Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Are There Realistic Expectations About Building Hangars in California? 2006 FALL CONFERENCE Moderator: Mike Shutt, P.E., Mead & Hunt, Inc. Panel Members:

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Are There Realistic Expectations About Building Hangars in California? 2006 FALL CONFERENCE Moderator: Mike Shutt, P.E., Mead & Hunt, Inc. Panel Members:"— Presentation transcript:

1 Are There Realistic Expectations About Building Hangars in California? 2006 FALL CONFERENCE Moderator: Mike Shutt, P.E., Mead & Hunt, Inc. Panel Members: Ken Keatts, Regional Sales Manager, Erect-a-Tube, Inc. Carl Honaker, Director of Airports, Santa Clara County Dave Hoover, President, HYT Corporation (Fire Protection & Code Specialists)

2

3

4

5 Nested vs. Stacked Hangars Cost Comparison Building footprint – nested hangars require 1,500 s.f. of additional area, but it is rentable space – no cost Ø FAA taxiways are 11,000 s.f. greater in stacked configuration $88,000 Hangar apron pavements are 20,250 s.f. greater in stacked configuration $162,000 Construction cost increase $250,000 The stacked hangar complex requires 30,000 s.f. of additional land, which is either forgiven or adds cost depending on value of land.

6

7 Overview of Santa Clara County System –Over 1,300 based aircraft, nearly 500,000 ops/year – Palo Alto Airport - PAO County - 0 hangars, 360 tie-downs FBO - 69 hangar spaces, 95 tie-downs – Reid-Hillview Airport - RHV County hangars, 52 shelter spaces, 175 tie-downs FBO – 47 hangar spaces, 255 tie-downs – South County/San Martin Airport - E16 County hangars, 90 tie-downs FBO – 55 hangars, 28 tie-downs

8 Hangar Issues at Reid-Hillview and Palo Alto Airports PAO – County gets 6% of rent for some FBO hangars RHV Hangar Development –FBO storage hangars – various box hangars, no T’s – no rent % –County construction – identical T-Hangars w/concrete found. and basic electricity No sprinkler system, no bathrooms – Developer construction – Ground Lease 1984 Off-the-shelf Nunno Box Hangars and Portaport T-Hangars Anchored to asphalt on existing grade ramp No electricity, bathrooms, or sprinkler system Poor oversight by County, bad management by lessee County bought out leases due to conflicts/rent prices, and loss of tenancy during threat of airport closure

9 Recent Experience at South County Airport Single FBO had only hangars until ’06 County Hangar Project – 100 hangars – 5 sizes –Based on previous ’82 Master Plan – build when demand grew –120,000 sq/ft total, 103,000 billable space –9 Box and 91 T-Hangars, fit within existing taxilanes from mid-90s –Concrete foundations, electricity, box hangars w/elect. doors, 4 bathrooms, parking AND Fire Marshal mandated sprinklers –Insufficient water flow from fire main – requirement for 500,000 gallon tank and pump system to supplement fire flow ($1.2M) –Waiting list established by lottery – started with 100, grew to 130 –Currently 56 hangars rented (only 42 from waiting list – 35%)

10

11 Financing the South County Airport Hangars –Cost was estimated at $4.5 M for Hangars, $1.2 M for Tank/Pump –ABAG Loan for entire amount plus payoff of G.F. loans at RHV Only available to ABAG Counties/Municipalities No Strings Attached (State has since changed requirements) 30 Year payback, pymts started before we broke ground on project –Took almost 2 years longer than original estimate to complete –Extra $1M for in-house Overhead/Contract Mgmt. came out of AEF –Total cost/sq ft = $55, or average of $66,000 per hangar –Barely breaking even on debt service now –Added 2 staff to airport to help manage hangars (~$130K/yr)

12 Private vs. Public Bottom Line – Expensive for municipalities to build their own, versus lease with Private Developer –Bureaucracy increases cost/time –Expensive rents required to pay debt/costs –Cannot “sell” hangars or customize for tenant needs –Cannot depreciate asset/amortize loan –Must pay prevailing wage Private Developer Lease – easier and lower risk –Make sure you use Minimum Standards –Get % of rent in addition to land lease BUT, if airport can swing it, you will eventually make more money by building them (if you can keep them occupied).

13

14 A Code Dilemma A combination of three model and consensus Codes and Standards identify the minimum requirements for the design and construction of aircraft hangars Uniform Building Code (UBC), California Building Code (CBC) International Building Code (IBC) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 409, Standard on Aircraft Hangars

15 Comparison of Occupancy Classifications UBC/CBC –S5 Occupancy; Work is limited to exchange of parts and maintenance activities – no open flame or welding permitted –H5 Occupancy; Hangars not classified as S5 Occupancies IBC –S1 Occupancy; Moderate hazard storage –H2 Occupancy; Paint hangars NFPA 409 –Group I Hangars; Have at least one of the following: Aircraft access door height over 28 ft. or provision for housing aircraft with tail height over 28 ft. A single fire area in excess of 40,000 ft 2 –Group II Hangars; Have both of the following: Door height of 28 feet or less, and a single fire for specific types of construction. –Group III Hangars; Have both of the following: Door height of 28 feet or less, and a single fire not exceeding the maximum permitted based upon construction type. –Group IV Hangars; Membrane-covered rigid steel frame –Paint Hangars

16 Comparison of Fire Protection Requirements UBC/CBC –Through adoption, refers to the appropriate NFPA Standard IBC –Requires protection of hangars in accordance with NFPA 409 –Exception: Group II hangars storing private aircraft without major maintenance or overhaul are exempt from foam suppression requirements NFPA 409 –Group I Hangars; Provide one of the following: Foam-water deluge system Fire sprinklers + low level / low expansion foam system Fire sprinklers + low level / high expansion foam system Fire sprinklers (unfueled aircraft, only) –Group II Hangars; Provide as for Group I Hangars, or: A closed-head foam-water sprinkler system –Group III Hangars; with hazardous operations including fuel transfer, welding or other hot work, doping, and/or spray painting must be protected as a Group II Hangar

17 Fire Protection Water Supply and Distribution Systems Can present difficulty in airport and hangar design due to: –Potential high volumes of required water at high pressures –Location and distribution of fire hydrants –Fire department access

18 QUESTIONS


Download ppt "Are There Realistic Expectations About Building Hangars in California? 2006 FALL CONFERENCE Moderator: Mike Shutt, P.E., Mead & Hunt, Inc. Panel Members:"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google