CLEARWATER EXECUTIVE AIRPARK MASTER PLAN STUDY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-? MAST'. R PLAN
STUDY
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
i-s
1988 ?
CLEARWATER EXECUTIVE AIRPARK
•
MASTER PLAN STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CLEARWATER EXECUTIVE AIRPARK
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
Prepared for:
THE CITY OF CLEARWATER
Clearwater, Florida
Prepared by:
GREINER, INC.
Tampa, Florida
Draft Submittal: December 1988
Final Printing: January 1989
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• Page
FOREWORD
INTRODUCTION AND KEY ISSUES 1
PROJECT ORGANIZATION 3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STAGING 9
SHORT RANGE 9
INTERMEDIATE RANGE 12
LONG RANGE 14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Follows
'• Paee
I Project Organization 3
2 Airpark Plan 4
3 Short-Range Plan 8
4 Intermediate-Range Plan 11
5 Long-Range Plan 13
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page.
1 Short Range Capital Improvements Program 9
2 Intermediate Range Capital Improvements Program 12
3 Long Range Capital Improvements Program 14
i
FOREWORD
• The City of Clearwater constructed Clearwater Executive Airpark during
the late 1940s as a three runway facility on a 185-acre site. The current
single runway-taxiway system, 62-acre site facility was established during
1970 when an agreement entered into by the city resulted in the
construction of a golf course directly west of the airpark.
The latest State of Florida and Federal Aviation Administration system
plans, published during 1986 and 1987„ respectively, include the airpark and
categorize it as a Basic Utility facility that is needed to serve the area's
single engine and small twin engine general aviation aircraft.
The rules and regulations currently governing the airpark were established
by City of Clearwater officials primarily during the late 1970s. The
prohibition of training touch-and-go and nighttime operations are the most
significant and unique policies approved from an aviation system
standpoint. Additionally, the City of Clearwater's latest approved
Comprehensive Plan, published during 1983, includes a goal that the city
will "provide and maintain a permanent airpark facility which allows fixed-
base air transportation service while ensuring safety in facilities and
equipment to the aircraft users and operators, and residents of the
Clearwater service area."
Despite this, during recent years the short-term nature of city-tenant
facilities and management lease agreements have contributed to existing
• facilities becoming dilapidated and facilities expansion coming to a halt.
These agreements reflect uncertainty concerning the airpark's benefits from
an economic, business, and recreational standpoint versus the monetary costs
and environmental impacts associated with its operation.
However, during December of 1986, the City of Clearwater's Commission
voted to retain the airpark. Then, in May of 1987 the Commission voted to
enter into a joint participation agreement with the Florida Department of
Transportation's Bureau of Aviation to conduct a comprehensive airport
master plan study and during December of 1987 Greiner Inc. was authorized
to proceed with this study.
Many state and local agency representatives, airpark tenants and users, and
Clearwater citizens have contributed significantly to this study effort by
providing background information, by evaluating alternative airpark
improvement plans, and by reviewing the master plan report drafts and take
pride in the plan for Clearwater Executive Airpark's future, herein
presented.
0
INTRODUCTION AND KEY ISSUES
The primary objective of this study was to document a plan for the development of
Clearwater Executive Airpark which is technically sound, environmentally acceptable
and financially feasible. The study's scope satisfies the Federal Aviation
Administration's requirements, according to their document entitled "Airport Master
Plans" (Advisory Circular 150/5070.6A). The study's key issues and basic methodology
were as follows:
* Inventory existing airpark facilities and their condition by collecting
available historical information and conducting an on-site facilities
inspection;
* Forecast future activity at the airpark by evaluating historical activity
levels and assessing its role in the state and federal aviation system
- • plans,
* Outline a facilities requirements program including determining which
building, water management and roadway facilities can be rehabilitated
and which must be replaced by determining the capacities and
conditions of existing facilities in the context of forecasted activity
levels;
* Identify an optimum configuration for building facilities, water
management and roads by evaluating a series of technically viable
alternative layouts and discussing with the diverse group of city
representatives and tenants familiar with the potential ramifications of
each;
* Determine the airpark's impact on the surrounding areas by
quantitatively evaluating noise and other potential impacts according to
• Federal Aviation Administration sanctioned methodologies; and
1
* Stage the capital improvements by sequencing them to satisfy the
• facilities requirements program and in a sequence that is logical from
an engineering and construction perspective;
* Identify alternative methods of financing the preferred development
plan by documenting the eligibility of the capital improvement program
projects for state and federal funding and other funding possibilities.
The study's scope did not include evaluating the airpark's impact on the local
economy, an in-depth evaluation of existing airpark rules and regulations, or an
analysis of alternate uses of airpark property.
0
2
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
This master plan study's project organization is graphically depicted on Figure 1.
The Sponsor Coordinator was responsible for providing the consultant with historical
city data relevant to the airpark. The Coordinator also scheduled and attended all
committee and public information meetings; and arranged other meeting between the
consultant and other city representatives to ensure the master plan project was
coordinated with other ongoing city projects, for example the extension of Arcturas
Avenue east of the airpark's site.
The Master Plan Coordination Committee, comprised of the list of agencies and
individuals listed in Appendix A of the Master Plan Study Report, contributed
significantly to the study by providing background information to the consultant and
• Sponsor Coordinator, by reviewing preliminary draft master plan report sections, and
by providing verbal input during three committee meetings held during January, June,
and October of 1988. The Clearwater Executive Airport Authority also made a
contribution by providing the consultant and Sponsor Coordinator with background
information and feedback concerning the alternative facilities- configurations during
three of their regularly scheduled meetings.
And lastly, public involvement was solicited during three Public Information Sessions
held during February, July, and October of 1988. A list of attendees is provided in
Appendix A of the Master Plan Study Report and written comments submitted either
during or following the meetings are on file with other study documents.
i
F •
3
I•
I•
?i
FIGURE 1
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
CLEARWATER EXECUTIVE AIRPARK
r--
CITY OF CLEARWATER
SPONSOR
REPRESENTATIVE
DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS
*MASTER PLAN
COORDINATION COMMITTEE
* CLEARWATER EXECUTIVE
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
PUBLIC INFORMATION
SESSIONS
L..
PLANNING
GREINER PROJECT MANAGER
ENGINEERING
??J
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
During the course of this master plan study, a dynamic interest and enthusiasm for
maintaining the City of Clearwater's link with the nation's aviation system was
apparent. Residents located adjacent to the airpark, additionally, expressed support
for the facility, suggesting that alternative land uses such as an industrial park could
be less desirable aesthetically and could generate far more vehicle traffic than the
airpark. There, at the same time, continues to be considerable concern regarding the
viability of retaining the airpark from a financial standpoint and hazards posed by
aircraft activity occurring adjacent to moderate density land uses. To assist the City
of Clearwater with the task of charting a future course for airpark, in accordance
with the objective, scope, and key issues previously identified, study conclusions and
recommendations reached are as follows:
• * Aviation activity is forecasted to increase from approximately 36,300
operations and 130 based aircraft during 1987 to between 48,400 and
60,600 operations and between 156 and 181 based aircraft by the year
2009, depending on whether or not runway edge lighting is installed.
- This compared with an operations total at the airpark of approximately
82,400 during 1976.
* Most existing airfield, drainage, and building area facilities need to be
rehabilitated or replaced. Building area facilities expansion needed to
satisfy forecasted demand will need to be located on the former landfill
which encompasses an estimated 18 acres of the airpark's 62-acre site.
* This master plan study's Airpark Plan, shown on Figure 2, is comprised
of the following major features, to be implemented during the next 20
years:
4
HANGARS
-\ 7 TIE-DOWNS
?nrir
FBO or HELICOPTER FACILITY
FUEL FARM
`• HANGARS
FBO OPS TERMINAL
APRON &
MAINTENANCE HANGAR .\. .- .._. y.J 4 J
r ..REVENUE
LEASE PLOT
i.
TIE-DOWNS • ••`" ?• --tom
\ \ HANGARS
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
OVERFLOW. REVENUE
200 0 200 400 600 TIE-DOWNS LEASE PLOT
Figure 2
•
AIRPARK PLAN
Grim. m
CLEARWATER EXECUTIVE AIRPARK
A new fixed base operator (FBO) terminal building and adjacent public
• parking north of the existing FBO terminal building;
A second FBO terminal building and parking facility or heliport site (as
demand dictates) east of the runway's midpoint;
A new fuel farm between the two FBO sites;
New T- and shade hangars east and southeast of Threshold 15;
Paved taxilanes to all new T- and shade hangars;
A reorganized aircraft tie-down area south of the future FBO terminal
building and additional aircraft tie-down positions south of the new T-
/shade hangar area to the north;
Paved taxilanes to the reorganized and new tie-down areas;
• A new maintenance hangar located southwest of the existing
maintenance facility;
Group aircraft bay hangars and corporate single aircraft hangars
including associated apron and auto parking adjacent to the FBO
terminal buildings and in the vicinity of the future aircraft
maintenance hangar;
A rehabilitated and extended vehicle access system including a
connector road south from Grand Avenue to the future FBO terminal
public parking and a northbound public road from Grand Avenue to all
future aviation facilities to its north;
Expanded and new vehicle parking lots appropriately located adjacent
to rehabilitated and, new building and aircraft parking/storage facilities
to assure aircraft and movement areas are entirely segregated;
5
A comprehensive drainage system study to evaluate the existing system's
• condition/capacity and to, develop a master drainage plan for the entire
airport site;
A rehabilitated and expanded airport site drainage system;
A comprehensive former landfill site study to: 1) determine its precise
location, depth, and composition; 2) develop a plan for its removal; 3)
develop specifications for constructing structures, apron, or auto
_ parking facilities atop the former landfill; and 4) develop a
maintenance plan for periodically rehabilitating the existing airfield
pavement atop the site;
Either landfill removal or site preparation for building area facilities
construction atop the former landfill depending on the landfill site
study findings;
Either landfill removal or routine runway overlays atop the former
• landfill depending on the landfill site study findings;
A rehabilitated airfield in the configuration identical to the existing
(displaced Threshold 33 for landings, 300 foot overrun north of
Threshold 15);
Revenue-generating leaseplots adjacent to and west of Hercules Avenue;
and
Possible installation of medium intensity runway edge lights and low
intensity taxiway edge lights.
# Based on an analysis of four alternative funding scenarios, ranging from
receipt of no state and federal funding to receipt of state and federal
funding for all eligible funding; and ranging from city management and
ownership of airpark facilities versus management and facilities ownership
by others, the city could net a positive $50,855 or spend $1,018,228.
6
# If the airpark is to retain its existing operating procedures, funding
Scenario 1, detailed in the master plan report is recommended.
However, to achieve two of the city's major. objectives; to maintain
maximum control over the physical facilities at the airpark, and to
function as an enterprise account, Scenario 4 is recommended. To
implement Scenario 4, the following specific actions are recommended:
1 - Establish with federal and state agencies their final, absolute
regulations regarding funding eligibility for the airpark and bring
operating and policy procedures into compliance;
2 - Prioritize a five year improvement program;
3 - Apply for federal and state aid for eligible items;
4 - Structure long-term leases with specific performance standards for
the major tenants on the airpark;
5 - Set up a rates and charges structure as recommended in the rates
and charges study completed during 1984. Such rates and charges
should be structured to amortize the capital investment of each
facility plus allow for annual maintenance plus set a reserve
amount for deferred maintenance and replacement;
6 - Either negotiate long-term leases with existing tenants or advertise
for competitive bids;
7 - Establish a management plan for monitoring and enforcing leases,
operation standards and payment schedules for the airpark;
8 - Establish an account system for the airpark by which management
can know the status of performance at all times.
7
7
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STAGING
Improvements to airpark facilities must be made in a logical sequence from an
engineering and resultant financial advantage standpoint. The useful life and
condition of existing facilities also influence when improvements should be made.
Therefore, improvements comprising the airpark Plan have, as part of the master plan
study, been prioritized as Short, 5-year; Intermediate, 5- to 10-year; or Long, 10- to
20-year Range Projects.
Within these time frames, the projects are grouped according to their type as follows:
Airfield Pavement and Visual Aids; Building Area Facilities; Access and Parking; and
Revenue Lease Plots.
SHORT RANGE:
Projects to be accomplished by the time activity levels reach between approximately
41,900 and 47,800 annual aircraft landings and takeoffs are shown on Figure 3 and
listed in Table I along with the cost of completing each improvement. Rehabilitating
and/or reorganizing existing facilities, evaluating and preparing sites for facilities
expansion, and constructing new facilities are included in this program.
The total cost of the Short-Range Capital Improvements Program is approximately
$1,219,300.
8
NEW HANGARS (2)
.10
V
&
y
H
'u
1 '
j
?I
FORMER LANDFILL SITE
GZ
4.
7A
GRASS & PAVED
TIE-DOWNS
Adt-
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
200 0 200 400 600
LEGEND:
New Development
GrekW,kx.
TAXILANES (3)
RELOCATED FUEL FARM
I
EXISTING i
HELICOPTER _
l PADS (3) GRAND AVE
t i EXISTING
0 0 MAINTENANCE i
HANGAR f
EXISTING FBO i
OPS TERMINAL
PK
cl:
• '((/ I(?/ 2?
REVENUE
.\ ? ® I LEASE PLOT
EXISTING
® HANGARS
\ OVERFLOW L
TIE-DOWNS
REVENUE
% LEASE PLOT
AIRPORT DRIVE
Figure 3
SHORT RANGE PLAN
CLEARWATER EXECUTIVE AIRPARK
•
TABLE 1
SHORT RANGE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
(1989 - 1994)
Clearwater Executive Airpark
Master Plan Study
1. AIRFIELD PAVEMENT do VISUAL AIDS
- Conduct Water Management Study (1-A)
- Improve Airfield Drainage (1-B)
- Investigate Former Landfill Site (1-C)
- Remediation of Former Landfill Site (1-D)•
- Reconstruct Runway 15-33 and Parallel
Taxiway atop Landfill Site (1-E)
- Sealcoat Runway 15-33 (1-F)
- Sealcoat Parallel Taxiway System (1-G)
- Install Two Lighted Wind Socks (1-H)**
- Instruct Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lighting
(MIRL) (1-1)
- Install Low Intensity Taxiway Edge Lighting
(LITL) (1-J)
SUBTOTAL
2. BUILDING AREA FACILITIES
- Construct New Fuel Farm Facility (2-A)'•'
- Rehabilitate Taxilane/Apron Near Existing
Maintenance Hangar (2-B)
- Rehabilitate Taxilanes South of Existing
. FBO Operations Building (2-C)
- Rehabilitate/Reorganise Aircraft Tie-downs
(2-D)
- Rehabilitate/ Reorganize Aircraft Tie-downs
West of Future Revenue Lease Area (2-E)
- Rehabilitate Shade Hangars (2-F)
- Rehabilitate T-Hangars (2-G)
- Rehabilitate Maintenance Hangar (2H)
- Rehabilitate Existing FBO Operations Buildings
(2-1)
- Construct New Taxilanes East of Threshold 15
(24)
- Construct New T-Hangars East of Threshold
15 (2-K)
SUBTOTAL
1988 Dollars
Total FAA DOT
Project Eligible Eligible Non-Eligible
Costs Costs Costs Costs
$30,000 $27,000 $1,600 $1,500
60,000 54,000 3,000 3,000
9,000 8,100 450 450
18,000 16,200 900 900
69,000 62,100 3,450 3,450
,
39,000 36,100 1,960 950
1
10,000 9,000 500 500
70,800 63,720 3,540 3,540
51.600 46.440 2.580 2.580
357,400 321,660 17,870 17,870
48,000 -- -- 48,000
18,600 16,740 930 930
81,000 72,900 4,050 4,050
95,000 -- -- 95,000
14,400 -- -- 14,400
108,000 -- 54,000 54,000
51,600 -- 25,800 25,800
60,000 -- -- 60,000
6,000 -- -- 6,000
43,000 38,700 2,150 2,150
220.000 110.000 110.000
745,600 128,340 196,930 420,330
9
• TABLE 1 '
SHORT RANGE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
(1989 - 1994)
Clearwater Executive Airpark
Master Plan Study
(Continued)
1988 Dollars
FAA DOT
Project Eligible Eligible Non-Eligible
Costs- Cost Costs Costs
3. ACCESS & PARKING
- Rehabilitate/Construct Perimeter Fence dt 60,000 54,000 3,000 3,000
Gates (3-A)
- Overlay Entrance Road do Parking Lot (3-B) 16,800 18,800
- Construct Parking Lot East of Threshold 15 27,500 27.500
SUBTOTAL 104,300 54,000 3,000 47,300
4. REVENUE LEASE PLOTS
- Prepare Sites(s) for Revenue Lease Plots 12.000
(4-A) 12.000 12,000
SUBTOTAL 12,000
GRAND TOTAL 1,211300 5000 21 4900""
Please Note: This Short Range Capital Improvements Program total cost differs slightly from the program total
used when the financial analysis was accomplished. This is due to final plan refinements made during the
preparation of the technical large-scale Airport Layout Plan set of drawings provided as,oreduced exhibits in
Appendix G of this report. Because minor changes in this program an typically made as implementation occurs,
because none of the scenarios can be considered finite since the ultimate feasibility of each depends heavily upon
demonstrated actual tenant and market demand, and because the relative advantages and disadvantages of the
scenarios still hold true, the conclusions reached in this financial feasibility remain valid.
" Unknown: See Master Plan Report, Paragraph 10.1.1.
If Projects 1-I and 14 are not accomplished, this project cost can be reduced to lea than $6,000 by installing
unlighted wind socks.
" Fuel Farm costs will presumably be borne by the fuel supplier.
Source: Greiner, Inc.
I•
10
INTERMEDIATE RANGE:
Projects to be accomplished by the time aviation activity at Clearwater Executive
Airpark totals between 44,700 and 53,100 annual operations not already called for
?. under the Short Range Capital Improvements Program are included in the
Intermediate Range Capital Improvements Program. The major focus of this phase of
the plan's implementation is associated with building area facilities. It calls for
-- reorganizing the airpark's main aircraft tie-down area; constructing new and expanded
FBO operations building(s), apron areas, and vehicle parking areas; and expanding
other aircraft parking facilities.
This improvements program, depicted by project location on Figure 4 and listed by
individual projects and costs in Table 2, will, according to estimates, cost a total of
$2,447,800.
II
i
Iw
NEW :HANGARS (3)
1 ' & TAXILANES (3) .
R aC
\ A
PG2 7? \
7? ,t
NEW FBO or \
CORPORATE HANGARS (3) \
NEW APRON &
MAINTENANCE HANGAR
NEW TAXILANES & TIE-DOWr
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
200 o 200 400 800
LEGEND:
New Development
Greiner. Ux.
INTERMEDIATE RANGE PLAN
CLEARWATER EXECUTIVE AIRPARK
NEW FBO or
:HELICOPTER FACILITY
FUEL
i FARM
NEW BAY HANGAR
I GRAND AVE
'\\\N
NEW FBO OPS TERMINAL
1 11
NEW AIRPARK1 ENTRANCE
I
ROAD & PARKING
• >w
?/llll/1J ?---?w,w,t-, a'
I
L---J?W W -3w
?/JJJ/JJ) r- d
- 1 >
L- - - J
_S
/ OVERFLOW f
\ J
TIE-DOWNS
(z y ~
\ w
wm°
>
. a
w a
REPLACED
T
L -HANGAR
I
Figure 4
AIRPORT DRIVE
TABLE 2
• INTERMEDIATE RANGE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
(1995 - 1999)
Clearwater Executive Airpark
Master Plan Study
1988 Dollars
FAA DOT
Project Eligible Eligible Non-Eligible
Costs Costs Costs Costs
1. AIRFIELD PAVEMENT & VISUAL AIDS
- None --
BUILDING AREA FACILITIES
2
.
- Construct New FBO Operations Apron (2-A) 120,000 108,000 6,000 6,000
- Construct New FBO Operations Terminal (2-B) 273,600 -- -- 273,600
- Construct New Corporate Aprons (2-C) 38,400 34,560 1,920 1,920
- Construct New Corporate Hangars (2-D) 272,400 -- 136,200 136,200
- Construct New Taxilanes in Existing
Tie-down Area (2-E) 166,000 149,400 8,300 8,300
- Construct New Aircraft Tie-downs Adjacent to
Realigned Taxilanes (2-F) 101,000 -- -- 101,000
- Construct New Taxilanes East of Threshold 15
(2-G) 98,000 88,200 4,900 4,900
- Construct New T-Hangars Associated With New
Taxilanes (2-11) 483,000 -- 241,500 241,500
- Construct New Heliport Facility (2-I) 257,400 -- -- 257,400
- Construct New Maintenance Hangar (2-J) 313,000 == -- 313,000
•
- Construct New Bay Hangar (2-K) 59,000 29,600 29,500
ar (2-L)
lace T-Han
R 156,000 -- 78,000 78.000
g
ep
-
SUBTOTAL 2,337,800 380,160 606,320 1,451,320
3. ACCESS & PARKING
- Construct New FBO Facility Road do Parking
Lot (3-A) 69,000 -- -- 69,000
- Expand Parking Lot East of Threshold 15
(3-B) 41.000 - -- 41.000
SUBTOTAL 110,000 -- -- 110,000
4. REVENUE LEASE PLOTS
SUBTOTAL
- None "- -- -- ?-
GRAND TOTAL 2,44T.800 380,160 506,320 1.561.320
Source: Greiner, Inc.
12
LONG RANGE:
Projects to be accomplished by the time aviation activity levels reach between 48,400
and 60,600 annual operations, however, only after all of the Short and Intermediate
Range Capital Improvements Program have been completed, are included in the Long
Range Capital Improvements Program. The focus of this final plan implementation
phase is to expand aircraft parking facilities to the maximum number the airpark is
capable of and to construct a new maintenance facility.
The project locations depicted in Figure 5 and the project costs listed in Table 3,
delineate a final capital improvements programs with an estimated total cost of
$503,800.
13
FBO or \ \ \
CORPORATE HAN\
NEW TAXILANES & TIE-DOWNS
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
200 0 200 400 600
LEGEND:
New Development
ULTIMATE CAPABILITY
TAXILANE & TIE-DOWNS
ANEW TAXILANE & TIE-DOWNS
-FBO or HELICOPTER FACILITY
FUEL
FARM
AIRPORT DRIVE-
NEW BAY HANGAR
GRAND AVE c
BAY HANGAR i
PK FBO OPS TERMINAL
MAINTENANCE HANGAR
K PK
7L'1L71Jli I I
---J. Z n
i W < o
-----? I L _--7 > CtJ
:a
r-------, w -
Vf
J L-------J W
\ AIRCR?FT_ME•DQWN AREA J
73 ULTIMATE
CAPABILITY
lic= TAXILANE &
\ /\„-------,1 HANGARS
\\
/'OVERFLOW cn
D UJ
/ TIE-DOWNS ; .Z V1 ~
\ 47 < 0
Figure 5
LONG RANGE PLAN
Grekw.kiL CLEARWATER EXECUTIVE AIRPARK
•
TABLE 3
LONG-RANGE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
(2000 -2009)
Clearwater Executive Airpark
Master Plan Study
1. AIRFIELD PAVEMENT do VISUAL AIDS
- Overlay Runway 16-33 (1-A)
- Overlay Parallel Taxiway System (1-B)
SUBTOTAL
2. BUILDING AREA FACILITIES
- Construct New Bay Hangars (2-A)
- Overlay Taxilanes (2-B)
- Construct New Taxilanes (2-C)
- Construct New Aircraft Tie-downs (2-D)
SUBTOTAL
3. ACCESS do PARKING
- Reconfigure Parking Lots (3-A)
SUBTOTAL
4. REVENUE LEASE PLOTS
- None
GRAND TOTAL
Source: Greiner, Inc.
1988 Dollars
FAA DOT
Project Eligible Eligible Non-Eligible
Costs Costs Costs Costs
192,000 172,800 9,600 9,600
108,000 97,200 6,400 5,400
300,000 270,000 15,000 15,000
59,000 -- 29,500 29,500
70,000 63,000 3,500 3,500
43,000 38,700 2,150 2,150
9,000 -- -- 9,000
181,000 101,700 35,150 44,150
22,800 -- 22,800
22,800 -- -- 22,800
503 37700 5 81,950
1.4