Minutes of the Work Session held on September 17, 2026

Meeting Minutes
City Council Work Session
September 17, 2026 | 4:00 p.m.
Council Chambers Conference Room
88 E. Chicago St., Chandler, AZ
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kevin Hartke at 4:39 p.m.
Roll Call
Council Attendance Appointee Attendance
Mayor Kevin Hartke John Pombier, City Manager
Vice Mayor Angel Encinas Deryck R. Lavelle, City Attorney
Councilmember Jane Poston Jennifer Ekblad, City Clerk
Councilmember Christine Ellis
Councilmember Matt Orlando
Councilmember Jennifer Hawkins
Absent
Councilmember OD Harris – excused
Staff in Attendance
Tadd Wille, Assistant City Manager
Dawn Lang, Deputy City Manager / Chief Financial Officer
Ryan Peters, Deputy City Manager
Leah Powell, Deputy City Manager
Emilia Krajewski, Assistant to the City Manager
Micah Miranda, Economic Development Director
Steven Turner, Development Services Assistant Director
Dawn Gingerich, Assistant City Attorney
Matthew Burdick, Communications & Public Affairs Director
Stephanie Romero, Public Information Officer
Marge Zylla, Strategic Initiatives Director

Discussion
1. Presentation on findings from the Airport Community Impact Study and discussion on next
steps associated with airport development.
MAYOR HARTKE called for a staff presentation.
JOHN POMBIER, City Manager, introduced the discussion item.
RYAN REEVES, Airport Manager, presented the following presentation.
• Presentation on findings from the Airport Community Impact Study and discussion on next
steps associated with airport development.
• Tonight: direction on the future of the airport
o What we are asking for
 Direction on one of two paths for the proposed 680-foot runway extension
• Keep Ordinance 3888 as written and move to a bond election
• Amend Ordinance 3888 to remove the bond-election requirement,
keeping the protections residents value
o Not being decided tonight
 Construction approval
 Grant acceptance or funding awards
 Design or construction contracts
 Repeal of Ordinance 3888
• The bottom line
o 680 ft – Added length
 Runway 4R/22L goes from 4,870 to 5,550 feet — about 14 percent longer
o 0 acres – No new land
 All work stays inside existing airport property. The perimeter does not move.
o 30,000lb – Same aircraft
 Pavement strength does not change, so the weight limit does not change.
o 90%+ – Federal share
 Typical FAA share of eligible costs at reliever airports like CHD.
o Ord. 3888 – The only barrier
 A City ordinance — not the FAA and not state law — requires a bond election
first.
• Defining our terms: what jet means in Chandler
o Jet = Business Aircraft
o Propeller Aircraft
• What the Community Impact Study did
o Why Council ordered it
 The Airport Strategic Business Plan named runway length the airport’s main
weakness
Page 2 of 17

 Of the plan’s 5 goals — one was to revisit the extension
 Council funded the study: community impact of a potential runway extension.
o Four phases
 Establish – Preliminary research, project definition, study programming
 Prepare – Conceptual design, economic analysis, outreach materials
 Engage – Community engagement, information sharing, feedback loop
 Sustain – Ongoing community partnership and implementation support
o What it produced
 Economic impact & property value analysis
 Conceptual extension design & noise analysis examination
 Videos & “show not tell” exhibits to directly answer big questions
 STEM tie-ins on physics of flight, runway design & impacts of heat
 Record-breaking Airport Day
 First-ever time @ Innovation Fair
 Public web page and FAQs
 A standing Steering Committee
 Two years of resident feedback
 Master Plan follow-through
• How we reached the community
o 15,000 Airport Day attendees
o 8,000 Innovation Fair attendees
o 87 airport tours completed
o 52K+ social media reach
o The Steering Committee – four meetings, Nov. 2025 – Aug. 2026
 Two earlier bond attempts had failed, so this study started by listening instead
of presenting a finished plan. Residents, businesses, and airport users were
brought in before any study structuring or material was final.
 Meetings moved from background and outreach approach, to concerns and
learning stations, to findings and feedback, to the FAA process and paths
forward.
o About the Committee
 25 members of the Steering Committee
 Representing Chandler’s residents (all quadrants), HOAs, education, business,
nonprofits, government, development, and aviation communities.
 Selected via collaborative process among Airport, City Manager’s Office,
Communications & Public Affairs, and consultant team.
• What event attendees told us: resident edition
o “Based on what you learned today, what are your thoughts on a potential runway
extension (adding approximately 680 feet of runway pavement within the airport’s
existing property)?”
o How to read this
 307 resident responses: 74% support, 4% oppose, 21% want more information
Page 3 of 17

• Respondents were event attendees who had just visited the learning
stations
• This is informed opinion, not a statistically valid community-wide survey
• Support rose the more people learned
o “More Info” respondents wanted more on
 Funding and taxpayer impacts
 Noise and community effects
 Purpose and need
 Long-term benefits and tradeoffs
• Seven questions residents keep asking
o From two years of feedback, the Master Plans, and prior surveys – not only this study
o Is the extension really needed?
 Section 2 – heat, not growth, is the constraint
o Does this mean bigger planes?
 Section 2 – pavement and weight limits do not change
o Will it be louder?
 Section 3 – contours stay south of Germann Road
o Will there be more flights?
 Section 3 – it changes when jets can leave, not how many fly
o What does it cost me?
 Section 4 – federal and airport funds, not property taxes
o How does the airport benefit me?
 Section 4 – jobs, wages, and local output
o What does a general aviation airport do, and where do residents fit?
 Section 4 – relieves Sky Harbor and welcomes Chandler via tours, STEM, and
special programming
o Steering Committee Common Theme
 Our process does not align with the national standard.
• Members understand the City’s dual role as airport sponsor. They
recognize the complexity of that role and this issue.
• Their concern is that Chandler is lagging rather than leading and losing
opportunities while the process stalls.
• What is proposed: 680 feet, inside the existing fence
o 4,870 ft – Existing runway, 75 ft wide
o +680 ft – Proposed extension
o 5,550 ft – New total length
o 5,700 ft – Cap already in Ordinance 3888
o For scale
 Chandler 4R/22L proposed: 5,550 ft x 75 ft
 Sky Harbor Runway 8/26: 11,489 ft x 150 ft
• Why 680 feet: Arizona heat, not growth
o Hot air is thinner
Page 4 of 17

 Engines make less power and wings make less lift, so aircraft need more
runway to take off.
o Today’s users are already limited
 On the hottest days, aircraft that already use CHD must cut fuel or passengers,
reposition, or not fly at all
o About four months a year
 Business aircraft already based at or visiting CHD avoid it through the summer
• What the extension does — and does not — do
o It does
 Allows aircraft that already use CHD operate safely year-round
 Adds a takeoff safety margin on hot days
 Keeps based businesses and tenants competitive
 Shifts the Runway 22L protection zone slightly; it stays on airport property
o It does not
 Bring airline service; no terminal, no Part 139 certification, no heavy-duty
pavement
 Allow heavier aircraft: pavement stays rated at 30,000 lb. single-wheel
 Require land or displace homes or businesses
 Add flight paths or shift traffic over new neighborhoods
 Change the airport’s role, its mission, or control tower hours
• This is not the same proposal as 2000 or 2007
o 2000 Ballot – 6,800 ft
 +1,930 ft over the existing runway
 Nearly three times the length now proposed
 Rejected: 6,914 no, 6,409 yes
o 2007 Ballot – 5,700 ft
 +850 ft over the existing runway
 Still longer than today’s proposal
 Rejected: 6,194 no, 5,297 yes
o 2026 proposal – 5,550 ft
 +680 ft over the existing runway
 Sized so aircraft already at CHD can operate year-round
 Before Council tonight
o What changed: the earlier proposals were long enough to raise fair questions about
a different kind of airport. This one is sized to a single purpose – letting the aircraft
already based and operating at CHD fly in summer heat. It does not change which
aircraft can use the runway.
• Noise today: what the hotline actually receives
o How noise is managed today
 Noise Compatibility Program
 Noise Hotline, answered and logged
 Coordination with air traffic control
Page 5 of 17

 Voluntary noise-abatement procedures
 Public outreach and airport tours
o Every one of these programs stays in place with or without the extension. None of
them depends on tonight’s decision.
• Where the noise comes from
o Training aircraft
 Repeated takeoffs and landings in the traffic pattern
 Lower altitude, over the same neighborhoods
 Many passes an hour, throughout the day
 Not affected by the extension
o Business jets and turboprops
 Repeated takeoffs and landings in the traffic pattern
 Lower altitude, over the same neighborhoods
 Many passes an hour, throughout the day
 The aircraft the extension is designed to serve
o Most of what the noise hotline hears about is pattern training – not the business
aircraft this project serves.
• When does the noise occur?
MAYOR HARTKE asked about the max noise related to flight schools.
MR. REEVES answered that this varies based on the time of year, but for this month the maximum
noise is usually in the early morning before 8 a.m. He shared that this is a low time of year for
complaints because residents’ air conditioning units are on and the white noise covers noise from
the airport.
MAYOR HARTKE clarified that he is asking about the noise comparison from the touch-and-go’s
from training aircraft that generate most of the noise as opposed to jet traffic and how that relates
to hour of the day.
MR. REEVES said that the touch-and-go’s from training aircraft occur throughout the day from
dawn to dusk. He said there are occasionally complaints late at night but that is typically connected
to police or aeromedical flight operations.
MAYOR HARTKE asked for clarification on the Operations per Hour graphic on slide 14 “When does
the noise occur?”.
MR. REEVES explained that the graphic shows operational counts per hour and not noise.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked if the city has mapped airport noise complaints.
MR. REEVES confirmed that the airport noise complaints have been mapped and provided Council
Page 6 of 17

a handout that maps each household and the type of noise report that the airport received in the
past year.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked for clarification on whether there were noise complaints from
jets.
MR. REEVES confirmed that there are no jet complaints listed on the handout because there were
no jet-related noise complaints. He explained that jets enter and exit the airspace much more
quickly, resulting in fewer noise complaints.
MR. REEVES continued the presentation.
• Noise contours stay south of Germann Road
o No residential neighborhood is expected inside the FAA’s 65 DNL contour – with or
without the extension.
o What is DNL?
 Day-Night Average Sound Level: noise averaged over 24 hours, with a 10-
decibel penalty applied to flights between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The FAA uses 65
DNL as its threshold for significant noise impact on homes.
• Flight volume: what changes, and what does not
o ~251,000 operation a year today
o 17th busiest general aviation airport in the U.S.
o 8% of all controlled air traffic in Arizona
o What the extension changes
 It changes when business aircraft that already serve Chandler can depart — it
will not change the type of aircraft. Total operations are largely driven by flight
training and are forecast to grow on the same curve either way.
• What it costs, and who pays
o The FAA process will take no less than 4 years and is dependent on securing federal
grant funding.
o Design and engineering - $637,000
o Environmental review - $506,000
o Construction: runway, taxiway, lighting, navigational aids - $5,605,000
o Contingency - $395,000
o Total - $7,143,000
o 95% - FAA share (91.06%) & ADOT (4.47%), through the Airport Improvement
Program — funded by aviation user taxes and fees, not by local taxpayers.
o ~4.47% - Local share, typically paid from airport revenues such as fuel sales and
hangar leases — not property taxes. ADOT may cover part of it.
o On the 2023 runway rehabilitation, the FAA covered 95% and ADOT and the City split
the rest.
o FAA funding is not guaranteed: it requires environmental review, an approved
Airport Layout Plan, and a competitive grant award.
Page 7 of 17

• What the airport contributes today
o Today – Current Annual Operational Impacts
 569 jobs
 $150.2M economic output
 $40.9M wages
 $1.97M state and local tax revenue
 Direct, indirect, and induced impacts combined. Full tables are in the
appendix.
o Potential – On-Airport Business Attraction
 977 jobs
 $221.5M economic output
 $76.4M wages
 $3.54M tax revenue ($181,000 to the City)
 A growth scenario, not a forecast. Not all of it depends on the extension.
Totals, not additive.
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS asked Mr. Reeves to elaborate about jobs at the airport.
MR. REEVES responded that the jobs are reflective of further development at the airport. He said
that the first question operators and developers typically ask when they want to work with the
airport is whether the runway will be extended. He said that developers and operators want to
come to Chandler Municipal Airport but need the additional runway margin so that year-round
use is possible. The job projections in this presentation assume that the runway extension is
present and makes Chandler more appealing to developers.
MR. REEVES continued the presentation.
• What waiting costs
o Summer stability
 Fuel sales for business aircraft reliably decline each June, July, & August
 Additional revenue
o Based businesses
 Annually, 10+ operators contact the Airport as they consider relocation. The
first question for site selection is about runway length
 Economic growth
o Construction escalation
 For non-residential infrastructure, the 30-year average is 3.6% a year, or about
$213,000 for every year of delay
 Cost containment
• What the airport does, how residents fit
o CHD is a GA “reliever airport” set by FAA
 A reliever airport is a busy general aviation (GA) airport near a major hub that
shifts business, training, and recreational flights away from congested
Page 8 of 17

commercial airports.
 Chandler Municipal serves as a reliever airport for Phoenix Sky Harbor per
FAA.
 By shifting training, business, and recreational flights from PHX to CHD, Sky
Harbor’s runways are freed-up to focus on airline operations, it’s primary job.
o A smoother flight out of PHX
 Chandler’s Airport helps ensure that regional and national airspace operates
safely and efficiently, simplifying air traffic control, improving queue
predictability, and reducing delays for travelers at PHX.
 CHD’s role of reliever benefits everyone, including Chandler residents on a
business trip, taking a vacation, or visiting family via a commercial flight from
Sky Harbor.
o Welcoming neighbors
 Tours, education, & community programming
 25,000 recent Airport Day attendees
 87 airport tours completed
• Chandler grew up around its airport
o The airport has been on this site since 1948. The rules Council is being asked about
were written as the city grew out to meet it
• Every proposal has been shorter than the last
o 1982 – Master Plan proposes new parallel runway of 6,900 ft max
o 1989 – Voters approve a jet ban (Prop. 200); it conflicts with FAA grant obligation and
is revised as Ordinance 2122
o 1999 – Ordinance 2978 caps the runway at 6,800 ft and requires voter-approved
bonds
o 2000 – Bond election for runway extension and 133-acre land acquisition fails
o 2007 – Ordinance 3888 lowers the cap to 5,700 ft; a second bond election fails
o 2021 – Master Plan proposes a 680-ft extension to 5,550 ft
o 2025-26 – Community Impact Study and community engagement
• Ordinance 3888: what it protects, and what it blocks
o Adopted in 2007, building on Ordinance 2122 (1990) and Ordinance 2978 (1999).
o Protections residents value
 Any runway extension at CHD requires public input
 Caps Runway 4R/22L at 5,700 feet
 Sets maximum aircraft weight (75,000-lbs) and wingspan (79-feet)
 Both options keep all three
o The requirements in the way
 Any runway extension requires voter-approved bonds that specify the
purpose
 It applies even when federal and airport funds would cover the eligible costs
 No bond authorization means no project — regardless of FAA support
 This is the only provision tonight’s decision touches.
Page 9 of 17

• How other airports approve runway projects
o Approval by the city council or the airport’s governing body
o Coordination with the FAA on funding and approvals
o FAA environmental review with a formal public comment period
o Local election: not required
• What each path costs, and when it could start
o Same project, same federal process. The difference is what the City spends to
authorize it, and how long that takes
o Option 1 – Bond election
 Election cost - $500,000 in county election costs, plus an informational
pamphlet mailed to every household with a registered voter
 City Construction Costs - $330,000 from the added delay
 Total additional City cost - $630,000
 Earliest authorization – May 18, July 20, or Nov. 2, 2027
o Option 2 – Council action
 Election cost – none
 City Construction Costs – Baseline
 Total additional City cost - $319,000
 Earliest authorization- Seek federal funding immediately after Council action
o Arizona law requires an informational pamphlet mailed to every household with a
registered voter, and limits how City resources may be used once an election is
called. Staff can share facts; it cannot advocate.
• The two options side by side
o Option 1 – Keep Ordinance 3888 as written; move to a bond election
 How it works
• Voters decide whether to authorize bonds for the extension
 Protections
• Every current ordinance limit stays in place
 Public Input
• A ballot measure, plus the federal public process the follows
o Option 2 – Amend Ordinance 3888 to remove the bond requirement
 How it works
• Council amends the ordinance; the standard FAA process follows
 Protections
• Length cap, footprint limit, and aircraft limits all kept
 Public Input
• Four to five years of federal review with formal comment periods (next
slide)
• If Council amends: guardrails that could be written in
o Under Option 2 the protection residents value stay in the ordinance — and can be
strengthened. For discussion; all subject to review by the Law Department and the
FAA
Page 10 of 17

o Length cap
 Limit Runway 4R/22L to 5,550 feet — 150 below today’s cap
o Accredited Public Engagement
 Goes above and beyond the FAA process, ensuring transparency and
accountability
o Current footprint
 No airport growth beyond existing property
o Aircraft limits
 Keep weight and wingspan limits, if consistent with FAA grant obligations
o Public process
 Public hearing and noise analysis before any future runway change as
federally mandated
o Accountability
 Annual noise report to Council, plus implementation of the Council-approved
Airport Master Plan
o Lesson from 1989: a voter-approved jet ban conflicted with FAA grant obligations and
had to be revised. Guardrails only hold if they work inside federal requirements.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked about the public engagement and what the decision-making
process looks like if the majority of the public is against the runway extension.
MR. REEVES responded and provided a current example related to airspace redesign. In this case
the FAA received public pushback to airspace regulation changes and the FAA pushed back these
changes as a result. Mr. Reeves noted that this shows the FAA does listen to and respond to public
input. He explained that if there are concerns related to the runway extension, they would be
listened to.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked why Chandler would not gather the public approval upfront
via bond election. He asked if the results of a bond election could be taken to the FAA to create a
better argument for continuing the process.
MR. REEVES agreed that the bond election option was worth exploring and confirmed that
Chandler Municipal Airport is looking for Council direction for next steps.
VICE MAYOR ENCINAS asked Mr. Reeves to elaborate on what the FAA’s public process looks like
if the city proceeds with option 2.
MR. REEVES presented the following slide that describes the FAA’s public process.
• Either way, federal review takes four to five years
o Removing the election requirement does not remove the public from the process.
Federal review is longer, and more detailed, than a ballot measure.
o Public input built into the federal process
Page 11 of 17

 Environmental review publishes findings and opens a formal comment period
 Noise analysis is required and open to public review
 Council actions on design, grants, and construction contracts are public
meetings
 Any future runway change would go through all of this again
o What the City adds
 Report back to the Steering Committee
 Keep the Community Impact Study page current
 Airport Day 2027, Innovation Fair, ongoing tours
 This Study’s established Community Engagement Process
MAYOR HARTKE reiterated Councilmember Orlando’s earlier question and asked if it is helpful to
the FAA’s process to have a precedent of voter approval from an election. He asked if the results
of a bond election would be considered in the FAA’s public engagement process.
MR. REEVES said that the FAA recognizes that Chandler’s situation is unique, since no other airport
requires the bond election process. He stated that Chandler’s process is unlikely to impact the
process for securing FAA grant funding.
MAYOR HARTKE asked if the results of a bond election would have any impact on the FAA’s public
engagement process.
MR. REEVES indicated that bond election results have no impact on the FAA’s process.
MAYOR HARTKE summarized that the bond election process is unusual for the FAA’s collaboration
with cities but not necessarily a negative.
MR. REEVES confirmed Mayor Hartke’s statement was accurate.
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS noted that with either the ordinance or bond election option, Chandler
still needs to go through the FAA public engagement process. She highlighted that bond elections
are expensive to run and that this election cost is unnecessary if Council amends the ordinance.
MR. REEVES confirmed Councilmember Ellis’ statement.
VICE MAYOR ENCINCAS asked if the outcome of an election would change anything for the FAA.
He also inquired whether the FAA had any opinions about Chandler’s unusual process.
MR. REEVES said that opinions vary. Some members of the FAA have a negative opinion of
Chandler’s process, and others recognize that this process is part of Chandler’s self-determination.
He stated that overall, the FAA is hopeful that Chandler proceeds with the runway extension since
the need for this extension has been identified in the Airport Master Plan for many years.
Page 12 of 17

MR. REEVES continued with the presentation.
• Council direction requested
o Both paths keep every protection in Ordinance 3888. The question is how the
extension gets authorized.
o Option 1 – Keep the ordinance as written
 Move to a bond election
o Option 2 – Enhance the ordinance
 Remove the bond-election requirement and keep the protections residents
value
o Questions and discussion
MR. POMBIER noted that as air traffic in the area increases the volume at Chandler Municipal
Airport will also increase. He asked Mr. Reeves which types of flights would increase in the airport
if the runway extension went to a bond election and was turned down.
MR. REEVES confirmed the volume of flights at Chandler Municipal Airport is expected to increase.
Without the runway extension, this increase in volume will come from small single-engine
propeller aircraft and helicopters because the shorter runway is ideal for flight training. He
highlighted that the runway extension would not cause Chandler Municipal Airport to receive
larger aircraft than it currently receives, rather it would allow the aircraft already based out of
Chandler to operate year-round.
MAYOR HARTKE asked Council for a consensus on how they would like to proceed and clarified
that option 2 would authorize the City Attorney to draft an ordinance that Council would vote on
in the future.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked whether a bond election is necessary regardless of the existing
ordinance in order to fund the runway extension. She also asked how much the extension would
cost the city.
MR. REEVES noted that the extension could be paid for without a bond. He said that this would be
funded like other grants that are brought to Council for approval. Chandler would be awarded the
grant, and the city match would be funded through the capital program. He elaborated that this
is the only capital project at the airport that has the bond requirement.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO spoke about the history of Chandler Municipal Airport and the
airport bond elections. He commended Mr. Reeves for the presentation but emphasized the
importance of public trust. Councilmember Orlando spoke in favor of option 1. He argued that
the ordinances were based on the vote of the people, and he thinks this question should go on a
ballot. He also expressed that having the approval of the public from an election could be helpful
to reference if there were concerns that arose during the FAA’s public approval process.
Page 13 of 17

MAYOR HARTKE spoke in favor of option 2, noting that the public has entrusted Council to make
and amend ordinances.
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS shared the history of the airport. She expressed that the Council is
trusted as elected officials to elevate the city. She highlighted Chandler’s focus on innovation and
said that improving infrastructure is necessary to support innovation. Councilmember Ellis said
she supports option 2, to amend the existing ordinance, as this will position Chandler to continue
to grow.
COUNCILMEMBER HAWKINS said that she prefers option 2. She said that the airport has already
conducted extensive public outreach, so she feels comfortable continuing with this option. She
said the time and cost savings from avoiding a bond election and the net benefit to airport noise
make this her preferred option.
VICE MAYOR ENCINAS shared that he supports the airport as an economic driver in Chandler. He
acknowledged that Chandler has changed since the ordinance was put in place, but the underlying
trust has not changed. He said he feels additional public buy-in is necessary and for that reason
he supports option 1, continuing with the existing ordinance.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON shared her experience as a member of the airport bond committee.
She commended Mr. Reeves for an excellent presentation but expressed concerns that the public
opinions shared in the presentation were gathered at airport events and may have a positive bias
for the airport. She said while she supports the airport, she does not feel comfortable with the
Council making a unilateral decision and for this reason she supports option 1.
MAYOR HARTKE said that because there is no consensus on either option, the existing ordinance
will remain.
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS expressed concern about Councilmember Harris’s absence and
commented regarding his opinion on the options presented.
MAYOR HARTKE responded that since Councilmember Harris was absent his opinion could not be
considered.
DERYCK LAVELLE, City Attorney, explained that under Arizona Open Meeting Law and
parliamentary procedure, decisions are made based on the councilmembers who are currently
present as long as there is a quorum.
MAYOR HARTKE explained that as of right there is no consensus for either option, but this does
not prohibit the issue from being brought forward again in the future.
Page 14 of 17

Public Comment
MAYOR HARTKE read the comment card received regarding this item (attached).
ANDREW SHAFER, Phoenix, AZ, owner of Chandler Aviation, and partner of an aviation business in
Scottsdale, Deer Valley, and Sky Harbor, spoke about the costs he pays at other airports, and the
increased demand other airports are experiencing. He encouraged Council to consider the private
money that would come into Chandler Municipal Airport if the runway was expanded.
CICIO MILLER, Tempe, AZ, General Manager of Chandler Air Service, shared that every summer he
needs to let go of employees and then rehire in August. He shared his company’s operations and
flight school and how these operations are conducted at other airports because Chandler’s
shorter runway is not safe enough. He encouraged Council to choose option 2.
SKY MCCORKLE, Chandler, AZ, shared that he supports the findings of the Airport Impact Study
and supports moving forward with option 2. He said that the ordinance can be changed and if a
member of the public has a concern, they have a large amount of time to object during the FAA
public engagement process. He said this change could be positive for the city overall.
Discussion Continued
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked about what the next steps are based on this meeting and if the
matter is moving to a bond election per option 1.
MAYOR HARTKE stated that the Council is at an impasse as there is not a consensus on either
option.
MR. LAVELLE confirmed that as of now, Ordinance No. 3888 remains in place.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if there were any issues with considering a bond election.
MR. LAVELLE confirmed that the city can provide options regarding a bond election.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if options for a bond election could be brought before Council
in 60-90 days. He said he would like to look at this issue being put to the voters in an election even
if it is not necessarily a bond election.
MAYOR HARTKE shared that under the current ordinance this issue would need a bond election
specifically if the city intends to use bonds to fund a runway extension.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO clarified that he would rather discuss that requirement and have
staff look at if there are election dates coming up that Council could look at for putting this issue
to the voters.
Page 15 of 17

VICE MAYOR ENCINAS asked the City Clerk what the cost of a stand-alone election would be if it is
not possible to couple an election on the runway extension with an existing election.
JENNIFER EKBLAD, City Clerk, answered that in an odd year when there is a special election that is
just for the city, elections are very expensive, upwards of $500,000. It is unknown what ballot
measures other jurisdictions may have that would result in decreased costs to Chandler due to
cost sharing. She noted that special elections are done entirely by mail which also increases the
cost per voter for Chandler.
VICE MAYOR ENCINAS spoke about how Chandler just had a bond election recently and it is
premature to go back out to voters with another bond. He asked if there is a way to separate this
topic from a bond election.
MS. EKBLAD explained that the options for an odd year election would be May, July, or November
2027, since the deadline for the March 2027 election has already passed.
MR. LAVELLE offered that staff could look at options for when a bond election could occur and the
costs involved and present these options to Council later.
MAYOR HARTKE requested that staff put this information together and that Council would come
back to look at this issue later.
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 5:51 p.m.
ATTEST: _______________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
Approval Date of Minutes: October 12, 2026
Page 16 of 17

Certification
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Work
Session of the City Council of Chandler, Arizona, held on the 17th day of September 2026. I further
certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
DATED this _______ day of October, 2026.
__________________________
City Clerk
Page 17 of 17