Airport Runway Extension Ordinance

At a glance

• What: Whether to amend Ordinance 3888 (adopted 2007) which requires a bond election before Chandler Municipal Airport's south runway (4R/22L) can be extended by 680 feet from 4,870 to 5,550 feet.
• Why: Hot air in Arizona reduces lift and engine power; business aircraft already based at Chandler are limited on hottest days (June-August, about four months per year). Extension allows year-round operation. Current runway cap in ordinance is 5,700 feet; 2021 Airport Master Plan proposed 680-foot extension.
• Where it stands: September 17 presentation and discussion ended with split vote, no consensus. Existing ordinance remains unchanged. Staff directed to return with options: (1) ordinance amending to remove bond requirement with protections, (2) ordinance for general (non-bond) election, (3) unchanged option.
• Next: Awaiting staff return with options and analysis.
• Watch: contentious; Council split on whether to amend ordinance directly or require voter approval; concerns about public trust, cost, and timeline.

The proposal

Physical:

• Extends Runway 4R/22L from 4,870 feet to 5,550 feet (680 feet added, within existing airport property; 5,700-foot cap in ordinance allows up to 850-foot extension).
• Does NOT change: aircraft weight limits (remain 30,000 lb. single-wheel), wingspan limits (79 feet), noise contours (stay south of Germann Road), aircraft types (no new heavier aircraft).
• Does NOT require: new land, displace homes/businesses, change airport role/mission, control tower hours.
• Does change: when business aircraft already serving Chandler can depart (shifts runway 22L protection zone slightly, remains on airport property).

Economic:

• Total cost: $7,143,000 (design/engineering $637,000, environmental review $506,000, construction $5,605,000, contingency $395,000).
• Funding: FAA 91.06%, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) 4.47%, City ~4.47%. FAA share typically ~95% of eligible costs at reliever airports. Funding from airport revenues (fuel sales, hangar leases, not property taxes); 2023 runway rehabilitation FAA covered 95%, ADOT and City split remainder.
• Current annual impact: 569 jobs, $150.2M economic output, $40.9M wages, $1.97M state/local tax revenue.
• Growth scenario impact: 977 jobs, $221.5M economic output, $76.4M wages, $3.54M tax revenue ($181,000 to City).
• Waiting costs: summer fuel sales decline June-July-August; approximately 10+ airport operators contact airport annually, first question is runway length; construction escalation 3.6%/year (~$213,000/year delay).

Community outreach:

• Two years of engagement; 15,000 attended Airport Day; 8,000 attended Innovation Fair; 87 airport tours completed; 52,000+ social media reach.
• Steering Committee: four meetings November 2025-August 2026, 25 members representing Chandler residents (all quadrants), HOAs, education, business, nonprofits, government, development, aviation communities.
• Event attendee survey: 307 resident responses, 74% support, 4% oppose, 21% want more information; support rose with more learning.

Ordinance history and rules

Current protection (Ordinance 3888, adopted 2007):

• Any runway extension requires public input.
• Caps Runway 4R/22L at 5,700 feet.
• Sets maximum aircraft weight (75,000 lbs) and wingspan (79 feet).
• Requires voter-approved bonds to authorize runway extension (this is the only provision under discussion).

History of proposals:

• 1982: Master Plan proposes parallel runway 6,900 ft max.
• 1989: Voters approve jet ban (Proposition 200); conflicts with FAA grant obligation, revised as Ordinance 2122.
• 1999: Ordinance 2978 caps runway at 6,800 ft, requires voter-approved bonds.
• 2000: Bond election for runway extension and 133-acre land acquisition fails (6,914 no, 6,409 yes).
• 2007: Ordinance 3888 lowers cap to 5,700 ft; second bond election fails (6,194 no, 5,297 yes).
• 2026: Community Impact Study proposes 680-ft extension to 5,550 ft.

Options discussed

Option 1: Keep Ordinance 3888, Move to Bond Election

• Costs: Election ~$500,000 (county costs + informational pamphlet), construction delay $630,000.
• Earliest dates: May 18, July 20, or November 2, 2027.
• Protections: All existing ordinance limits stay in place; voter decision authorizes bonds.

Option 2: Amend Ordinance 3888 to Remove Bond Requirement

• Remove bond election requirement; keep protections (length cap, footprint limit, aircraft limits).
• Costs: None for election; city construction baseline $319,000. Earliest: seek federal funding immediately after Council action.
• Protections: Four-five years federal review with formal comment periods; could strengthen ordinance with: runway cap 5,550 feet, accredited public engagement beyond FAA, no airport growth beyond existing property, aircraft limits kept if consistent with FAA, public hearing/noise analysis before future runway changes, annual noise report to Council, implementation of Council-approved Master Plan.

Option 3: General (Non-Bond) Election

• Put non-bond question to voters.
• Earliest: May 2027 (if County notice by November 19). City Attorney noted ordinance readings and 30-day effective period probably push it later.
• Cost: unknown but likely significant for special election.

Positions

Favoring Option 2 (Amend without election):

• Councilmember Ellis: Amending allows expedited process; lives under flight path; vote should not be threat to Council action; cost savings from avoiding bond election; innovation and infrastructure improvements necessary for city growth.
• Councilmember Hawkins: Airport conducted extensive public outreach; time and cost savings from avoiding bond election; net benefit to noise management.
• Mayor Hartke: Public entrusted Council to make and amend ordinances; FAA recognizes Chandler's process unusual but not necessarily negative.

Favoring Option 1 (Bond election):

• Councilmember Orlando: History and ordinances based on people's vote; question should go to ballot; election result helpful to reference if FAA concerns arise; emphasized importance of public trust in light of airport history.
• Councilmember Poston: Wanted all paths studied; concerned opinions gathered at airport events had positive bias; not comfortable with Council unilateral decision; wanted to explore non-bond election option.
• Vice Mayor Encinas: Supports airport as economic driver; acknowledged Chandler changed since 1989 ordinance but underlying trust unchanged; believes additional public buy-in necessary; supports election option.

Wanting further study:

• Councilmember Harris: Absent from September 17 work session; had indicated desire for all options studied; noted Valley Metro provides accommodations for ADA certification; registering captures data for grant funding.

Status and next steps

• Open. No consensus reached; existing Ordinance 3888 remains unchanged. City Manager directed to staff return with: (1) ordinance removing bond election requirement with protections and cost analysis, (2) ordinance for general (non-bond) election with timing and cost, (3) unchanged option with cost/timeline for bond election path.
• City Clerk Jennifer Ekblad noted special elections in odd years (May, July, November 2027) cost upwards of $500,000 when city-only; unknown what other jurisdictions may have that would reduce costs through cost-sharing.
• City Attorney Deryck Lavelle offered to bring information together on election options and costs for Council later review.

Sources

• City Council Work Session minutes, September 17, 2026: https://public.destinyhosted.com/chanddocs/2026/CC/20260917_2435/2431_MINUTES-file0001%20%2810%29.pdf
• City Council Study Session agenda and video from October 12, 2026 (prior video-based discussion): https://public.destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=24263&mt=ALL&get_month=10&get_year=2026&dsp=ag&seq=2402

Discussion time

About 36 minutes across 1 meeting (from transcript timestamps; approximate).

Log

2026-09-17 - City Council Work Session

Staff presented findings from Airport Community Impact Study. Ryan Reeves (Airport Manager) led detailed presentation on proposal, costs, economic impact, noise analysis, community engagement results. Council discussion revealed split opinions on path forward (Option 1 vs Option 2); Mayor Hartke noted no consensus, existing ordinance remains.

2026-09-14 - City Council Work Session

Proposition 479 transit discussion (separate item).