Are There Realistic Expectations About Building Hangars in

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)
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
FAA taxiways are 11,000 s.f. greater in stacked
configuration
Ø
$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.
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 - 146 hangars, 52 shelter spaces, 175 tie-downs
• FBO – 47 hangar spaces, 255 tie-downs
– South County/San Martin Airport - E16
• County - 100 hangars, 90 tie-downs
• FBO – 55 hangars, 28 tie-downs
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 – 1967
• 60 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
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%)
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)
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).
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
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 ft2
– 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
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
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
QUESTIONS