Share 2024 Airport Rates and Fees Discussion on FacebookShare 2024 Airport Rates and Fees Discussion on TwitterShare 2024 Airport Rates and Fees Discussion on LinkedinEmail 2024 Airport Rates and Fees Discussion link
Consultation has concluded
As a vital hub for General Aviation, Denton Enterprise Airport is dedicated to supporting our users, tenants, and businesses with the services, infrastructure, and amenities essential to your operations. We recognize that any potential adjustments to Airport rates and fees are of considerable interest to those who rely on our facilities, and we approach this discussion with a commitment to openness and transparency.
This information hub provides resources that detail the financial factors currently shaping Airport operations. Like many General Aviation airports, we face rising costs related to infrastructure upkeep, regulatory compliance, and essential improvements to maintain safety, efficiency, andContinue reading
As a vital hub for General Aviation, Denton Enterprise Airport is dedicated to supporting our users, tenants, and businesses with the services, infrastructure, and amenities essential to your operations. We recognize that any potential adjustments to Airport rates and fees are of considerable interest to those who rely on our facilities, and we approach this discussion with a commitment to openness and transparency.
This information hub provides resources that detail the financial factors currently shaping Airport operations. Like many General Aviation airports, we face rising costs related to infrastructure upkeep, regulatory compliance, and essential improvements to maintain safety, efficiency, and sustainability. These realities drive our need to periodically review airport rates and fees to ensure we can continue providing reliable and quality services.
We invite you to explore the information on this page to gain insight into the financial challenges and operational considerations that inform this review process. Our goal is to ensure a well-informed, productive dialogue around any changes that may be proposed.
Review the Background Information below
Read the General Aviation Fee Study conducted by a third-party consultant (under "Documents")
View the Overview Presentation delivered to the Airport Advisory Board (under "Documents")
Ask a question - we're listening.
Thank you for engaging with us as we work together to support the future of our airport community.
Leave a comment or suggestion regarding Airport rates and fees or the materials on this page.
Consultation has concluded
After reviewing the AMCG General Aviation Fee Study, and attending the town hall presentations, I have a few thoughts. The revenue numbers are misleading because they don’t reflect ALL of the revenue generated by the airport. The city receives property tax revenue from airport tenants that is not recognized in the financial summary. Before we start trying to invent new fees to generate more revenue, we should investigate how the Dallas Executive and Spirit of St. Louis airports are able to operate without imposing numerous fees. We also need to establish how urgent the timeline is for the budget to be ‘in the black’. The city built aircraft storage hangars with the intent of generating an additional revenue stream. The rental rates on the hangars are currently about half of market value. Airport staff has proposed to incrementally raise the rent to bring them up to market value, and I’m sure that the tenants would appreciate that. However, if the budget timeline is urgent, then airport staff must make the tough decision to substantially increase the hangar rent immediately before creating any new fees. Delaying any rent increase prolongs the citizens’ subsidy for the current tenants. Airport staff and city council have an obligation to act in the best interest of the constituents. No other proposed fee modification comes close to generating the amount of revenue that could be realized by increasing the rent to market rate. Another point that was made during the town hall presentation suggested that those using the airport the most should contribute the most. Tenants with larger hangars pay more than tenants with small hangars through their ground leases. Fuel flowage fees also help implement a scaled fee structure. Operators of larger aircraft and those who fly more pay more. IF additional revenue is needed, raising the fuel flowage fee by a small amount could be an option. However, if you raise it too much, fuel sales will drop, and yield a net loss in revenue. In summary, let’s establish the urgency of the timeline for the balanced budget. Then, let’s implement the changes that create the largest impact instead of imposing small nuisance fees that will create more administrative work, and generate a sense of being overwhelmed with fees.
Trevor
4 months ago
I recommend the fuel flow fee remain the same and that the fees charged for the city hangars be moved to "market rent" instead of the 25% increase that was recommended. This increase, which is probably a 75% to 100% increase in the rates, would cover the shortfall caused by not raising the fuel flow fee. It is unfair to ask all airport users to subsidize the private owners in the city hangars who are paying a below market rate. I also recommend that Business Property Tax paid by airport tenants for assets at the airport be attributed to the airport budget. This revenue would not exist if the airport were not here and thus it should retain that tax revenue for its budget.
ms
5 months ago
How many interested parties are currently on the hangar waitlist? How has that number changed over the past five years? As reported by AOPA multiple times over the past 10 years, a significant shortage of hangar space exists nationwide. The law of supply and demand is signaling to any airport with a waitlist, especially those with long multi-year waitlists, to raise rates by a large margin. The incremental increasing of hangar rates has clearly not kept pace with what the market can bear, as evidenced by long waitlists. Until the hangar waitlist nears zero, as a result of increasing rates, the Airport is subsidizing aircraft owner's rental of publicly owned hangar space, leaving meaningful revenue on the table. This dynamic results in the airport effectively taxing all other users, especially on-airport businesses, through the other proposed fee increases to cover the shortfall of what the airport could otherwise earn by increasing hangar rates for its 27 hangar tenants.
If the airport were willing to truly test the market by increasing rates 50% on the 27 hangars it owns and operates, the overall shortfall would be reduced by approximately 30% without changing any other rates. This move would take significant political pressure off of the airport by refocusing the need fee increases effecting most of the 450+ based tenants, onto the 27 hangar tenants. Nationwide data show aircraft owners, particularly those new(er) to aviation, are willing to pay over $1,000 per month for t-hangar space, regardless of hangar quality.
Hangar7
6 months ago
Currently Hangar Leases are the only material revenue source in the budget not projected to grow between 2024-25 and 2028-29, yet the hangar gross receipts revenue over those same time periods is projected to grow. What is the explanation for keeping hangar rates flat? The budget projection for airport-owned hangar revenue should, at minimum, match year over year growth rate projections for hangar gross receipts revenue.
After reviewing the AMCG General Aviation Fee Study, and attending the town hall presentations, I have a few thoughts.
The revenue numbers are misleading because they don’t reflect ALL of the revenue generated by the airport. The city receives property tax revenue from airport tenants that is not recognized in the financial summary.
Before we start trying to invent new fees to generate more revenue, we should investigate how the Dallas Executive and Spirit of St. Louis airports are able to operate without imposing numerous fees.
We also need to establish how urgent the timeline is for the budget to be ‘in the black’. The city built aircraft storage hangars with the intent of generating an additional revenue stream. The rental rates on the hangars are currently about half of market value. Airport staff has proposed to incrementally raise the rent to bring them up to market value, and I’m sure that the tenants would appreciate that. However, if the budget timeline is urgent, then airport staff must make the tough decision to substantially increase the hangar rent immediately before creating any new fees. Delaying any rent increase prolongs the citizens’ subsidy for the current tenants. Airport staff and city council have an obligation to act in the best interest of the constituents. No other proposed fee modification comes close to generating the amount of revenue that could be realized by increasing the rent to market rate.
Another point that was made during the town hall presentation suggested that those using the airport the most should contribute the most. Tenants with larger hangars pay more than tenants with small hangars through their ground leases. Fuel flowage fees also help implement a scaled fee structure. Operators of larger aircraft and those who fly more pay more. IF additional revenue is needed, raising the fuel flowage fee by a small amount could be an option. However, if you raise it too much, fuel sales will drop, and yield a net loss in revenue.
In summary, let’s establish the urgency of the timeline for the balanced budget. Then, let’s implement the changes that create the largest impact instead of imposing small nuisance fees that will create more administrative work, and generate a sense of being overwhelmed with fees.
I recommend the fuel flow fee remain the same and that the fees charged for the city hangars be moved to "market rent" instead of the 25% increase that was recommended. This increase, which is probably a 75% to 100% increase in the rates, would cover the shortfall caused by not raising the fuel flow fee. It is unfair to ask all airport users to subsidize the private owners in the city hangars who are paying a below market rate.
I also recommend that Business Property Tax paid by airport tenants for assets at the airport be attributed to the airport budget. This revenue would not exist if the airport were not here and thus it should retain that tax revenue for its budget.
How many interested parties are currently on the hangar waitlist? How has that number changed over the past five years?
As reported by AOPA multiple times over the past 10 years, a significant shortage of hangar space exists nationwide. The law of supply and demand is signaling to any airport with a waitlist, especially those with long multi-year waitlists, to raise rates by a large margin. The incremental increasing of hangar rates has clearly not kept pace with what the market can bear, as evidenced by long waitlists. Until the hangar waitlist nears zero, as a result of increasing rates, the Airport is subsidizing aircraft owner's rental of publicly owned hangar space, leaving meaningful revenue on the table. This dynamic results in the airport effectively taxing all other users, especially on-airport businesses, through the other proposed fee increases to cover the shortfall of what the airport could otherwise earn by increasing hangar rates for its 27 hangar tenants.
If the airport were willing to truly test the market by increasing rates 50% on the 27 hangars it owns and operates, the overall shortfall would be reduced by approximately 30% without changing any other rates. This move would take significant political pressure off of the airport by refocusing the need fee increases effecting most of the 450+ based tenants, onto the 27 hangar tenants. Nationwide data show aircraft owners, particularly those new(er) to aviation, are willing to pay over $1,000 per month for t-hangar space, regardless of hangar quality.
Currently Hangar Leases are the only material revenue source in the budget not projected to grow between 2024-25 and 2028-29, yet the hangar gross receipts revenue over those same time periods is projected to grow. What is the explanation for keeping hangar rates flat? The budget projection for airport-owned hangar revenue should, at minimum, match year over year growth rate projections for hangar gross receipts revenue.