Peoria staff say air‑park feasible but council will not pursue; technical, land and cost hurdles cited

Peoria Deputy City Manager Mike Faust told the City Council on Jan. 14 that a recent feasibility and site‑selection study shows a new general‑aviation air park in north Peoria would be technically feasible but that the city will not pursue or market an airport at this time.

The report, prepared by Kaufman Associates and summarized to the council by Patrick Taylor, found regional demand, FAA‑design compatibility and the potential to fill a northwest “gap” in the Phoenix area airport system. But the study also identified major constraints — including very large land requirements, transmission lines that cross proposed runways, airspace coordination with Luke Air Force Base and substantial cost. Faust said those barriers and the changing economic context led staff to stop active pursuit of an airport and instead focus on the intergovernmental agreement with the State Land Department and other economic‑development efforts.

The feasibility work combined three elements: a market/demand forecast, airport facility requirements, and a development‑process feasibility analysis. Kaufman’s site‑selection GIS model screened the city’s northern planning area and produced two candidate sites near the former Pleasant Valley Airport. For each site the consultant developed a prototype airport layout and ranked technical, environmental and cost factors.

Patrick Taylor said both candidate sites could support instrument approaches and meet FAA design standards in concept, but neither site was without major obstacles. Both sites sit in locations that would require pilots to coordinate with nearby air traffic facilities; a special‑use airspace associated with Luke AFB affects the area between about 3,000 and 4,000 feet, which complicates some approaches but is not a “showstopper,” Taylor said. The consultant also flagged transmission lines that cross the proposed runway alignments and substantial earthwork at one site.

On costs, Kaufman estimated an initial buildout (about a 5,600‑foot runway) in preliminary figures of roughly $150 million for site 1 and almost $200 million for site 2; later phases expanding a runway to about 7,600 feet could push total capital costs to roughly $250–$300 million, the presentation said. Faust said the study’s smaller line‑item estimates (for example, for relocating transmission lines) were likely low and that the real cost would be materially higher.

Faust and Taylor summarized other clarifying details presented to the council: the minimum functional acreage for an airport plus an adjacent air‑park was about 550 acres; both candidate sites fall in or near FEMA floodplain layers the consultants reviewed; Maricopa County’s nonattainment status for ozone will require air‑quality mitigation work in any NEPA review; and protecting airport approaches would require land‑use overlays or other restrictions on neighboring parcels.

Faust noted the study cost to date: about $553,000 across FY24 and FY25. He told the council that the study helped unlock an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the State Land Department, which he said will reimburse public‑infrastructure installation and spur private development on state parcels — a benefit Faust characterized as far larger than the study cost. He said staff will post the full site‑selection report on the city website and include a cover letter explaining why the city will not proceed.

Councilors asked technical questions and sought lessons from the earlier (2000) study; staff said the current effort took a different, build‑ready lens and produced more detailed economic and airspace analysis. Faust outlined three hypothetical paths if a private developer wished to pursue an airport without city sponsorship: (1) obtain a special‑use permit under city code (Chapter 21.857(g)); (2) go through the State Land Department application and public auction process for state parcels; and (3) satisfy FAA requirements for airspace and instrument procedures. Faust stressed that a private‑developer path is possible but difficult, and reiterated that the city will not actively market an air‑park.

Faust summarized next steps: post the final report and cover letter to the city website; no budget request for FY26 airport study funds; advance the IGA‑driven investments in public infrastructure in the north valley (called the Peoria Innovation Corps in staff remarks); and continue city land‑acquisition efforts for economic development unrelated to an air park. He said staff expect to return next year with zoning work for parcels tied to the IGA and to begin infrastructure construction in mid‑summer.

The presentation included multiple technical exhibits and a ranked scoring matrix. Kaufman reported an overall ranking of 88 for site 1 and 77 for site 2. Taylor and Faust emphasized the study results show feasibility but also substantial implementation cost and land‑use implications that reduced the city’s interest in pursuing the airport as a catalyst now.

Ending: Staff will post the full site‑selection report and a cover letter to the city website; the council received the study and staff’s recommendation not to pursue or market an airport, and staff will advance infrastructure and entitlement work tied to the IGA with the State Land Department.