
geographic areas and segments of the economy. Sector-specific, input-output multipliers are
usually developed to estimate the respending impacts of wages and salaries and other related
expenditures. For impacts relating to airport employment, construction, and local business use,
multipliers from a number of different sectors are used.
2.2 IMPLAN Modeling
Typically, economic impact models are used to describe the flow of money from one
economic sector to another. In the past, models such as the Regional Input-Output Modeling
System (RIMS II) and the U.S Corps of Engineers Economic Impact Forecasting System (EIFS)
were used to measure the impacts of direct spending on an area. In recent years, more complex
R.A. Wietlemi/nn & Associates, fllc. B-2
PI/Io Alto Airport
BUJineJs Plan -Ailport Community Value February 2010
models have been developed, including IMPLAN and Regional Economic Modeling, Inc,
(REMI), which have the ability to estimate tax revenue impacts. In all of these models, the
inputs of direct jobs and direct spending are critical to the economic impact measurement
process. The models trace sector-to-sector impacts and estimate the proportion of any change
that is likely to circulate within the economy and the percentage that can be expected to "leak"
out to other geographic regions.
The models are based on input-output tables produced by the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Input-output modeling takes into account the
dependency of each economic sector on every other sector (there are 500 sectors recorded in the
BEA input-output tables). Using these models, the BEA input-output tables are adjusted to take
into account the structure of the local economy under study. For example, in calculating a
manufacturing multiplier for one county, over 300 sectors can be involved. Each of their
contributions to the multiplier is weighted by the size of the sector in terms of output. In
addition, the IMPLAN databases are composed of the following components:
• Employment;
• Industry Output;
• Value Added:
-Employee Compensation;
-Proprietary Income;
-Other Property Type Income;
-Indirect Business Taxes;
• Institutional Demands;
• Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) -three income levels;
• Federal Government Military and Non-Military Purchases;
• State and Local Government Education and Non-Education Purchases;
• Commodity Credit Corporation;
• Inventory Purchases;
• Capital Formation;
• Foreign Exports;
• Federal, State and Local Government Sales; and,
• Inventory Sales.
For this study, the IMPLAN methodology for measuring the ripple effect of spending and
economic activity at PAO was used. This method is more useful than older methods in
generating both the economic impacts and the tax accounting aspects of the Airport activity.
Desired outputs of the IMPLAN modeling include the following:
• Direct Spending: Includes on-airpolt spending on employment, operations, and
capital projects. It also includes off-airpOlt spending by air travelers for rental
cars, hotels, restaurants, etc. Thus, direct spending is associated with both the
providers and the users of airport services.
• Induced Benefits (Multiplier Effect): Impacts above the qriginal direct spending
created by the successive rounds of spending in the local economy until the
original direct dollar impact has been incrementally expOlted from the local area.
1MI R.A. Wiedeman" & Associates, Illc. B-3
Palo Alto Airporl
Business Plan -Airport Community Value February 2010
• Jobs and Income: Quantify the income generated by aviation and the number of
jobs supported by the Airport.
• Total Output in Dollars: The combined impacts of direct and induced spending.
• Taxes: Tax revenue contribution of the aviation industry to local and State units
of government in California.
These five components of the Airport's value were assessed as a' part of the airport activity
(IMPLAN) pOltion of the analysis, and represent the "income statement" for PAO.
2.3 Survey Data
Surveys of airport users and employers were conducted and documented in an earlier
interim report of this Business Plan. Results of those surveys are useful as inputs to the
IMPLAN model. Key findings from the surveys included the following:
• A total of$3,280,135 was spent by 129 Palo Alto Airport users on their aircraft in
2008.
• Average annual spending per aircraft was estimated at $20,900.
• A total of 77 full-time employees and 140 part-time employees were identified as
direct aviation-related at the Airport.
Of these, 20 full:time and 114 part-time jobs involved flight training
operations at the Airport.
The surveys did not estimate the number of employees working for construction companies
doing capital improvement work at the Airport. They also did not include any employment
generated off the Airpolt (hotels, restaurants, rental cars, etc.) by visitors to the area that use the
Airport. These jobs are estimated by the IMPLAN model, based upon expenditure data for these
activities.
2.4 Other IMPLAN Input Data
The determination of PAO's economic impact focuses on the value of the Airport and
how money spent there impacts other sectors of the local economy until the original expenditure
ultimately leaves the area. While the asset value of the Airport is estimated in a later section, the
estimate of expenditure impacts is described in this section. To accomplish this, the analysis
utilized IMPLAN and the following methodology:
IMPLAN Model Inputs
• Input Data on Direct Impacts
Oncairport expenditures by Users (estimated via survey averages)
On-airport expenditures by the County and Employers (employment,
operations, and capital projects)
Off-airport spending by Ail' Travelers (rental cars, hotels, restaurants, etc.)
IMPLAN Model Outputs
• Direct and Induced Economic Impacts
1M' R.A. Wiedemann & Assoclales, Illc. B-4
Palo Allo Airporl
Business Plan -Airporl Community Value February 2010
• State and Local Tax Impacts
This section concludes with a summary of direct, induced, and State and local tax impacts
generated by Palo Alto Airport. Additionally, non-monetary impacts of the Airport and local
aviation in general are discussed.
On-Airport Spending
On-airport spending includes three primary categories: I) the County as Airport Operator,
2) other on-airport employers, and 3) airport users. In this regard, expenditures are used for
administration, maintenance, wholesale fuel purchases, employment, and capital improvements.
Much of this information is included in the Airport Business Plan. There are 2.6 full, time
equivalent employees working as County employees at the Airport. Operating expenses for 2008
totaled $714,500 (from County budget information). That did not include capital improvement
expenditures. Since these vary from year to year, an average of the ten year Airport Capital
Improvement Plan (2009-2019) was used to estimate this historical expenditure. That average
worked out to $492,000 per year. Most of this money is anticipated to come from FAA grants to
the Airport. Total Airport Operator spending was estimated to average $1,206,500 annually.
In addition to the Airport Sponsor, on-airport spending comes from other on-airport
employers. A census of on-airport businesses (in addition to the County's employees) revealed
that there are 75 full time equivalent employees and 139 patt time employees. From the survey
of airp0l1 users, it was estimated that each based aircraft user spends an average of roughly
$20,900 annually on their aircraft activity. A pOltion of this money goes to on-airport
businesses. Given a total of 472 based aircraft, an estimate of $9,865,000 in direct spending was
calculated.
In summary, on-airport spending fmm each of the sources quantified in this analysis
totaled $11.07 million for 2008. This total was included as an input to the IMPLAN model along
with the off-airport visitor spending described in the next section.
Off-Airport Visitor Spending
Every year, air visitors to Palo Alto and the San Francisco Bay area arrive using Palo
Alto Airport. These visitors spend money for rental cars, hotels, and restaurants during their
trips and that spending can be attributed to their use of PAO. To estimate visitor spending,
itinerant visitor trips were mUltiplied times the amount spent per trip.
A method for determining spending by visitors using Palo Alto Airport was developed
based on a per-visitor spending estimate. Essentially, this method first estimates the number of
visitors to an airport. Then, an estimated average expenditure per visitor is applied to the total
number of visitors, quantifying total visitor spending. To estimate the number of general aviation
visitors to PAO, it was assumed that only the actual transient pilots and passengers would be
counted as visitors. General aviation surveys have estimated that the average occupancy of
,~, B.A. Wiedeman/! & Associales, Inc. B-5
Palo Allo Airport
Business Plun -Airport Community Value February 2010
general aviation aircraft is roughly 2.5 passengers per flightl. Since transient (itinerant)
operations can contain significant numbers of local residents (leaving and coming hack to the
Airport), only a portion of the itinerant operations could be counted as actual visitors.
Discussions with airport FBOs indicated that roughly 10 percent of total itinerant passengers
could be considered overnight visitors to the Palo Alto area. The method of estimation is as
follows:
• Itinerant Arrivals = Itinerant Operations/2
(67,432/2 = 33,716 Itinerant Arrivals)
• Visitors 0.10 times Itinerant Arrivals times 2.5
(0.10 x 33,716 x 2.5 = 8,429)
Information taken from n:K. Shimet & Associates, Ltd., California 2008 Data Tables,
Prepared for California Travel & Tourism Commission2 indicated an average visitor direct
spending of $443 per trip in the San Francisco Bay area. lbis amount includes expenditures by
visitors who spend money at local hotels, restaurants, travel agencies, and other businesses
during thcir trips. This estimate was multiplied by the estimated number of air visitors to Palo
Alto Airport. Using this method, it was estimated that $3,734,000 was expended by visitors using
the AirpOlt in 2008.
2.5 Application of Regional Multipliers
Induced economic impacts are the multiplied effects of the direct spending impacts.
Induced impacts are created by the successive rounds of spending in the local economy until the
original direct impact has been incrementally exported from the local area. '{bus, the economic
impacts of aviation can be felt in parts of Palo Alto's economy that are far removed from
aviation. Regions that are more economically sclf-sufficient have higher responding
"multipliers" than do regions that are more dependent on regional imports since Icss of the
money is siphoned out of the community for goods and services.
For this study, IMPLAN software was selected as the best input-output model for
developing respending multipliers. IMPLAN, developed originally by the U.s. Forest Service, is
a comprehensive impact system that is built on a framework of input-output accounting
methodology. Since IMPLAN provides a comprehensive system, it is possible to trace impacts
of change in one sector on other sectors in a more detailed fashion.
To use the IMPLAN model, the economic impact methodology first identified the direct
spending and employment at Palo Alto Airport created by the operation, maintenance, and
capital improvement of the facility. To this was added the direct spending of air visitors at off
airport sites such as hotels and restaurants. Armed with this information, regional respending
multipliers derived from IMPLAN software were applied to the data to determine the multiplied
I Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA) estimate, 2004.
2 Source: !:l.WrlilQJ1lli1!L..yjsitcaliforni<Lcom/mcdialupIQtI(li:ttJIesie4itodRcscnrehl2008 CalifQfIlia Dlitn Tables ':
..fl!IlLIC YERSION.pdf
R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. B-6
Palo Alto Airport
Business Plan -Airport Community Value February 2010
impacts of direct spending (called induced impacts). Table 1 presents a summary of Palo Alto
Airport's direct and induced economic impacts, as taken from Addendum A.
Table 1 -Direct and Induced Economic Impacts: Palo Alto Airport
ITEM AMOUNT
Direct Impacts
Airport-related Income· (a) $14,407,000
On and Off-Airport Expenditures (Total including $42,341,100
capital costs) (b)
Airport-related Employment (Total) (c) 183
Induced Impacts
Induced Income Impacts (d) $8,001,900
Induced Direct Impacts (e) $21,979,900
Total Induced Employment Impacts (f) 124
Grand Total Dollar Impacts (b+e) $64,321,000
Grand Total Income Impacts* (a+d) $22,409,000
Grand Total Employment Impacts (c+f) 307
• . . . . Includes mdlroot moomes from VISitor spendlllg and capital deveiopment, ThiS IS It s\lbset of the total Impacts ahd IS already
included in the output number.
As shown in Table 1, the operation of the Palo Alto Airport produces roughly $22.4
million in incomes, $64.3 million in lotal output, and it sustains 307 jobs.
State and Local Tax Impacts
When discussing economic impacts of aviation, many people arc interested in the
collective benefits to the local municipalities and the State of California. One mcasure of the
collective local benefits involves the level oftaxcs paid to these local governmental units. These
tax impacts were estimated by the IMPLAN model for expenditures at the Slate and local level.
Estimated State and local lax impacts from aviation activity for Palo Alto Airport totaled
$3,725,600.
In addition to these tax revenues, local jurisdictions collect taxes on the personal property
value of aircraft based at their airports along with possessory interest tax on the land used by
aircraft owners for storage of aircraft. Both, the aircraft personal property taxes and the
possessory interest taxes are distributed as follows: I) One third to the city in which the airport is
situated; 2) One third to any local school district; 3) One third to the county general fund. If the
'M' R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. B-7
Palo Alto Airport
Buslnes>' Plan -Airport Community Value February 2010
airport is not within a city, the full amount is divided between the local school district and the
county. None of this tax revenue is kept for use on an airport. For the Ci7 of Palo Alto, the
reported personal property tax collections totaled $222,533 in FY 2008-2009 . Because the City
only receives one third of the total tax co Hected, this indicates that total local personal property
taxes generated by the Airport amounted to $667,600 this past year. The possessory interest tax
collections have totalcdncar $100,000 per year on the Airport. The combined property tax and
possessory interest local tax generation of roughly $765,000 is a subset of the total estimate of
$3,725,600 forthe entire Airpot't.
2.6 Summary of Impact Analysis
As shown in Table 1, Palo Alto Airport SIlPPOrts 307 jobs and $64.3 million in annual
economic impact. The Airport generates over $3.7 million in State and local taxes and provides
incomes of roughly $22.4 million to area residents. Addendum A presents a detailed summary
of the IMP LAN economic impact respcnding process, by economic sector.
j Source: Phone conversation with Tarun Narayan with City ofP.lo Alto 08119109.
1M'R.A. Wledemonn & Associates, Inc. B-8
Palo Alto A/rport
Business Plan -Airporl Community Value February 2010
3. EXISTING VALUE OF AIRPORT PROPERTY AND FACILITIES
T wo ESTIMATES OF EXISTING AIRPORT VALUES ARE helpful in describing the overall Airport
Community Value. The first value of an existing airport is the replacement cost of the
facility. While this is not the current value of the facility due to depreciation of assets, it
gives an idea of the resources needed to replicate the facilities at the local airport. The Airport
replacement value can be estimated by multiplying unit costs of construction times the existing
quantities of facilities to derive an approximate infrastructure investment total. Land values are
added to the facility development costs, yielding a total replacement value. Not included in this
mix are the potential difficulties of actually replacing the airport due to environmental issues,
land use constraints, and property availability.
A second impO!tant descriptor in the ACV involves the "depreciated" or "useful life"
value of the existing airport facilities. In this regard, careful records have been kept by the City
regarding the depreciated value of the Airport assets. These are described in the following
sections.
3.1 Airport Replacement Value
When considering the value of an airport, its economic impact is usually identified, but
rarely are the assets identified or valued. At Palo Alto Airport, a significant value of the facility
is related to its replacement value and current asset worth. The replacement value of Palo Alto
Airport is an estimate of the construction value of the individual facilities at the Airport. This
estimate uses the dimensions of the major assets, multiplied by the unit costs of construction to
obtain an approximate total value for the cost of the ail'pOit. Table 2 shows the estimation of
those costs, not including the value of the property on which the current airport is located.
The property value was not included since there is a wide range of methods and
assumptions that could be used in this determination. In this regard, there is not another I03-acre
parcel in the area upon which to base a comparative estimate. Rather, building lots in Palo Alto
for single homes can average from $1.0 to $1.5 million for less than 10,000 square feet of land.
The larger the parcel is, generally the lower the per-square-foot cost. Thus, a parcel with
4,486,700 square feet would be very hard to price. Given its location adjacent to the Baylands,
the Airport property would be difficult ifnot impossible to develop. Finally, land is not an asset
that would be depreciated or have a finite or "useful life." As such, the Airport land could have a
value of more than $100 million if it were possible to convert to another use.
For these reasons, land value was not included in the replacement value total. Whatever
the existing value, it will not depreciate over the long term. As a result, only the facilities that
have been developed on the Airport were valued in this analysis. Replacement of these on
existing property would costabout $57 million (Table 2).
IMt R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, fllc. B-9
Palo Alto Airport
Business Plan -Airport Community Value February 2010
Table 2 -Airport Replacement Valne Calcnlation
Description Units Measure Costl# Amount
Pavement
Runway Length x Width 201,950 Costlsq.ft. $18.00 $3,635,100
I-Full, 2-Partial,
Taxiway 3~None 1 $1,615,600
Actual Area from
Apron Area Aerial 1,597,406 Costlsq.ft. $16.00 $25,558,496
Hangars
Conventional Hangars Total Square Footage 59,550 Costlsq.ft. $180 $10 719,000
T-Hangars Total Units 45 CostlUnit $85,000 $3,825 000
O~None, 1 ~AvGas
Fuel System Only
2~AvGas & Jet A Lump Sum 2 $500,000
O-None,
Instrument Approaches I ~Nonprecision
2=Precision Lump Sum 0 $-
Air Traffic Control Tower O~No, I~Yes Lump Sum I $5,000,000
Total Square Feet
Non-Hangar Buildings from Aerial 19,800 Costlsq.ft. $300 $5,940,000
Total Replacement Value $56,995,146
Thus, one method of valuing the facility would be to consider the equivalent costs of
replacement. Since many of the existing facilities are aging, they have lost a portion of their
value in accordance with their useful life. In this regard, a second measure of Airpolt value was
made -Current Value of Airport Facilities.
3.2 Current Value of Airport Facilities
The current value of Airpolt facilities was estimated using the calculated replacement
value along with the age of various facilities and their estimated useful life. For pavements, the
useful life is much shorter at Palo Alto Airport than the 20 years which is expected at many
airpolts due to PAO's location near tidal soils. Because of the constant movement of the soils,
the life expectancy for these pavements is closer to 12-15 years than to 20 years. A re-hab of the
existing runway and taxiway is planned for 2012, even though the pavement only dates back to
200 I. Thus, the value of the pavement in the II-IS year period was estimated at only 25 percent
of its replacement value. For pavements over IS years, a current value of zero was assigned.
Most of the buildings on the Airport are between 30 and 34 years old, with several dating
back to the 1930s and 1940s. Even with these ages, a recent inspection of facilities by the City
~Mr R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Illc. B-JO
Pilio Alto Airport
Business Pum -Airport Community Value February 2010
revealed that they are remarkably sound and still viable for use. It was estimated that most of
these facilities have at least another 10 years of useful life. Although they are listed in Table 4 as
being over 15 years old, it is understood that they are significantly older than 15 years. To
account for the remaining useful life in terms of replacement costs, the replacement values listed
in Table 3 were decreased in accordance with the age and remaining useful life of each facility.
For PAO buildings, it was estimated that the buildings still have one third of their replacement
value remaining in useful life. No deprecation was assumed for the fuel system or FAA Air
Traffic Control Tower since they hold their original replacement value by function. Table 3
presents the results of the current value estimate using the princip les of remaining useful life.
Table 3 -Current Value Calculation
Age of Existing Facilities
ITEM Square Feet 0-S.F. 5-10 yrs S.F. 11-15 yrs S.F. Over
5 years old 15 yrs
Pavement
Runway 201,950 $908,775
Taxiway 100,975 $454388
Apron Area 798703 798,703 $11,181,842
Hangars (S.F. for C-hangars, # of Units for Ts)
Conventional Hangars 59550 $3,537,270
T-Hangars 45 $1262250
Fuel System NIA $500,000
Instrument Approaches N/A $ -
Air Traffic Control Tower NIA $5000,000
Non-Hangar Buildings 19,800 $1960,200
Existing Facility Value $24804,725
As shown, the Airport's existing facility value based upon useful !ife estimates is
approximately $24.8 million. This is roughly 44 percent of its replacement value as estimated
without land costs.
3.3 Summary of Airport Community Value
The value of Palo Alto Airport has been estimated in this ana!ysis, using two very
different measures. The first was the economic activity metric, which assesses the job creation,
income, output, and total taxes generated at the Airport. This value was estimated using suryey
data, on-airpOlt employment totals, annual operational and capital spending, and visitor spending
averages. These inputs were used in the IMPLAN model to estimate one portion of the value of
the Airport. In this regard, the AirpOlt generates an average of $64.3 million per year and
sustains over 300 jobs in the area.
,", R.A. Wiedeman" & Associates, Inc. B-ll
Palo Alto Airport
Business Plan -Airport Community Villue February 2010
A second measure of the value of the Airport involves the current asset value. In this
regard, a method was used that first estimated the current replacement value of the facility and
then reduced that value by the useful life remaining on each specific asset. This procedure
resulted in a replacement value estimate of $57.0 million and a current value of $24.8 million.
Taken as a snapshot in time, the total value of the Airport could be estimated to include its
annual economic activity ($64.3 million) plus its current asset value ($24.8 million). Adding
these two numbers, it can be shown that the overall value of the Airport to the commuuity is
$89.1 million.
There are a number of non-monetary benefits of aviation that have not been mentioned in
this analysis. Some of these benefits include:
• Transportation Benefits: Defined as the time saved and cost avoided by travelers
who use airports rather than the next best alternative. Palo Alto Airport provides
access to the National Air Transportation System.
• Stimulation of Business: Businesses have indicated that airports can be an
important factor in the attraction and siting of new businesses in a city. This is
particularly true for businesses with over 100 employees.
• Aeromedical Evacuation: Airports often serve as bases for aeromedical
evacuation teams or flight services. This life-saving function has intrinsic value
that often cannot be adequately quantified.
• Recreation: Roughly 50 percent of commercial airline travel and 50 percent of
general aviation travel is for recreational purposes.
All of the above factors point to a value of an airport that is not easily quantified. The
impacts that were estimated within the body of this report are only one facet of the overall
picture. The economic activity generated by the Airport along with its current asset value
represent the monetary value of the facility, while these other non-monetary factors describe
other features of its intrinsic worth.
R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. B-12
Addendum A
Palo Alto Airport, CA Economic Impact, 2009
E t mpJoymen
NAtCS Aggregated Sector Direc Indirec Induce" Tota
lAg, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Minin. 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2
Utilities 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2
iCollstruction 3.7 0.8 0.4 4.9
Manufacturing 18.0 4.5 1.0 23.5
Wholesale Trade 0.0 4.5 2.1 6.6
Retail trade 10.8 0.2 12.6 23.61
:Ttnnsp011ation & Warehuusiru! 101.0 11.81 0.8 113.6:
:[rlformation 0.0 1.7 0.8 2.5
,Finance & insurance 0.0 2.31 2.9 S.2
Real eb1ate & rental '0.0 6.31 2.7 9.0
Professional-scientifie & tech services 0.0 4.7: 2.0 6.7
Management of companies 0.0 1.51 0.2 1.7:
,Administrative & waste services 0.0 9.0' 2.1 ILl:
Educational services 0.0 0.1 3.2 3.3
!Hcalth & social services 0.0 0.0 !l.S !l.S
!Arts-entertainment & recreation 8.8 0.4 1.9 Il.I
Accommodation & food services 30.9 13.2 7.7 SI.8
Other servites 0.0 1.2 5.6 6.8
Government & non NAICs 10.0 2.41 1.0 13.4
Total 183.2 64.91· 58.7 306.8
Multlpher: 1.67
AddendnmA
Palo Alto Airport, CA Economic Impact, 2009
Income
INAle\' Aggregated Sector Diree Indlrac Induce Tota,
~orestry, Fish & Hunting $0 $479 $4250 $4,730
in. $0 $21,968 $3046 $25013
tmties $0 $58,476 $75 153 $133629
:Constructioli $236,941 $38,915 $21612 $297,4681
:Manufacturing $4,752,332 $823746 $101882 $56779601
:Wholcsalc Trade $0 $564,298 $265745 $830044
:Retail trade $268,481 $9,988 $509972 $7884411
Transportation & Warehousing $6,648,970 $635,061 $43276 $7,327306
Information $0 $293,987 $93824 $381811
Finance & insurance $0 $208,952 $281709 $490661
Real estate & rental $0 $287,137 $85 536 $372 613
Professional-scientific & tech services $0 $524,006 $217333 $741,339
iMana~ement of companies $0 $180,850 $23 558 $204408
Administrative & waste services $0 $459625 $96,041 $555 667
,Educational sel'vites $0 $4340 $160673 $165013
Health & social services $0 $18 $823,540 $823,558
Arts-entertainment & recreation $269763 $13 090 $61 993 $344,846
Accommodation & food services $993,069 $325,508 $197,351 $1 515,927
Other services $0 $56231 $155,398 $211,630
Government & non NAICs $1 237486 $200784 $72,581 $1510,851
. Total $14407,042 54707459 53,294,413 $22,408,975
Multlpher: 1.55
Addendum A
Palo Alto Airport, CA Economic 1m pact, 2009
o utput
NAICS Aggregated Sec/or Dime indirec Induce, Tota
Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting $0 $2,5l! $15,005 $17,520
Mining $0 $85,724 $11,883 $97,608
Utilities $0 $248441 $293706 $542,147
Constl'Uction $492,000 $76,541 $43624 $612,165
'Manufacturing $10,270537 $2409290 $385 324 $13065,150
Wholesale Trade $0 $1 425 762 $671435 $2097,197
;Retail trade $560,107 $21,892 $1,133572 $1,715,570
:Transp011ation & Warehousing $26,369,066 $1 194478 $116702 $27,680,246
Jnfonnation $0 $1 097,537 $384159 $1,481,696
:Finanee & insurance $0 $638,481 $836656 $1,475,137
:Real estate & rental $0 $1 539,864 8 $3,548,983: ,
Profession31~ scientific & tech services $0 $909, 1 $1,310,9641
IManagement of companies $0 $370 0 $418,8341
:Administrativc & waste selVtces $0 $1,ll(l,45 $1,298,284
:Educational services $0 $8,93 $267,5021
:Health & social services $0 $4 $1,396,2651
~Arts-entertainment & recreation $560,107 $24055 $148262 $732,4231
Accommodation & food services $2742289 $861 m $523031 $4,126,879
Other services $0 $145,431 $377 274 $522,705
Government & non NAles $1346989 $428264 $138486 $1,913,740'
!rotal $42341095 $12599545 $9380,375 $64,321,015
Multlpher: 1.52
Addendum A
Palo Alto Airport, CA Economic Impact, 2009
T ------
Emp!. Compo Prop. Income Household Ex Enterprises Ind. Bus Tax Totals
enterprises (Corporations) II
rorporate Profits Tax I $527,919 $527,919
ndirect Bus Tax: Custom Duty $86,9'}8 $8691 8
Indirect Bus T .. x: Excise Taxes $208,131 $208,131
Indirect Bus Tax: Fed NonTaxes $104,21 $104,217
Personal Tax: Estate and Gift Tax $0
Personal Tax: Income Tax I $2,626,948 $2626,948
Personal Tax: NeuTaxes lFines-Fees $0
Social Ins Tax-Employee Contribution $1,021,378 $48 631 $1,070008
Social Ins Tax-Employer Contribution $1072 579 $1,072,579
Federal Government NonDefense Total $2,093956 $48,631 $2,626,948 $S27,9lS $399,346 $5,696,800
Corporate Profits Tax $128,64<1 $128,644
Dividends $204,441 $204,441
ndirect Bus Tax: Motor Vehicle Lie $21,762 $21762
Indirect Bus Tax: Other Taxes $227,798 $227,798
Indirect Bus Tax: Property Tax $865,271 $865,271
ndirect Bus Tax: SIL NonTaxes $94,323 $94,323
ndireet Bus Tax: Sales Tax $1,121.686 $1,121,686
ndirect Bus Tax: Severance Tax $376 $376
Personal Tax: Estate and Gift Tax $0
Personal Tax: Income Tax $814,693 $814693
Personal Tax: Motor Vehicle License $27,27C $27,27(
Personal Tax: NonTaxes (Fines- Fees S160,01S $160,015
Personal Tax: Other Tax (FishIHunt) $6,205 $6,205
!Personal Tax: Property Taxes $8,03 $8,03S
Social Ins Tax-Employee Contribution $8,498 $ll,49~
Social In, Tax-Employer Contribution $36555 $36,555
IstatelLoc.1 Govt NonEducation Total $45,05' $0 $1,016,228 $333,086 $Z,331,2H $3,725,58f
!Total I II $2.122,569 $48,631 $3643,m $861,005 $2730,562 $9,405943