FNLPA Hangar Meeting 3/9/2023

  Henry SchauerMar 17, 2023  


-Bill Snodgrass  Introduction

-Jason Licon   Hangar Timeline

– Rick Turley   Proposal

Jason Licon:

– See the T-Hangar Info Brief that is available on the flynoco website for details

– This includes information on the Airport Commission Decision Process

-Also included is the historical information on the A, B, and C hangar buildings

-Emphasized repeatedly that development is driven by the Master Plan

-2 years of development of the 2020 Master Plan with frequent sessions to obtain tenant input

-A structural analysis was done of hangars A, B, and C to determine their revenue developing life

-answer was that they are past their revenue generating life and are not repairable

-there was disagreement if Ditesco actually said they are dangerous

-Airport Commission held an executive session on 3/03 followed by an open session where the

the decision was announced to terminate the leases of the A, B, and C hangar buildings

-At the open session it was decided to give impacted hangar renters time to explore options

-Provide impacted renters one month of free rent and 6 months of free tie downs on the ramp

-Next steps need to develop new hangar sites but can’t help people being ejected, timewise

-Need Environmental Impact Study on north of 6/24 site

-RFP issued but not awarded in 2021

-Kelly from the Flying School was concerned about big jets at the center of their flight school  operations, i.e. Jet blast, small planes maneuvering around large jets if large hangars are built where the Master Plan proposes.

-Marty Brophy asked why the RFP was not reissued. Jason didn’t know because it is a commission decision

-Question: What were the structural failures; doors coming off in the wind and soil movement

-Question: What about the income from the hangars why not maintain them; That was the goal but couldn’t wait to shut down area after structural issues were found, City only owned the hangars for the last 3 years

-Question: Very small sample size by the engineering firm; Firm said that was adequate to address the question which was to just do a high level look, Jason said that he could not rule on safety, Decision on safety was then made at the Airport Commission based on input from risk manager, attorney, and insurance

-Question: What is the present hangar waiting list; 23 when the list was closed

-Question: Why not work on new T-Hangars when we have a waiting list and now trying to evict 47 more when the RFP’s were there for new small hangars; Airport always relies on private businesses to build T-Hangars. We will fast track the site development north of 6/24

-Statement: The airport has been collecting revenue from T-Hangar owners for years from fuel sales, and land leases but has not invested in the maintenance of the hangars.

-Question: What is the annual lease revenue from the impacted hangars; $180,000

-Martin Lind: Our RFP was rejected with no feedback. The hangar we are holding the meeting is just as old as the hangars we are removing, has this hangar been inspected? Engineering firm was not asked if the hangars are safe to occupy

-Howard: The hangar we are in has received significant maintenance and upgrades

-Question: Any commitment to redevelopment of the area; It is in the capital plan but nothing can be done fast enough now

-Question: Who reviewed the RFP responses; Planning and Development Subcommittee, Commission struggled with how to proceed, no feedback was given to RFP responders

-Question: Building codes for new hangars; Yes requirements for water, bathrooms, hydrants, etc.

-Question: New RFP for T-Hangars; no schedule, Airport Commission will have to decide

-Question: RFP process. Aaron Ehle answered saying they did a lot of work setting up the RFP process and were surprised when the engineering firm came back with their result, we were looking at a 5-7 year transition out of the existing T-Hangars. All three of the original RFP proposals had problems such as too high an infrastructure cost for the east T-Hangar proposal

-Statement: Frustration is that RFP proposals were discarded with no attempt to get more responses

-Question: Area C, where do infrastructure development dollars comer from? Would be better to have 50 year leases for that area; I support this effort but there are limits on what I can influence. My goal is to provide infrastructure

-Question: What is site C’s development priority; It is one of 6 items, but not priority rank. Current priorities are taxiways, fuel farm, etc

-Question from Martin Lind: What is the cost of demolition; Not known yet , will do an RFP for that

-Question: Will a second opinion be obtained as to the safety of the hangars; Rick will cover that in his presentation

Rick Turley:

-I have volunteered to lead solution proposals etc. I represent the displaced tenants not the FNLPA

-updated the audience on his history at FNL

-Asked for affected people to fill out contact form

-He has obtained a slot on the Airport Commission 3/16 meeting agenda to start the process and present proposal

-He has been in contact with 3 commission members. They all seem to really want to solve this problem but are under pressure from Risk Management

-How can we eliminate the perceived risk

-Need to develop the transition plan and then long term RPF plan

-Need a more thorough report from a structural engineering firm focused on safety not revenue life like the previous report

-Need to look at liability reduction for cities as all other hangar associations do

-How do we buy some time in the process

-Present focus needs to be on the short term transition

-Suggestion from audience: Need to form an association and build more hangars, hangars are a good investment