Are There Realistic Expectations About Are There Realistic Expectations About

Building Hangars in California?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 CountyDave Hoover, President, HYT Corporation (Fire Protection & Code Specialists)

Nested vs. Stacked HangarsCost 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$250,0

00The 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

QUESTIONSQUESTIONS