CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION This chapter identifies and evaluates facility development alternatives for Centennial Airport (APA or Airport) based on the facility requirements determined in Chapter 4, Facility Requirements. The goal of identifying and evaluating various development options is to ensure airport facilities are capable of meeting projected activity demand levels, make efficient and effective use of available airport land, meet FAA airfield design standards, and provide adequate return on investment (when applicable). Development alternatives in this chapter have been thoroughly analyzed, refined, and vetted through stakeholder involvement to establish plans which reflect Airport and community values, preferences, and the unique operational nature of Centennial Airport within the community it serves.

The first step in analyzing potential development options is to define the leading and trailing planning elements. Leading elements include critical airport infrastructure and influence how trailing elements are developed. At APA, the leading elements include the airfield facilities such as runways and taxiways. Trailing elements are those whose placement and configuration are influenced and dependent on the leading elements. At APA, trailing elements include tenant services, support facilities, and landside facilities. Figure 5-1 shows the relationship between leading and trailing planning elements at Centennial Airport.

FIGURE 5-1 AIRPORT PLANNING ELEMENTS

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2019

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-1 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

5.1.1 Alternatives Development Process Establishing Airport development alternatives is grounded in the Airport’s vision for the future, meeting Airport goals, filling an established role in the NPIAS, and recognizing industry trends that may impact airport facility requirements. For these reasons, ensuring that airport development options are weighed against EONS performance principles has been a theme within this Master Plan and is used as the basis for defining evaluation criteria for each proposed development alternative. As a reminder to the reader, the EONS are categories are: » Economic Viability » Operational Efficiency » Natural Resource Conservation » Social Responsibility

The preferred development plan at Centennial Airport is driven by its ability to meet or exceed airport sustainability goals as defined within the EONS context and the 2018 Airport Sustainability Plan. Preliminary concepts were designed to meet the facility requirements defined in Chapter 4, Facility Requirements and then evaluated based on a set of EONS parameters. The evaluation process included stakeholder input, which guided the refinement of each element of study. The result, as described in this chapter, is a set of preferred alternatives carried forward into the implementation phase of the Master Plan where costs and need are used to determine a logical phasing of projects.

Throughout the alternatives development process, evaluations were performed based on a combination of general airport planning criteria, site specific conditions at the Airport, and direct feedback from Airport leadership. The following is a list of criteria used when considering and evaluating alternatives: » Operational and public safety » Operational efficiency » Ability to meet FAA airfield design standards » Effectiveness to service target users » Resolution of current issues » Long-term facility requirements are met » Appropriate level of service is provided » Ease of implementation » Realistic cost to implement (capital investment and operating) » Flexibility and future expansion potential » EONS impacts » Supports sustainable development principles

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-2 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

5.2 FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR ECONOMIC VIABILITY It is critical for to operate in a financially sustainable manner and that is why the first step in determining a preferred airport layout plan at APA is understanding how various financial policies and management structures impact facility development. Centennial Airport currently operates using a traditional land lease structure which has historically provided the Airport adequate revenue to operate and maintain its facilities by collecting steady revenue streams while allowing market forces to drive development of airport land and properties. It is the goal of this section to review and contrast alternative financial management policy models as an element of determining the preferred development of economically viable physical airport facilities.

5.2.1 Airport Management Positions and Impacts to Facilities Development There are a variety of Airport management financial policy options to consider, all of which would significantly impact the course of development for the Airports preferred facilities layout. These include: 1. Traditional Land Lease (Centennial Airport’s current policy position) 2. Outright Land Sell and Full Development by Private Partner 3. Partnership: The Airport and a private developer join forces 4. Airport Control 5. Airport Control + Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Contract 6. Concession

These options are explained further in this section and are summarized and evaluated according to share of responsibility and levels of owner risk in Table 5-1.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-3 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 5-1 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES: RESPONSIBILITY AND RISK MATRIX

Development Options

Outright Land Issue Traditional Sell and Full Airport Control + Partnership Airport Control Concession Land Lease Development by O&M Contract Private Developer

I Sold by Airport to Airport as % of Land Leased by Airport Airport Airport Airport N private developer partnership V E S Development Airport / Private Airport as % of T Infrastructure Private developer Airport Airport Private developer developer partnership M Investments E N Investments in T Airport / Private Airport as % of Environmental Private developer Airport Airport Private developer developer partnership R Issues E S Investment in Buildings and Private sector as % P Private developer Private developer Airport Airport Private developer O Associated of partnership N Facilities S I Investment 1 1 Airport as % of 1 1 1 B Aprons and Airport Airport 2 Airport Airport Airport partnership I Taxiways L I Third party T Maintenance Private sector Private sector Partnership Airport responsible for Private sector Y O&M contract

3 R Airport I Investment S K Airport Risk L E Impact to Airport V Finances E L Revenue Potential One time income S

Notes: (1) If exclusive use. If not, investment shared by FAA and Airport. (2) Only investment made by Airport would be counted as a percent of partnership. Risk Legend (3) Airport will need to invest in land release effort and changes to Attachment A - Airport Property Map.

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2019 Low High

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-4 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Traditional Land Lease - Airport leases land shovel-ready and private operator builds, operates, and maintains building facilities.

Under this option the Airport enters into some type of arrangement in which it grants a long-term land lease to the private sector for the exploitation of a given asset provided the following conditions are met by the private party: (1) Responsibility for full funding of the required investments in the development or upgrading of the asset; (2) Operation and management of the asset; and (3) Transfer of the asset to the owner/landlord at the end of the lease period (infrastructure built under the arrangement).

Outright Land Sell and Full Development by Private Partner - Airport sells land to private developer who is responsible for full development of property and facilities.

This option is the least frequently employed mechanism for private sector participation in airport infrastructure development because it entails private ownership of the property and no transfer back to the Airport. Under this option the airport simply receives a one-time payment for the property occupied by the facility and no longer has access to that property. FAA action is required to release the Airport from its obligations in the event the Airport wants to sell land.

Partnership - Airport provides land shovel-ready and other infrastructure as its share of investment in the partnership for the development of the facility. Private operator builds, operates, and maintains building facilities. Revenues and risks are shared based on percentage of contribution from each party.

Under this option the Airport becomes a silent or active partner of the private sector in the development of airport facilities by either providing airport assets as equity into the partnership or cash investments in return for a share of the net revenues in the operation of the facility. The following schemes can be used under this option:

» Airport as a Silent Partner - Under this scheme the Airport provides the land and/or facility that will be developed by the private sector as their equity contribution to the partnership. The Airport’s financial contribution to the partnership is determined based on an agreed value of the land where the facility will be built or if the facility already exists based on the value of the asset. The Airport’s percent ownership share of the partnership is established based on its financial contribution to the partnership. The private firm is responsible for the investments required to develop a new facility or improve and upgrade an existing facility as well as with the operation and maintenance of the facilities. Profits from the operation of the facility are divided between the private firm and the Airport based on each of the party’s respective percent ownership share.

» Airport as an Active Partner - Under this scheme the Airport, in addition to providing the land and/or facility that will be developed by the private sector, also invests in its development as their equity contribution to the partnership. The Airport’s financial contribution to the partnership is determined based on an agreed value of the land where the facility will be built or if the facility already exists based on the value of the asset plus an agreed investment amount between the parties. Based on the value of the Airport’s financial contribution the parties establish the Airport’s

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-5 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

percent ownership share of the partnership. The private firm is responsible for the remaining investments required to develop a new facility or improve and upgrade an existing facility as well as with the operation and maintenance of the facilities. Profits from the operation of the facility are divided between the private firm and the Airport based on each of the party’s respective percent ownership share.

Airport Control - Airport develops all facilities including building and support facilities. All investments and maintenance costs of the facility are under the responsibility of the Airport.

This scheme presents the highest risk for an airport which bears the full burden of ownership and operation cost, but conversely, also receives full benefits for its success.

Airport Control + Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Contract - Airport develops all facilities including building and support facilities and enters into a contract with third party to operate and maintain facilities.

This is the most commonly used option for private sector participation in airport-related facility development. Activities such as shops, car parking, porters, aircraft catering, and city-airport transport have traditionally been handled by private enterprises. More recently, there have been cases in which the entire airport infrastructure (airside and landside activities) has been transferred to the private sector for management and operation. The investment commitments of the private sector, in this option, are relatively low and are largely associated with the remodeling and redesign of commercial space in the case of landside infrastructure, and with minor repairs in the case of airside infrastructure. The legal configuration or instrument through which this privatization option is implemented can take the following forms:

» Service Contract - This is an agreement whereby the private entity is awarded the right, by the airport, to exploit a particular service for a given period of time and under certain agreed conditions (quality of service, leasing and or concession fees, minor repairs and maintenance commitments, etc.) These types of contracts are used as a mechanism to decentralize management and employ qualified experts in each field of business, so as to maximize the economic potential of the airport's commercial side. More and more, airport owners perceive airports as business centers and this perspective favors embracing revenue opportunities by expanding the types of goods and services offered and making the airport operate as a business venture.

» Contracting Out - This is an arrangement in which the airport owner subcontracts the provision of a particular service with a private entity. This type of arrangement is commonly used for maintenance services. The agreements are usually simpler than those used for service concession contracts and they are typically for shorter terms (one year or less). The use of private entities is very frequent among all sizes of airports. Contracting out has the effect of allowing the private sector to take over a function that is being provided by the airport at a given time.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-6 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

» Management Contracts - Under this type of agreement the management of all, or part of, airport related activities is contracted by the airport to a specialized airport operator for a given period of time and under specified conditions (e.g., key performance metrics, economic incentives, maintenance commitments). Management contracts can take different forms in the case of airport related activities, depending on the type of services to be managed, the type of autonomy in the day-to-day administration, and the financial incentives provided to the private operator. In some cases, the management contracts can include some form of equity participation in the development of the facilities being managed. This option is used when the airport wants to maintain ownership of the asset and has committed to investment in the development, improvements, and expansion of the asset; however, the airport believes that a private operator can better manage and operate the facility with the expectation that this arrangement reduces operating expenses and increases operating revenues.

Concession - Airport leases land and collects a percent of generated revenues with Minimum Annual Guarantee.

Under this arrangement, the Airport charges for use of property and collects a share of revenues generated by the land and associated facilities as a concession. A contractual Minimum Annual Guarantee (MAG) is defined and in the event that the percentage of revenues collected that would be collected by the Airport do not meet the MAG, the higher MAG amount is collected. The concession agreement is commonly known in financial terms as a build-operate-transfer (BOT) scheme which is widely used in infrastructure development. The following are some of the most common categories of long-term concessions arrangements with preestablished investment commitments used in the development of airport infrastructure:

» Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) - Under this scheme, a long-term concession (normally between 20 and 40 years) is given to a private firm for the exploitation of a particular airport facility. The private firm has the responsibility to finance, build, and operate the facility for a given period, after which time the property of the facility is transferred to the airport owner. The private firm does not have title of the property at any point during the concession. The private firm manages the cash flows from the operation of the facility, accounting for operational costs, capital costs, concession fees, and profits. The BOT scheme allows the airport owner to benefit from private capital market funding at no cost and without project risk (i.e., construction is the responsibility of the private sector) and commercial risk (i.e., the scheme also transfers operational responsibility for the facility to the private sector).

» Build-Own­Operate-Transfer (BOOT) - A similar scheme to the BOT but under this scheme the private firm takes property title to the facility during the construction period and transfers it back to the airport owner at the end of the his concession contract with the airport (e.g., this is used in cases in which loan guarantees or collateral are required).

» Build-Own-Operate (BOO) - A similar scheme to the BOT, but in this case the property is not transferred back to the Airport the end of the concession contract.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-7 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

» Build-Transfer-Operate (BTO) - A scheme similar to the BOT, though under this scheme the Airport takes property title of the facility immediately after construction is completed but the private sector continues to operate and manage the facility until the end of the concession contract. The private firm retains all revenues generated by the facility as well as covering all related operational expenses associated with the facility until the end of the concession contract.

» Buy-Build-Operate (BBOT) - This scheme is used when the Airport owns underdeveloped or deteriorated facilities which are sold by the Airport to a private firm at a bid price, providing the private firm the right to exploit the facility for a given number of years (i.e., a concession). The facilities are upgraded and/or expanded, and the property title is owned by the private sector until the end of the concession contract after which the facility is transferred back to the Airport at a nominal pre-agreed price.

» Lease-Develop-Operate (LDO) - Under this scheme the Airport leases under a long-term concession an existing facility with a private firm. The private firm is required under the contract to upgrade and expand the facility and operate and maintain it for the given period, managing its cash flows and paying the Airport an agreed lease fee. The Airport holds the property rights throughout the concession period.

» Wrap-around Addition - An existing Airport owned facility is expanded by a private enterprise, which holds title only to the addition. The private enterprise operates the entire facility through a concession contract/operational contract of the Airport owned section. At the end of the contract the entire facility is transferred back at no cost to the Airport.

5.2.2 Land Lease Options and Best Practices Defining development constraints is an important step in creating a long-term development plan. A legally executed lease contract can be considered a land development constraint because interim uses cannot occur during the leased period while development is not occurring on lease land. Sound airport leasing management practices support a well-organized and comprehensive approach to leasing, encourage transparency and consistency, properly respond to the interest of financially stable and accountable entities, and reduce ad-hoc decision-making which may lead to inadvertent noncompliance. Current lease practices were reviewed at Centennial Airport to provide context and understanding of how executed lease contracts could be constraining land development.

The foundation for all airport lease agreements is the FAA establishment of certain ‘rights’ and ‘privileges’ granted through the leasing (contracting) process and affirms three fundamental principles: 1. The airport’s obligation to provide the lessee the right to use the airfield (airport) and public facilities in common with others so authorized. 2. The airport’s obligation to provide the lessee the right to occupy (area through lease) as a lessee and to use certain designated premises exclusively. 3. The airport’s obligation to provide the lessee the right and privilege to engage in commercial activities, offering high-quality products, services, and facilities to airport users.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-8 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

The adoption of certain leasing policies can directly impact the Airport’s ability to develop land or redevelop certain Airport land or facility assets. Review of Airport compliance documentation and a representative sample of current Airport lease agreements determined the following areas of potential land development constraints: » Minimum Standards » Lease policy and equity » Lease rents » Lease terms » Lease transfer fees » Lease reversion

Under this foundation of understanding, options to enhance leasing practices at the Airport have also been examined as an element of the alternatives development process. Potential implementation of any lease policy update will be considered as preferred physical facilities are selected. The following sections evaluate opportunities to update leasing practices.

5.2.2.1 Minimum Standards Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities (minimum standards) are the set of requirements that commercial operators at Centennial Airport must meet or exceed in order to conduct business at the Airport. The establishment of lessee facility improvements, operational, and functional standards for the provision of services at an airport helps prevent economic unjust discrimination and the granting of an exclusive right to conduct aeronautical activities at the airport, which violates federal grant obligations. It is important to note that the “right of first refusal” clause may be considered as granting an exclusive right. Consultation with legal counsel and thoughtful consideration should be given to how and when such language should be included in lease agreements.

Airport minimum standards and rules and regulations1 are intended to serve as foundational primary management compliance documents that may be modified over time as necessary, but lease agreements may span several decades, as is the case for many leases at Centennial Airport. For this reason, it is important that lease agreements reference these documents and contain language that conveys that minimum standards and rules and regulations are subject to change (as amended) from time to time. Should there be a conflict between the lease agreement and the primary management compliance documents, the most recent minimum standards and rules and regulations should then take precedence. Minimum standards are especially relevant to leasing and developing airport property because they speak to what improvements are required for a specific activity. For example, if a parcel of land is less than one acre in size and the minimum standards require five acres of land for FBO, the value of that property, and any improvements on the property, may be affected by the fact that only certain activities will be allowed on a parcel of that size.

1 Airport rules and regulations set the standards for airport user conduct. These may be in the form of local ordinances or a stand- alone document developed by the airport sponsor. Airport rules and regulations may include the following elements; general provisions, aircraft, vehicle, commercial vehicle, hangar lessee and sublessee for which the airport deems essential for the safe, efficient use and operation of the airport.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-9 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

5.2.2.2 Leasing Policy A practical approach to remaining compliant with FAA Assurances is the adoption of a thoughtful leasing policy. Centennial Airport currently has an informal leasing policy in place. The purpose and practice of incorporating a leasing policy is to provide sound, consistent requirements through which Centennial Airport can do the following: » Respond to the interests of financially stable and responsible lessees » Administer airport leased premises in accordance with the Assurances » Ensure the airport sponsor’s ability to meet its obligation to provide a stable revenue source for the airport » Provide guidelines for airport-related business decisions

One often used industry best management practice is for an airport sponsor to develop a comprehensive airport leasing policy that applies to both land and improvement leases. Any leasing policy must be flexible enough to allow for unanticipated development opportunities while being comprehensive enough to account for multiple lessee types and operations. A standard, comprehensive leasing policy provides for the equitable treatment of all airport lessees and will minimize questions, concerns, and potential conflict between the airport sponsor and its lessees.

One valid counterview to adopting a formal leasing policy is that, when not implemented properly, it can limit flexibility to tailor leases according to the current environment and lessons learned from the past. Adopting a formal leasing policy can also potentially limit the Airport’s ability to customize terms for the specific lease parcel because policy changes would have to be adopted through a formal process. When an airport remains flexible by not establishing a formal lease policy, base term length can be tailored to specific levels of investment, therefore avoiding situations where smaller investors may otherwise be “locked out” of potential business ventures based on leasing policies that favor larger developments.

When using an informal leasing policy, it is especially important for an airport to document the history of leasing decisions and considerations so that both current and future staff understand how decisions were made. Instead of adopting a formal leasing policy, an Airport leasing guidance document can help maintain continuity as Airport leadership changes. This helps avoid a loss of important information regarding current leases and Airport-established best practices. Documented leasing guidance also provides an element of transparency in leasing decisions beyond basic requirements to meet established minimum standards.

5.2.2.3 Lease Rents Through acceptance of federal grant funds, Airport Sponsors are obligated to meet FAA grant assurances. Grant Assurance 24 states that, “[airport sponsors] will maintain a fee and rental structure of the facilities and services at the airport which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible under the circumstances existing at the particular airport." This is done intentionally to lessen the need for local subsidies and ensure airports operate in a financially self-sustaining manner over the long-term.

Applicable lease rent considerations include airside land, aeronautical improvements, and hangar rents based on comparable facilities at surrounding airports with similar attributes. In order to accurately value land and facilities, benchmarking of airports of similar size and with similar infrastructure ( length,

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-10 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

instrument approaches, security, and for example), should be used in a consistent manner. The same benchmarked airports are tracked over time for comparative purposes. The appraisals and benchmark rates are used as guidelines for the Airport to determine baseline rates that can be subsequently adjusted as new information becomes available.

The Airport may vary its lease rates depending upon size, function (commercial vs. non-commercial), location, and level of improvements to the land (improved vs. unimproved) and the facilities being leased. For example, the rental price of a building or hangar may vary based on size, amenities, location, access, condition, construction, and allowable use by the airport. Likewise, the Airport may want to vary land lease rates based upon factors such as the magnitude of the project, the synergistic effect the project may have on other tenants and/or future development, airside versus landside location, availability of utilities, and access (from both the airside and the landside).

Industry best practice for lease rent increases is to adjust annually and consider price changes from comparable airports (markets). Adjustments are typically based on a not-to-exceed consumer price index (CPI-U2) of 3 percent or more commonly a fixed rate of 2 to 3 percent, which is easier for airport staff to administer and generally more desirable by airport lessees and stakeholders. An example of a comparable airport with a formal leasing policy is Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport (BJC), which sets aeronautical ground lease rates as shown in Table 5-2. Lease rates from Centennial Airport are not able to be immediately compared because there is only an informal leasing policy and rates vary. Conducting a formal Market Rent Study to determine market rents that could be applied to all new or amended leases is an excellent way to ensure Airport lease rates are competitive in the market. Industry best practice recommends performing rent studies every 3 to 5 years.

TABLE 5-2 SAMPLE COMPARABLE AIRPORT LEASE RATES

Commercial Lease Rate (PSF) Non-Commercial Lease Rate (PSF) Comparable Airport Improved Unimproved Improved Unimproved Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport $0.50 $0.11 $0.45 $0.11 Note: PSF = per square foot Source: AMCG; Prepared by RS&H, 2019

One option for Centennial Airport to consider is modifications to rental rates that include a percentage of gross sales, depending on the type of business being conducted. Similarly, considering land leases that require a percentage of any profit be paid to the airport on the sale of leasehold improvements or equity provides revenue necessary to operate in a financially sustainable manner. Regardless of the rate-setting methodology used, social responsibility dictates that the process should always be transparent for all stakeholders. Transparency allows the Airport to clearly outline the rationale and justification for rents and fees, placing itself in a defensible posture that will either hold up to stakeholder criticism or that can be adjusted for broad acceptance by the aviation community.

2 It is important to note that CPI does not have a direct correlation to changes in the market and that CPI or fixed rate adjustments may not wholly cover the difference in appraised values.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-11 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

5.2.2.4 Lease Terms Land leases are routinely set at between 20 to 40-year terms3. Industry best practice holds that aeronautical lease terms should be long enough for a tenant to fully amortize their initial investment, but not so long as to relinquish Airport control over the property. Lease terms of 20 to 30 years are common for land leases that include leased premises of greater than 1-acre and commensurate lessee investment based on the type of use (e.g., commercial, non-commercial, aeronautical, and/or non-aeronautical). Lease terms of 50 years or more are considered a disposal of federally obligated land by FAA and violate sponsor assurances if the proper processes for releasing land from federal obligations are not followed. Analysis of ACPAA land leases revealed that most of the land available for development and redevelopment at Centennial Airport is currently leased into 2040 and beyond. This understanding plays a critical role in development alternatives examined in later sections of this chapter.

Industry best practices recommend that provisions for the extension4 of a land lease be included in lease agreements as well as outlines for the requirements that must be met before the lessee is allowed to extend the lease, preferably contingent upon the lessor’s concurrence and approval, usually by periods of 5 to 10 years. These extensions of the lease are considered addendums to the original lease document with all covenants and provisions of the original remaining in effect. The length of a lease and the ability to extend the lease term is an important consideration for potential lessees who will be making substantial investment in improvements that will need to be amortized over many years. It is important to consider the useful and economic life of the improvements and the size of the lessee’s investment when negotiating length of term. If an extension is being considered, then considerations should be given to the relationship between the term extension and required improvements.

5.2.2.5 Lease Transfer Fees The purpose and practice of the lease transfer fee5 is to provide the Airport with an effective means to recover the business cost associated with the assignment and/or development of a new lease agreement and subsequent transactions. The lease transfer fee can also capture the change in value of an asset as the improvements transfer from one party to the next. This fee can be a flat fee or a percent of sales price. Centennial Airport incorporates this cost recovery method into new leases; however, the Airport recognizes that some older leases do not contain this language and administrative costs are borne by the Airport when investors sublease Airport properties.

5.2.2.6 Lease Reversion Lease reversion is when, at the end of the initial lease term, all improvements become the property of the airport sponsor (assuming an adequate lease term was provided for amortization of the investment). Industry best management practices for leasing and developing airport property include reversion of all improvements (financed by the lessee or otherwise), regardless of when and how the lease is terminated. Prior to executing a lease agreement, the lessee must sign a reversion clause acknowledgement statement, stating they understand that all improvements (existing and future, such as a hangar an

3 Land leases should always include requirements for reasonable investment to be made by the lessee. Term lengths may also be limited by local statute. 4 APA uses informal extension policy which generally includes the following criteria: 1. Tenant must be in good standing, 2. Preferred 25% equity remaining on lease, and 3. Property must be well maintained. 5 APA uses lease transfer fees between 3 and 6 percent.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-12 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

associated facilities) will revert to the airport sponsor at the end of the lease term. At the preference of the Airport, it is possible to include language requiring any/all improvements constructed on the leased premises to be removed and the premises restored to pre-lease condition at the sole cost and expense of the lessee. Therefore, the lease must be long enough for the commercial service operator to be able to amortize the investment the company makes in improvements, but not so long as to unnecessarily restrict the options available to the sponsor to develop and improve the airport in the future. The savvy airport sponsor will secure cost-based fees that will support the operational costs of the airport in a sustainable manner.

5.2.3 Preferred Airport Management Financial Policies and Impacts on Development Alternatives Upon considering the impacts of airport management financial policies on airport development, it is the preferred posture of the Airport to retain the “traditional land lease” model. This model has proven more beneficial than harmful to Airport growth and economic viability throughout its history and is the intent of current leadership to continue this traditional market-driven policy. This airport management model is sound and supported by many conservative modern economists, especially those well versed in economic cycles, downturns, and the impact of unanticipated events on the global economy. Therefore, all development alternatives evaluated within this chapter will work within the framework of this financial management policy.

In addition, the following airport management practices are recommended in support of the development model carried forward to define facility alternatives: » Develop lease template and leasing guidelines/best practices for internal use » Maintain leasing policies that promote flexibility in contract negotiation » Incorporate market rate adjustments into all new leases » Review existing leases for necessary amendments at time of extension » Conduct regular Market Rate Study (every 3 to 5 years) » Conduct annual benchmarking studies to gauge airport sustainability performance

5.3 LAND USE - DEVELOPMENT VS REDEVELOPMENT Identifying land use areas where opportunities exist for land development or redevelopment helps guide airport decisions over the long-term in a way that maintains airport growth continuity, better serves the community, and minimizes costly counterproductive development. Although the Airport has limited ability to enact land use changes under the traditional land lease model (most existing leases extend beyond the planning period) potential areas to direct development or redevelopment have been considered to ensure future plans can still be updated relative to changing conditions.

Opportunity zones are areas in which redevelopment is better suited and more likely to naturally occur due to market forces. For APA, there are two opportunity zones (East Ramp Area and the former “Track” site) with clusters of leases expiring during the planning period and/or areas with mid-term lease expirations, aging buildings, and the services provided are not anticipated to be high growth.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-13 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Development zones are remaining airport-owned greenfield areas that provide varying levels of access to roadway, airfield, and infrastructure. The most critical development zone remaining is south of Runway 10-28 and east of Runway 17L-35R. This area provides opportunities for airfield access, which need to be preserved according to design standards for the approved critical aircraft. All land within this zone is currently leased.

Three other development zones exist, one east of the East Ramp Area (Parcels 64, 65A ,65B, and 65C), one north of S Peoria Street and E Broncos Parkway (Parcels 33B, 33C, and 33D), and another immediately west of S Peoria Street south of Arapahoe Road (undeveloped land north of South Metro Fire Station). The first location is complicated by sloping grades, the second and third sites have no airfield access, making them more poised for non-aeronautical purposes.

Conceptual site plans already exist for the large development zone and will be examined in detail in the following sections. Figure 5-2 shows areas designated for opportunity zones, development zones, and a future administration/community building.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-14 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 5-2 DEVELOPMENT AND OPPORTUNITY LAND USE ZONES

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-15 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

5.4 AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES The Airport airfield is the leading facility planning element because it serves the primary purpose of the airport which is the safe passage of aircraft transitioning from the ground to flight, and vice versa. Additionally, the airfield configuration is the least flexible infrastructure at the airport since it is highly dictated by terrain, predominant meteorological conditions, aircraft performance requirements, the Airport’s fleet mix, and FAA design standards, guidance, and best practices. The runway count and orientation at APA are adequate to serve forecasted demand over the planning period and the runway lengths are projected to safely accommodate the current fleet mix, which varies from small piston aircraft to large business jets, over the same time. Therefore, the focus areas in this chapter will be development alternatives for the following facility elements: » Runway 17L-35R pavement strength » Taxiway connector configuration » Runway 17R-35L high speed exits » Run-up areas to serve Runway 10 and Runway 35R

All airfield solutions will consider RIM analysis, peak demand capacity constraints, primary users, emerging trends. Every development option is always weighed against the option of taking no action.

5.4.1 Runways, Taxiways, and Run-up Areas All of the pavement at the Airport used for aircraft movement is part of one cohesive network used to safely transition aircraft from storage to flight and the reverse. This section will discuss alternatives to address safe movement of aircraft between these two environments.

5.4.1.1 Runway 17L-35R Pavement Strength Part of Centennial Airport’s role in the national and regional airport system is to relieve International Airport from overwhelming demand of operations which would then severely limit available capacity within the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). This makes Centennial Airport’s ability to accommodate general aviation activity, spanning from flight school training to large corporate business jets, important to the health of the entire airspace system. Therefore, the Airport’s runway system must be designed to a strength that supports the type of aircraft landing and taking off with regularity, including that large range of aircraft operating weights.

The published weight bearing strength of the primary runway (Runway 17L-35R) currently limits operating aircraft to 75,000lbs without receiving prior permission to operate from the Airport. Working with runway design engineers to determine pavement integrity and the ability of the runway to accommodate operations exceeding the published weights, the Airport approves operations as required. The critical aircraft for Runway 17L-35R, the Gulfstream G500, has a maximum takeoff weight that exceeds the published 75,000lb maximum. The resulting weight reduction impacts landing and departing aircraft, effectively reducing available flight range and cargo loads. This limitation is antithetical to the Airport’s role in the national and regional airport system which, in large part, is to serve corporate aircraft that often exceed the published maximum landing weight of Runway 17L-35R. The largest and newest of these

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-16 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

aircraft have published maximum takeoff weights around 100,000lb. A table of aircraft currently operating aircraft that are weight-limited by the runway design strength is shown in Table 5-3.

TABLE 5-3 AIRCRAFT EXCEEDING 75,000LB MAXIMUM TAKEOFF WEIGHT Allowable Weight APA Maximum Takeoff Aircraft Maximum Takeoff Weight Weight Exceedence (pounds) (pounds) Gulfstream V 90,500 (15,500) Gulfstream G600 91,600 (16,600) Bombardier Global 5000 92,500 (17,500) Bombardier Global 6000 99,500 (24,500) Gulfstream G650 99,600 (24,600) Embraer Lineage 1000 100,972 (25,972) Bombardier Global 7500 106,250 (31,250) Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A Aircraft Characteristics Database v2

Corporate aircraft manufacturing trends indicate these types of corporate aircraft will continue to increase in size and be able to achieve higher maximum takeoff weights. Aircraft such as the Bombardier Global 7500 and the recently introduced Gulfstream G700 have takeoff weights up to and exceeding 100,000lbs. Although these aircraft continue to grow, they will fill the same market segment and continue to experience engine and fuselage improvements resulting in overall increased fuel efficiency with less noise.

Publishing the capabilities of the airfield is how APA informs users of the runway’s ability to accommodate certain aircraft operations. This ensures APA provides a safe public service while meeting FAA grant assurance obligations and maintaining transparent operations. To help achieve these goals, the FAA has developed the Aircraft Classification Number/Pavement Classification Number (ACN/PCN) system for rating and reporting pavement strengths. The PCN system allows an airport to report runway pavement strengths under a system designed to allow safe operations specific to the local conditions experienced at that airport. FAA provides the COMFAA software for calculating runway PCN and it is recommended that the Airport determine and report that PCN. This will allow APA to continue safely meeting the operational needs of its users. Analysis shows that the appropriate PCN value for Runway 17L-35R is 26/F/C/X/T.6 This PCN value should be published as the appropriate strength for Runway 17L-35R. Table 5-4 shows what these values mean. Regardless of the PCN value, current Airport policy requires all aircraft landing or taking off above 75,000 pounds to first obtain a prior permission request (PPR) authorization and this policy is planned to remain in place.

6 Technical Memorandum: Centennial Airport Rehabilitate Runway 17L/35R Pavement Classification Number, May 7, 2020, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-17 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 5-4 RUNWAY 17L-35R PAVEMENT CLASSIFICATION NUMBER EVALUATION

PCN Description Value

Pavement load capacity rating based on known pavement characteristics, 26 the estimated fleet mix, and the pass-to-coverage (P/C) ratio for each aircraft (provided within the COMFAA software).

F Flexible Pavement Designation.

For Rehabilitation Areas - Subgrade Strength Categories (as defined in Table 2-1 of FAA AC 150/5335-5C). The “C” designation indicates a “Low” C California Bearing Ratio (CBR) between 4-8 (a CBR of 4.2 was used in the pavement design analysis).

Allowable Tire Pressure Category (as defined in Table 4-2 of FAA AC150/5335-5C). The “X” designation indicates “High,” a well-constructed X flexible pavement section and is capable of handling aircraft with tire pressures up to 254 psi.

Pavement Strength Evaluation Method. The “T” designation of the PCN T indicates that the pavement carrying capacity has been determined using a technical evaluation.

Source: Jacobs Engineering Group, Centennial Airport Rehabilitate Runway 17L/35R Pavement Classification Number, May 7, 2020; FAA AC 150/5335-5C, Standardized Method of Reporting Airport Pavement Strength - PCN, August 14, 2014; FAA COMFAA v3.0; Prepared by RS&H, 2020

5.4.1.2 Taxiway Connector Configuration The next most important surface network following runways is the taxiway system. Chapter 4, Facility Requirements identified the existing taxiway components that do not meet updated FAA design standards. An alternatives analysis was prepared for the RIM location at Taxiway C1. Taxiway C1 plays a vital role on the airfield by providing the primary access to Runway 10 departures end; however, the converging taxiways on the apron near Taxiway A8 and run-up operations on Taxiway C create operational dependencies and congestion. Taxiways A8, C, C1, N, and the run-up operations in that convergence area are all operationally interconnected and alterations to one element effect all others. Therefore, a holistic approach that incorporated all these elements was necessary to reduce runway incursions at Taxiway C1. This area of alternative development options is dubbed “Mid-Field alternatives” for simplicity. All Mid-Field alternatives focus on modifications to airfield geometry that both meet FAA design standards and reduce operational congestion on the apron, therefore lessening opportunities for Runway 10 incursions at Taxiway C1. Figure 5-3 highlights the airfield study area included in Mid-Field alternatives.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-18 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 5-3 MID-FIELD ALTERNATIVE STUDY AREA

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020

FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Change 1, Airport Design, provides design standards and best practices to ensure safety and increase situational awareness for operators. Airfield deficiencies, design standards and best practices considered for the Mid-Field alternatives include: » Avoid “high energy” intersections – The runway crossing between Taxiway A8 and B8 is within the “high energy” intersection. A pilot’s ability to maneuver in the middle third of a runway is reduced and this area should be kept clear to avoid the increased possibility of a collision. » Increase situational awareness – The taxiway intersection at Taxiways A, A8 and A9 is greater than “three-nodes”. Complex taxiway intersections with crossing markings and multiple nodes can lead to confusion. Taxiway intersection should use the “three-node” concept. » Indirect access – The design of Taxiway A8 provides direct apron to runway access. Taxiways leading directly from an apron to a runway can hinder a user’s situational awareness. Operators expecting to turn onto a parallel taxiway may inadvertently turn onto a runway. Taxiway design should include turns to avoid direct access.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-19 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

» Avoid wide expanses of pavement – The pavement width at Taxiway A8 is wider than current FAA standards. The sign placement is farther from the pilot’s eye and reduces the conspicuity of other visual cues. Taxiways should be constructed to standards and signs need to be placed in the appropriate location.

An analysis of the taxiway connectors for Runway 17L-35R and 17R-35L was performed using Runway Exit Design Interactive Model (REDIM) software. The REDIM software was used to generate a baseline taxiway exit utilization using the exiting airfield geometry, fleet mix data from the previous Part 150 study, and pilot behavioral tendencies vetted by APA ATC. Results of the analysis were used to assess existing exit taxiways and identify whether safety and operational enhancements could be made. Figure 5-4 shows the baseline taxiway utilization numbers for south flow, landing and departing on Runway 17, and Figure 5-5 shows north flow, landing and departing on Runway 35.

In south flow, two groups of aircraft exit Runway 17L-35R at Taxiway A8. These groups include smaller/slower single engine aircraft and faster turboprop aircraft. Each group has different performance characteristics, including, approach speed, weight, and landing roll distance. Having two aircraft groups primarily using one taxiway exit effects a runway efficiency when not optimally located to expedite traffic exiting the runway. During north flow, Taxiway A8 is primarily used by jet aircraft that do not exit at Taxiway A9. Providing safe and efficient circulation from Runway 17L-35R to the apron is a consideration in the Mid-Field alternatives development process.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-20 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 5-4 SOUTH FLOW BASELINE TAXIWAY UTILIZATION

FIGURE 5-5 NORTH FLOW BASELINE TAXIWAY UTILIZATION

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-21 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Prior to developing alternatives, a comprehensive review and evaluation of previously proposed plans was completed. This study reviewed a solution proposed by the RSAT Committee and airfield enhancements from the 2008 Airport Layout Plan.

The RSAT Committee, made up of representatives from the Airport, Airport users, and FAA, identified the location for a new run-up area intended to reduce runway incursions at Taxiway C1. The RSAT’s proposed run-up area would be constructed north of Taxiway A8 with apron access. The rationale behind the RSAT’s proposed run-up pad was that by creating a formal run-up location that increased the taxi distance between aircraft performing run-ups and Runway 10, pilots would have the time necessary to recognize they were approaching the runway environment before crossing the Runway 10 hold short line at Taxiway C1 without clearance. This rationale is a consideration in the Mid-Field alternatives development process.

Today, aircraft travel paths converge in a congested area near the throat of Taxiway A8. From an operational standpoint, constructing a run-up area in the RSAT proposed location is expected to add congestion and delay to users traversing the area. Users that currently perform run-ups near Taxiway C1 prior to departing Runway 10 would need to cross through a busy multi-point intersection, perform their run-ups, and cross once more to hold short of Runway 10 at Taxiway C1.

Operators looking to transition through the Mid-Field intersection would also need to wait for crossing traffic in a busy and uncontrolled area. Aircraft fuel costs are always a consideration for cost-sensitive pilots and aircraft operators and because of this, higher taxiway speeds can be more appealing when transitioning through the Mid-Field intersection to avoid time delay and added fuel costs. Combined with the area’s congestion and the design of Taxiway C1, there is a risk of unintended consequences occurring, including the continuation of runway incursions at Runway 10 due to additional congestion near and around the apron at Taxiway A8. The RSAT run-up pad solution and the anticipated operational flows are shown in Figure 5-6. Aside from the potential issues created by the RSAT proposed run-up location, a formal run-up area is highly desirable as it allows aircraft operators to perform engine checks at high RPMs in a protected area. Creating a formal run-up area will be considered in the Mid-Field development alternatives.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-22 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 5-6 RSAT SOLUTION WITH OPERATIONAL FLOWS

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020

The apron connection at Taxiway A8 may prove advantageous to expediting aircraft movements from the runway environment to the uncontrolled apron, however, it does not meet updated FAA design standards and the location contributes to Mid-Field congestion, all adding to potential runway incursions at Taxiway C1. The Mid-Field alternatives analysis examines the apron connection at Taxiway A8.

The 2008 Airport Layout Plan shows a future high-speed taxiway between A8 and A5. An evaluation was conducted to determine if constructing a high-speed taxiway would enhance circulation and reduce runway incursions at Taxiway C1. Since the 2008 Airport Layout Plan was completed, FAA has revised high-speed taxiway design standards. While the 2008 Airport Layout Plan did meet FAA standards at the time, the updated standards do not recommend co-located high-speed exit taxiways, as proposed within the 2008 Airport Layout Plan. Major airfield geometry changes requiring significant capital investment would be necessary to implement a new high-speed taxiway at that location under updated FAA design standards. This option was discounted as the capital investment needed was determined to be too great and the benefits marginal at best; however, analysis determined that constructing a 90-degree exit

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-23 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

taxiway in an optimal location would provide circulation enhancements and therefore this option is being evaluated as part of the Mid-Field development alternative analysis.

The following objectives were established for developing Mid-Field alternatives to meet the needs of the Airport. » Alleviate apron congestion at the entrance of Runway 10 at Taxiway C1 and near Taxiway A8. » Enhance safety and situational awareness for operators. » Provide a formal run-up area. » Reduce runway occupancy time on the primary runway. » Offer a short taxi distance from the runway to the apron. » Design to meet current FAA criteria. » An implementable solution. » Minimize impact to existing leaseholds. » No significant change to existing infrastructure.

Eight preliminary concepts were developed and evaluated against EONS criteria and the established objectives. The alternative concepts examined relocating either the apron entrance from Taxiway A, the runway crossing between Taxiway A8 and B8, or various combinations. REDIM analysis also determined that moving the runway crossing between Taxiway A8 and B8 to the north could improve (decrease) runway occupancy times.

The preliminary alternatives shown in Figure 5-7 accomplished all, or most, objectives previously listed; some to greater degree than others. Some preliminary alternatives were anticipated to require more capital investment or a significant change in airfield geometry.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-24 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 5-7 PRELIMINARY MID-FIELD ALTERNATIVES

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2019

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-25 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

5.4.2 Preferred Airfield Development The preliminary alternatives were presented to APA leadership for review and refinement at which time the collaborative process led to a preferred hybrid alternative. The preferred Mid-Field alternative constructs a formal run-up area in place of the existing Taxiway A8 apron connection. The runway crossing at Taxiway A8 and B8 shifts 300 feet to the north and a new apron entrance is constructed north of the proposed Taxiway A8 runway exit. The preferred Mid-Field alternative is shown in Figure 5-8.

FIGURE 5-8 PREFERRED MID-FIELD ALTERNATIVE

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-26 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Shifting the runway crossing at Taxiway A8 and B8 north reduces excess landing roll for small, slower, single engine aircraft, allowing for quicker runway exiting. Since Taxiway A8 serves the small single-engine and turboprop fleet in south flow and jet traffic in north flow, the proposed taxiway placement is optimal to serve those aircraft performance characteristics. Though Taxiway A8 is modeled for optimization, unanticipated circumstances found during design may be presented requiring the connector to shift from the proposed location. The proposed location is optimal to meet fleet mix performance needs, however, should design conditions necessitate a nearby location, 250 feet from the identified location in each direction is acceptable so long as the connector remains north of the “High-Energy” zone.

A new apron entrance is proposed just north of new Taxiway A8. The new apron entrance is placed to the minimum offset from the proposed Taxiway A8 to reduce the taxi distance from the runway and alleviate congestion on Taxiway A.

The preferred Mid-Field alternative shows a new apron entrance location that meets FAA design standards. During engagement with key stakeholders, it was identified that retaining direct access from runway to apron via the Taxiway A8 connection provides a critical operational efficiency during peak periods by expediting the crossing aircraft exiting from Runway 17R-35L to the apron between Runway 17L-35R departures and arrivals. Air Traffic Controllers are typically able to authorize a maximum of three queued aircraft to cross rapidly in order to meet peak capacity constraints. The small window of time aircraft are able to cross is exacerbated by the location of runway hold short locations which lengthen the crossing distance. Implementation of this preferred Mid-Field safety solution should include an FAA Safety Risk Management process to further assess whether a retaining direct access in a new taxiway connection is appropriate to this unique operational situation.

The preferred Mid-Field alternative solution addresses nonstandard taxiway geometry in the Mid-Field area and will disperse aircraft movements more safely and efficiently than the current configuration. By relocating the apron entrance and locating the RSAT proposed run-up area near, but not immediately adjacent to, Taxiway C1, pilots have an unimpeded path from the run-up area to the Runway 10 hold short line at Taxiway C1. This proposed location simultaneously provides proximity to, and relative safe distance from, Taxiway C1 which serves to eliminate one existing condition known to increase the likelihood of runway incursions at Taxiway C1. Having the run-up area in this location provides pilots with clear line-of-sight to Taxiway C1 as well as unobstructed visual cues for identifying taxiing aircraft near Taxiway C1 and around the congested Mid-Field area. Incorporating the formal run-up area is of critical importance to the overall Mid-Field preferred solution because it allows operators to perform necessary engine checks before departing while simultaneously removing obstacles to taxiing aircraft.

The Mid-Field preferred solution relieves elevated congestion on and around the apron, enhances circulation safety, and is anticipated to reduce Runway 10 incursions at Taxiway C1. In addition to addressing safety and operational flow improvements, the REDIM analysis of the preferred Mid-Field solution projected a reduction in runway occupancy times for aircraft using the relocated Taxiway A8, resulting in increased Runway 17L-35R hourly throughput and annual capacity. The preferred hybrid alternative with revised operational flows is shown in Figure 5-9. This alternative will be identified as a project in the Airport’s Capital Improvement Program and incorporated in the future Airport Layout Plan.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-27 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 5-9 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITH OPERATIONAL FLOWS

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-28 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

5.5 SUPPORT FACILITIES The configuration of airport support facilities is dependent upon the airfield layout and available land for airport development. This analysis will consider alternative development options for aircraft hangars, apron, deicing facilities, airport maintenance, aircraft washing, Air Traffic Control Tower siting, electric aircraft charging, and solar energy harvesting. This analysis is performed within the applicable land use, operational, financial, and environmental constraints.

5.5.1 Aircraft Hangars and Apron Expansion All of the land available for aeronautical development at Centennial Airport is currently under lease with a tenant. However, there are large areas of land with access to airfield facilities that are still undeveloped, and the oldest areas of the airport contain buildings that are nearing, or exceeding, their useful lives. The East General Aviation area contains many older T-hangars and sheltered tie-downs which present opportunities for redevelopment under current and forecast market conditions. Previously in this chapter, Figure 5-2 showed general areas of the airport considered as either development zones (those containing undeveloped land) and opportunity zones (those containing structures which may have exceeded their useful life).

Only a few areas in the East General Aviation area present opportunities during the planning period for consideration of possible redevelopment. These areas are identified in Table 5-5 shown in Figure 5-10 and are identified with the year of lease expiration. Upon lease expiration, the ACPAA would be able to exercise contractual rights, some of which include negotiation of lease extension or administration of a new lease.

TABLE 5-5 OPPORTUNITY ZONE PARCEL LEASE EXPIRATIONS

Parcel Expiration Extension Option

Parcel 50A-5 6/30/2037 None Parcel 50-5 1/1/2022 None Parcel 34 9/30/2027 None Source: Airport Records; RS&H Analysis, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-29 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 5-10 OPPORTUNITY ZONE LEASEHOLD EXPIRATIONS

Source: ACPAA Records, RS&H Analysis, 2020

Long-term leases are currently held for the majority of undeveloped land at Centennial Airport by two companies, Sunborne and Denver jetCenter. Sunborne holds leases expiring beyond 2050 for the Interport area land south of Runway 10-28, and Denver jetCenter holds leases expiring beyond 2040 for the land south of Interport Blvd and east of the Taxiway A15 area. Each leaseholder has conceptual development plans for these areas. Sunborne plans for the Interport area have advanced to roughly 15 percent build out, while the DjC plans for the large undeveloped area south of Interport Blvd have yet to begin formal design and implementation. DjC also leases land at the south end of the airfield near Taxiway A16 and A18. This land is primed for corporate hangar development and the current leases expire around 2040. Modern Aviation also has conceptual plans to further develop its leasehold with large hangars. Plans for each development area were reviewed for their ability to accommodate projected future demand and against established evaluation criteria to determined fitness for meeting overall

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-30 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

airport needs. Table 5-6 shows calculations of the aircraft storage space provided within the most current conceptual plans for development by Sunborne, DjC, and Modern Aviation. Combined, these plans easily account for well over the necessary projected based and transient aircraft facilities at full build out. Each of the square footage areas examined, including based tie-down, transient apron area, conventional hangars, and corporate hangars, would exceed the forecasted PAL 3 requirements by at least 78,000 square feet.

TABLE 5-6 PROPOSED AIRCRAFT HANGAR AND APRON DEVELOPMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE

Proposed Development PAL 3 Facility Development Square Build Out Requirements Footage Surplus / (Deficit) Sunborne DjC Modern Total Surplus / (Deficit)

Based Tie-Downs - 93,000 - 93,000 (10,000) 83,000 Transient Apron Area - 269,000 53,000 322,000 (107,000) 215,000 Conventional Hangars 80,000 160,000 - 240,000 (159,000) 81,000 Corporate Hangars 151,000 142,000 60,000 353,000 (275,000) 78,000 Source: Airport Records; RS&H Analysis, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-31 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 5-11 AIRPORT LEASEHOLDER SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS

Source: Airport Records; RS&H,2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-32 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

For the purposes of this Master Plan, the Sunborne Interport development is considered designed and established. Infrastructure investments have already been made, site grading for taxilanes and apron is partially complete, and the primary road network is in place. A 17-acre portion of the site is disconnected from airfield facilities by Isbill Road for the purpose of aviation compatible business development. The first phase of the Wings Over the Rockies (WOTR) Museum is also complete on the eastern side of the site. As it stands, the Interport plan is established beyond any reasonable point or need for considering changes to planned land uses.

By comparison, the Modern Aviation leasehold is relatively small. The early concepts from Modern Aviation, after the acquisition of X-Jet, show 2 large hangars oriented in line with the airfield, with a logical apron expansion south, and necessary space for vehicle parking. Without having any more specific details, the plan from Modern Aviation appears to be consistent with best airport planning practices.

At roughly 75 acres, the Denver jetCenter conceptual plan covers the largest undeveloped area on Airport property with access to airfield facilities. The plans show a new FBO location east of Taxiway A14 and an ingress/egress route with direct access to Taxiway A at an extended Taxiway A15. Large aircraft parking apron is available immediately east of the FBO and smaller aircraft parking apron is on the opposite side of the extended Taxiway A15 route south of the large aircraft apron. Space is allocated between the two aircraft parking aprons for traffic to bypass each other. Organized areas of varying size hangars occupy the remaining portion of the easternmost section of the site.

Figure 5-12 shows the DjC conceptual plan areas as they are programmed for airfield/apron use, environmental needs, and landside access. The area shown in the dashed box outline was analyzed compared to aviation industry best practices because this area is closest to existing airfield and infrastructure and most likely to develop first. This area is also the most critical to consider for future planning because, once established, it would be difficult to change before the facilities useful lives were expended.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-33 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 5-12 DENVER JETCENTER SITE CONCEPT REVIEW

Source: Airport Records; RS&H Analysis, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-34 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Landside/Roadway Considerations The landside ingress/egress is divided into two locations. The first point of vehicular access is on Interport Boulevard and serves the FBO and an area of large hangars via a service road paralleling Interport Boulevard. The second point of vehicular access is on S Peoria Street serving the eastern hangars. Approximately five acres of the site is shown as undeveloped in the southeast corner along S Peoria Street and approximately one acre of land is shown as undeveloped at the northern end of Aviator Lane to account for site stormwater drainage needs.

Limiting points of landside roadway ingress/egress to the site is good practice. The Interport Boulevard intersection was likely chosen because no alterations would be required to the existing median. However, this access location, under the conceptual airside design, results in a portion of the site dedicated purely to vehicular right-of-way access to two separate portions of the site (FBO and eastern hangars). This is an inefficient use of space that could otherwise be allocated to airside facilities. Separating access points that are dedicated to the different areas would help better utilize available space. Creating separate landside access may require additional investment in Interport Boulevard median alterations (such as curb cuts and possibly left turn lanes), but the tradeoff is more space available for aeronautical uses.

The second access point to the conceptual Denver jetCenter site is on S Peoria Street and serves the remaining facilities on the eastern portion of the site. This location is practical as it creates an intersection at James E Casey Avenue. It is possible traffic signalization would be required at this intersection as deemed necessary by traffic studies performed prior to site development. One new site access option, unavailable at the time of this initial concept design, is via Double Helix Court, which is currently a Dead End road serving the recently constructed Unified Metropolitan Forensic Crime Laboratory. Users would access Double Helix Court via Aviator Way and S Peoria Street, where there is a signalized intersection. Creating a third access point to the site would allow the site roadway and parking to be divided. The current access point on S Peoria Street requires drivers to make an immediate decision upon entering the site as to whether to turn right to large hangars or go straight to smaller hangars. Providing the third site access point would improve landside safety and provide additional space for maximizing airside facilities.

Environmental Considerations The Denver jetCenter site layout does take existing site grades and stormwater drainage into consideration. Space is preserved to accommodate stormwater and existing stormwater facilities are utilized in site design. No specific information is provided in the conceptual site layout regarding stormwater facility infrastructure sizing, capacity, or design; therefore, no specific analysis was performed in this Master Plan to ensure stormwater drainage facilities are adequate for the overall site. At a high level, it appears stormwater was properly considered at the conceptual design level and existing facilities will be properly integrated into any final site design.

Airfield/Apron Considerations There are three primary airfield/apron considerations focused on during review of the conceptual Denver jetCenter site layout. These are: 1. Site facility organization 2. Preservation of adequate aircraft movement corridors

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-35 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

3. Utilization of existing space for aeronautical purposes

The site is organized to place a new FBO closest to the primary runway and provide large aircraft apron parking near the FBO, presumably for transient aircraft. Opposite the large aircraft apron parking across a central site movement corridor, is small aircraft apron parking. The easternmost portion of the site is used for hangars graduating in size as they get closer to S Peoria Street. Closest to the small aircraft parking apron is a pair of smaller row hangars, followed by rows of box hangars further east, and finally large corporate hangars along S Peoria Street. This is a logical organization to the site and appears to be based on a customer service model. Transient aircraft use FBO facilities, which are closest to the primary runway. Large transient aircraft can by hangered immediately adjacent to the FBO. Transient jets provide the highest revenues and are parked on apron closest to the FBO. Smaller transient aircraft are next closest but across the central movement corridor. Flight training aircraft may also occupy some of this space. Finally, hangars likely programmed for lease to based aircraft owners are located furthest from the airfield but at the most easily accessed and visible location to the roadway network. While many other models and layouts would work on this site, this organization of facilities is adequate to meet customer level of service expectations.

One of the most important aspects to review for this plan is the ability to accommodate necessary airfield taxiway infrastructure for the current and future critical aircraft. As conceived in the Denver jetCenter plan7, a single taxiway provides ingress and egress for the entire site via an extension of Taxiway A15. This is shown in Figure 5-13. This taxiway splits to allow dual flow traffic once it reaches the apron parking areas. The first issue with this design is a lack of flexibility for moving aircraft in and out of the site. This site has a full estimated capacity of more than 150 aircraft, and it is reasonable to expect this would create movement conflicts and delays for aircraft coming in and out of the site. Secondly, FAA design criteria analysis shows that a Taxiway A15 extension in its current alignment has penetrations into the ADG III aircraft Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA) (shown in red). The first penetration is the conceptual aircraft parking box in front of the FBO. This is easily resolved through apron design and markings. The second penetration is the parking area and fence of the existing Air Max hangar. These issues could be resolved by slightly shifting the Taxiway A15 extension north, however it is not considered best practice to create these types of taxiway shifts as it adds to pilot workload in a busy and confined airfield environment which is a safety concern.

7 Parcels making up the site do not expire concurrently and accomplishing any of the existing or proposed concepts may rely on agreements between the Airport and tenant which create concurrent lease expiration.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-36 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 5-13 DENVER JETCENTER CONCEPTUAL SITE ENTRY/EXIT POINT LAYOUT

Source: Airport Records; RS&H Analysis, 2020

Figure 5-14 shows an alternative site entry concept that preserved dual flow access in and out of the area. Taxiway A15 is shifted slightly north to meet ADG III separations requirements and reconstructed to current FAA design standards. Taxiway A14 access to Taxiway A is removed and the remaining portion is incorporated into an expanded apron area. Taxiway A14 is replaced by a new taxiway north of Taxiway A15 that meets current FAA separations standards. This does remove a portion of the DjC conceptual apron space but by reorienting the FBO, hangar, and landside roadway and parking, the area shown in the “development zone” could recover much of that lost apron space. Eliminating the FBO access road adjacent the large aircraft apron from the layout and instead using separate access points for the FBO area and the large hangars, provides space for a minimum of 30 feet additional apron width over a distance of roughly 700 feet (approximately 21,000 square feet of additional apron.) Orienting the airside

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-37 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

fronting portion of the FBO with the primary runway and existing buildings allows vehicle parking to be placed on the roadway side of the development zone and preserves airfield-facing aeronautical activities. The FBO adjacent to the large hangar remains oriented with the new entry/exit point taxiways but shifts south in the new space created by turning the FBO orientation.

FIGURE 5-14 DENVER JETCENTER CONCEPTUAL SITE ENTRY/EXIT POINT LAYOUT ALTERNATIVE 1

Source: Airport Records; RS&H Analysis, 2020

Another site entry/exit point alternative is shown in Figure 5-15. This option also creates dual flow taxiways at ADG III standards but located more central to the width available for the site. The access from the apron to Taxiway A by Taxiways A14 and A15 is removed and the remaining portions of the taxiways are incorporated into an expanded apron area. Taxiway A15 is reconstructed to the north and a new taxiway is constructed between the remaining Taxiway A14 and the new Taxiway A15 in a manner that

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-38 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

meets all current FAA separations standards. This option ensures proper wingtip clearances are met for taxiing aircraft as required today, and likely into the future if the area were to begin serving aircraft requiring larger wingtip clearances. Additionally, the dual flow taxiways can always be used to taxi a single aircraft under irregular operations as required. Space south of the dual taxiways can be used as apron for close parking to FBO facilities, but area available for those FBO and hangar facilities is reduced from other options. Adequate space is still available to develop those facilities; however, the development zone has less space flexibility than the first alternative.

FIGURE 5-15 DENVER JETCENTER CONCEPTUAL SITE ENTRY/EXIT POINT LAYOUT ALTERNATIVE 2

Source: Airport Records; RS&H Analysis, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-39 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 5-7 DENVER JETCENTER CONCEPTUAL SITE ENTRY/EXIT POINT LAYOUT EVALUATION MATRIX

Denver jetCenter Conceptual Site Entry/Exit Point Layout Alternatives Evaluation Criteria Proposed 1 2

Safety

Operational Efficiency

Meets FAA Design Standards

Effectively Serves Target User

Resolves Current Issues

Meets Long-Term Facility Needs

Appropriate Level of Service

Ease of Implementation

Cost to Implement

Flexible/Future Expansion

EONS Impact

Supports Sustainable Development Principles

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020 Performance Legend

Good

Fair

Poor

5.5.2 Deicing and Stormwater Management As part of this Master Plan, a deicing and stormwater management study was performed to analyze issues and develop alternative solutions to address those concerns. This analysis and the respective alternative solutions can be found in Appendix D.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-40 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

5.5.3 Maintenance Facilities APA has two airport maintenance buildings. The main building is approximately 15,000 square feet with administrative space, storage, and multiple pull-through bays for fleet maintenance activities. The second building is 7,000 square feet used for cold storage of equipment. Both buildings are in good condition. However, as SRE equipment sizes continue to trend larger, the layout and orientation of the two buildings create challenges to accommodate future needs. These challenges include providing adequate storage space and equipment maneuverability between the two buildings. Maneuverability issues are primarily due to the longer size and increased turning radii for modern snow removal equipment. To meet the future demand, an additional 7,500 square feet of building for maintenance activities and an additional 3,500 square feet of cold storage building is required.

As shown in Maintenance Facility Alternative One (Figure 5-16), the identified building expansions can be accommodated within the existing footprint to meet near-term expansion needs; however, expansion space is very narrow and not without challenges, and any further expansion would be unable to be located within the same area. Expansion of the cold storage building is only able to occur to the southeast due to height restrictions of the Part 77 transitional surface. The challenges to maneuverability due to increased turning radii would not be alleviated in any expansion of current facilities. Expansion of the existing footprint is the simplest to implement within the short-term and most cost-effective option. Connections cannot be made between the surrounding apron areas if the maintenance facilities remain.

FIGURE 5-16 MAINTENANCE FACILITIES ALTERNATIVE 1

Source: Airport Records; RS&H Analysis, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-41 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

In order to address SRE turning radius and height restriction challenges, Maintenance Alternative Two keeps the maintenance facilities within the same general footprint but to demolish the existing buildings and rebuild new facilities in the same location. Constructability would be a challenge as temporary facilities would be necessary during the construction of new buildings. This location does retain the desirable proximity to Priority 1 snow removal pavement, including the Runway 17L-35R and Taxiway A. However, the limited expandability of the site does limit its ability to meet any future additional space requirements and, as shown, this alternative does not allow for pull through bays. The opportunity to connect the existing surrounding apron sections is feasible in this concept. Maintenance Alternative Two is shown in Figure 5-17.

FIGURE 5-17 MAINTENANCE FACILITIES ALTERNATIVE 2

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-42 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Maintenance Alternative Three relocates all maintenance facilities to the former go-kart track space north of the Runway 28 end. The site in this location is leased to Denver jetCenter through 2040, creating a need to renegotiate contract terms if the site were selected for development prior to that lease expiration. Located in an area mostly void of permanent development, substantial expandability would be possible at this location. The site does have significant grade and access challenges that would need to be addressed when developing the area. Resolving the grade challenges and bringing utility infrastructure out to the site would result in increased development costs when compared to other alternatives. This location would also substantially increase the required travel distance to maintain the areas of highest priority during a snow event, Runway 17L-35R and Taxiway A. The location, as well as one potential maintenance site layout for Maintenance Alternative Three are shown in Figure 5-18.

FIGURE 5-18 MAINTENANCE FACILITIES ALTERNATIVE 3

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-43 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Maintenance Alternative Four relocates maintenance facilities north of the existing site into an undeveloped site along Interport Boulevard. The location currently has sufficient undeveloped area to accommodate any necessary future expansion. As discussed previously in Section 5.5.1, Aircraft Hangars and Apron Expansion, this area is located within a Denver jetCenter leasehold that is contracted through 2040. This alternative has the benefit of being located adjacent to Runway 17L-35R and Taxiway A, the highest priority areas for snow removal operations. The location also provides easy landside access to Interport Boulevard. This alternative is shown in Figure 5-19.

FIGURE 5-19 MAINTENANCE FACILITIES ALTERNATIVE 4

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-44 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Maintenance Alternative Five relocates all maintenance facilities to the north of Runway 10-28 and east of the existing general aviation T-hangars. This site is leased to Denver jetCenter through 2040. Similar to Maintenance Alternative Three, the facility would not be located in close proximity to the highest priority areas during a snow event and the terrain has significant grade challenges which would increase construction costs. Given the close access to the Runway 10-28 runway and taxiway system, and the limited remaining greenfield sites, this location may be better used for other aeronautical development. Maintenance Alternative Five is shown in Figure 5-20.

FIGURE 5-20 MAINTENANCE FACILITIES ALTERNATIVE 5

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020

An overview graphic which summarizes the five proposed maintenance facility alternatives is included in Figure 5-21.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-45 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 5-21 MAINTENANCE FACILITIES SUMMARY

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-46 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Due to the immediate need for additional maintenance facility space, Maintenance Alternative One is the preferred solution for the planning period. The expansions can address immediate space challenges, while turn radius challenges are managed operationally in the interim. Ultimately, when further expansion is required and the current maintenance facilities approach the end of the useful life, relocation of the facilities to a new site will be possible. Maintenance Alternative Four is the preferred alternative for an ultimate development because it provides the best combination of access to the highest priority areas and future expandability. If this site were developed prior to the 2040 lease expiration, negotiations with the leaseholder would be required. However, it is expected that the near-term solution will be adequate and manageable until the time that existing maintenance facilities have reached the end of their useful life. Additionally, the ultimate preferred maintenance facility location conflicts with current leaseholder concept development plan, and long-term planning will need to be coordinated and accommodate access to that overall site. An evaluation matrix for the five alternatives examined is included in Table 5-8.

TABLE 5-8 MAINTENANCE FACILITIES ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX

Alternatives Evaluation Criteria 1 2 3 4 5

Safety

Operational Efficiency

Meets FAA Design Standards

Effectively Serves Target User

Resolves Current Issues

Meets Long-Term Facility Needs

Appropriate Level of Service

Ease of Implementation

Cost to Implement

Flexible/Future Expansion

EONS Impact

Supports Sustainable Development Principles

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020 Performance Legend

Good

Fair

Poor

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-47 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

5.5.4 Aircraft Wash Facilities The creation of an aircraft wash rack facility at the Airport provides a designated space for small GA tenants to perform washing activities with proper environmental disposal of aircraft cleaning waste. Comparable airports including Scottsdale Airport and Van Nuys Airport provide aircraft wash facilities to small GA tenants. Scottsdale Airport has two wash racks, an open-air wash pad and an enclosed facility near the runway end. Van Nuys Airport has an open-air wash rack near GA hangars and tie-downs.

Creating a wash rack facility has several required infrastructure elements. A 70’ by 70’ pad should be constructed to allow for use by an aircraft up to a Beechcraft King Air 200 in size and to capture any water overspray. The ability to tie into water and sanitary sewer lines and meet sufficient grade to drain for wastewater is necessary. For environmental reasons, the drain must have grease, oil, and sand separators and have a valve which can be closed during precipitation events to reduce collection of stormwaters. Finally, a bib and bib hose are required for the washing of the aircraft.

A 70’ by 70’ pad also allows the option for sheltered infrastructure to be provided if desired. The pad can accommodate a sheltered roof or full enclosure to reduce infiltration of precipitation into the drain and lessen runoff of grease and soaps around the pad while also reducing the impacts from weather elements for tenants using the wash rack. If charges for this service are implemented, a credit card machine will need to be provided which necessitates a connection to electric utility and the ability to provide communications service at the location. Preserving space for a second bay expansion should also be considered in order to handle expansion if ultimately required.

For the Airport-owned wash rack location, three locations were examined. These locations are shown in Figure 5-22 and include: » Wash Rack Alternative One – Near Centennial Air Plaza  This location is in close proximity to small GA hangars and tie-downs, increasing customer convenience. This parcel is leased to KAPA Air Park through 2047 and would need to be reclaimed by the Airport for the wash rack. All required utilities are already in the area to serve other facilities. Given the roadside and apron access of this greenfield location, this location may ultimately have a higher priority land use. This wash rack location is similar to the Van Nuys Airport configuration. » Wash Rack Alternative Two – East of GA hangars  This location provides proximity to small GA hangars. Of the three options, this site would require new pavement and the furthest extension of water and sanitary utility lines. This location also has other potential as a future development site. » Wash Rack Alternative Three – Taxiway C5 Run-up  Near the existing compass rose of the Runway 28 end, this location has existing pavement and taxiways, resulting in an increased ease of implementation. Water utility lines are in the area and sanitary sewer lines are located approximately 500’ to the northeast. As it is near the runway end, the location must remain clear of airspace surfaces and height penetrations. This location has the least proximity to small GA hangars. The wash rack configuration at Scottsdale Airport is in a similar location.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-48 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 5-22 WASH RACK ALTERNATIVES

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-49 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

The preferred development for implementation is Wash Rack Alternative Three. Both Alternative One and Two are in locations which building development has previously been proposed. Siting the wash rack near the runway ends preserves flexibility and future expansion potential. The ease and reduced cost of implementation at this location, with existing taxiway infrastructure and utility lines in the vicinity, also make this location ideal.

TABLE 5-9 AIRCRAFT WASH FACILITY LOCATION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX

Wash Rack Alternatives Evaluation Criteria 1 2 3

Safety

Operational Efficiency

Meets FAA Design Standards

Effectively Serves Target User

Resolves Current Issues

Meets Long-Term Facility Needs

Appropriate Level of Service

Ease of Implementation

Cost to Implement

Flexible/Future Expansion

EONS Impact

Supports Sustainable Development Principles

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020 Performance Legend

Good

Fair

Poor

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-50 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

5.5.5 Air Traffic Control Tower The Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) is an aging building experiencing several maintenance issues and air traffic controller line of sight challenges. For these reasons and others, a potential ATCT relocation site should be preserved for the future. The 2008 Master Plan evaluated six locations for potential sites of an ultimate tower. Alternative locations considered the impacts of constructability, security, line of sight, expandability, and vehicle access. After evaluation, the previous master plan retained three viable alternatives to be preserved for a potential new location to be selected by the FAA as the need arises. These three alternatives are shown in Figure 5-23 and include: » ATCT Alternative One - Rebuild new tower and administration facilities in existing location  By rebuilding the tower in the existing location, the smallest construction impact would occur to the Airport, although temporary facilities would need to accommodate operations during construction. Existing issues with the tower location, including line of sight issues, limited expandability, and security would remain. » ATCT Alternative Two - Relocate tower and administration facilities northeast of the existing tower location outside of the APA property line  Relocating the tower to this location would necessitate the purchasing of off-airport property. The location is likely to have major line-of-sight issues and would require a large increase in tower height or the removal of existing hangars. The security challenges remain from the existing condition. » ATCT Alternative Three - Relocate tower and administration facilities to the south side of Runway 10/28 near the future corporate hangars and future Modern Aviation facility  This location has a large expanse of undeveloped land. Currently, this land is leased to Sunborne XVI, LTD (a Colorado Limited Partnership) through 2062, which includes two 20-year options in 2022 and 2042. The development plan of Sunborne focuses on the Interport area and does not have proposed development in this area at this time. Corporate hangars in the vicinity may cause line-of-sight issues but are likely to be addressed by the height of the tower.

As was the case in the 2008 Master Plan, ATCT Alternative Three will be carried forward to be shown on the Airport Layout Plan.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-51 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 5-23 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER ALTERNATIVES

Source: CH2M Hill Analysis, 2007; Prepared by RS&H, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-52 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

5.5.6 Utilities This section will discuss alternative development options for electric aircraft charging stations and harvesting of solar energy.

5.5.6.1 Electric Aircraft Charging Station The advent of electric aircraft presents potential near-term need to integrate new charging facilities into airport facilities. This creates a need to understand the degree of impact as it relates to: » Ownership models » Impacts to airport financial policies » Early adopters and forecast demand » Size and location of charging infrastructure » Demand on existing utility infrastructure (transmission lines, transformers, substations, etc.) » Aircraft fleet, battery types, charge rates, and design (charge station versus battery swap) » Impacts to the economy and the environment » Impacts to airfield infrastructure

Preliminary review of APA electrical utility infrastructure shows it to be sufficient to handle, at minimum, any potential small-scale near-term increase in electrical demand as result of aircraft charging stations.

There are two options for airports providing aircraft charging facilities. The investment can be made by the Airport or its tenants. In line with preferred Airport financial policies, the preferred APA position is to allow FBOs to implement and provide this service on leaseholds. If this were to change and APA had the desire to work with leaseholder to site aircraft charging stations, the most advantageous locations to service early adopters would be near flight schools, as shown in Figure 5-24.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-53 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 5-24 POTENTIAL ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT CHARGING LOCATIONS

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-54 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Under the preferred airport alternative, it is prudent to understand best practices when implementing aircraft charging stations. Some of the lessons learned from electric automobiles also translate into the aviation industry. The following sections will discuss best practices and implementation strategies to consider. These best practices will focus less on specific details of implementation such as types of charging stations, and more on overarching policies to ensure a variety of charging stations can be successfully implemented.

5.5.6.1.1 Implementation and Best Practices » Determine the target user at the airport and focus on customer level of service. This will help determine placement and proximity to desirable amenities by the targeted user. For example, if the charging station were placed immediately adjacent to the Denver jetCenter FBO and Perfect Landing restaurant, the targeted user would most likely be transient aircraft. If the station were placed near flight training centers, the targeted user would most likely be for based aircraft. Understanding what drives user behavior will help ensure investment in charging stations are maximized.

» Make charging stations highly visible to promote them and protect them. Signing and marking electric charging stations helps promote their use while also protecting them from damage. Consider physical barriers such as bollards around the stations to ensure aircraft cannot accidentally hit them. Placing stations at the edges of apron (non-airfield side) and buildings is much safer than in open spans of pavement.

» Seek out and join partnership networks to stay involved and current with electric aircraft trends. Electric aircraft and battery technology are burgeoning and remaining current with new information allows the Airport to promote the technology among those who may be early adopters such as airport tenants. Coordinating with CDOT, local economic development groups, and tenant stakeholder groups can provide avenues to technology information as well as supplemental funding opportunities.

» Review and update airport policies as electric aircraft charging gains favor to ensure the Airport remains self-sufficient and meets federal grant assurances. This will require information about charging by unit of energy (probably kilowatt-hours) to accurately account for the impacts on Airport revenues. It would benefit the Airport greatly to require tenants to collect and provide that information, just as fuel sales information would be provided, so as the Airport may monitor and track overall use. At some point, the Airport may need to review and amend minimum standards, lease guidelines, development review guidelines, and/or Airport rates and charges fee structure.

» Educate tenants and airport users about resources and opportunities. The EPA, peer airports, and industry leading charging station providers like ChargePoint are all excellent sources of information. The Airport can research and consider techniques for how to incentivize use, get ideas for implementing cost-savings measures (such as off-peak charging), and promoting airport

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-55 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

sustainability practices. Having electric charging stations creates potential for FBOs to begin integrating new ground electric handling equipment into the fleet as older equipment is removed from service.

The U.S. Department of Energy has published the Plug-In Electric Vehicle Handbook for Public Charging Station Hosts. This report, while designed for electric vehicle charging and not aircraft, provides some of the same factors that should be considered in planning for electric aircraft charging stations. Figure 5-25 shows the general process for installing an electric vehicle charging station at a public facility.

The U.S. Department of Energy also provides implementation considerations including the following: » Electric charging stations require specialty equipment and extensive electrical work; therefore, well qualified contractors should be selected to do the work. The condition and location of equipment will dictate the complexity of the installation. » Charging station installations must comply with local, state and national codes and regulations, and be installed by a licensed contractor. » Site and equipment considerations should include:  User convenience  Hazard avoidance  Proper ventilation of equipment  Battery temperature limits  Pooled water and irrigation protection  Impact prevention  Vandalism prevention (lighting, motion detectors, tamper alarms, etc.)  Distinctive signage  Accessibility meeting ADA requirements  Lighting and shelter needs  Payment models/methods and data collection  Aesthetics  Maintenance and trouble reporting

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-56 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 5-25 GENERAL PROCESS FOR INSTALLING ELECTRIC CHARGING STATION AT A PUBLIC FACILITY

Source: eTec, Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Deployment Guidelines for the Oregon I-5 Metro Areas of Portland, Salem, Corvallis and Eugene, 2010

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-57 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

5.5.6.2 Solar Energy Sites The potential exists at APA for the installation of a solar photovoltaic system. Capturing and utilizing solar energy can reduce electric costs, improve airport sustainability, increase redundancy in the utility system, and potentially provide a new revenue source. Immediately adjacent to the western airport property boundary, near the Inverness Reservoir, a solar harvesting facility exists, indicating near-term viability for such a project. Project feasibility analysis for on-airport solar infrastructure includes elements such as ownership types, return on investment, FAA standards (such as glare), electric utility infrastructure, and land use.

On-airport solar facilities can either be developed by the Airport or by a developer on land leased from the Airport. Making capital investments in solar facilities, APA would reap the benefits, such as electricity generation to offset usage and full control over future gains. At the same time, the Airport would assume the risk, such as maintenance costs and component replacement requirements. Leasing the land to a developer aligns well with the current Airport management model and lessens any risks while still allowing the Airport to benefit in sustainability improvements and operational cost reductions. Performing a full solar feasibility analysis would assist the Airport by better understanding elements to include/exclude during the lease contract negotiations process.

In 2017, ACPAA used a total of 750,000 kilowatt hours (kwh) at a total cost of $74,000. Given the climate considerations at APA, a direct current system size of 100 kilowatts can output more than 150,000 kwh annually8. Analysis of 2017 usage levels determined that approximately 0.75 acres of solar facilities would generate the equivalent of the energy levels used annually at the Airport. For APA, differing financial incentives, such as grants and FAA funding, may be available to help increase the return on investment from solar investment. Alternatively, with private investment, the airport could purchase electricity from the investor at a negotiated cost while also getting a return from the land lease. Private investments would present opportunities such as the Solar Investment Tax Credit9 for developers to reduce the cost of installation. A third-party investment may desire increased size to generate adequate electricity to increase the return on investment. By conducting a solar energy feasibility study, the Airport would be able to verify potential site suitability/effectiveness and perform a cost/benefit analysis to establish appropriate business strategies.

The Airport has several potential sites which appear to be compatible with a solar infrastructure project. Ideal locations will not impact near- to mid-term development opportunities and will be located in the vicinity of high-capacity electrical utility lines to transmit electricity to facilities. Modeling is needed to ensure resultant glare does not negatively impact pilots or air traffic controllers at current/future ATCT sites. Solar Alternative One is located near the off-airport solar project near the Inverness Reservoir. This site, located far from any runway end or the ATCT, would be unlikely to present glare challenges as illustrated by the existing project in the vicinity. Electric utility lines connect from the airport to Inverness Way E and would be able to connect into a potential solar project. This area west of the safety envelope has no proposed future development, not adequate room to accommodate future development without

8 Department of Energy PVWatts Calculator 9 Retrieved from https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/downloads/residential-and-commercial-itc-factsheets

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-58 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

tremendous capital cost. A second set of alternatives for a future solar project is the inclusion and/or addition of solar panels to Airport building rooftops, either an existing facility or on new construction. For the Airport, the administrative building and maintenance buildings are potential sites for consideration (see Solar Alternatives Two and Three on Figure 5-26). Solar Alternative Four uses empty land north of East Control Tower Road, however, this may conflict with helicopter operations at the Heliplex FBO. Solar Alternative Five is east of the threshold for Runway 28. This location could conflict with landing operations on Runway 28 and departing operations on Runway 10. Therefore, flight safety impacts should be thoroughly scrutinized during a feasibility analysis if this site is pursued. Notably, any area falling within the Runway 10-28 RPZ’s cannot be developed by the Airport.

Figure 5-26 shows some of the potential siting locations for a solar photovoltaic project at APA.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-59 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 5-26 POTENTIAL SOLAR PROJECT LOCATIONS

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-60 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

5.6 COMPREHENSIVE PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT The preferred development plan is the combination of all preferred facility development concepts over the planning period and beyond. Through collaborative workshops with Airport leadership and the public involvement process, a comprehensive preferred development future was selected. That comprehensive preferred development future is shown in Figure 5-27. Chapter 6, Financial Feasibility and Implementation Plan will address the timing of Airport development projects as well as project funding.

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-61 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 5-27 COMPREHENSIVE PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT

Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020

CENTENNIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 5-62