LRAAC meeting minutes 1. Meeting opened at 0900 on 20 October 2000 2. Present: Tim Scully, Dick Ahrens, Dave Brewer, Tom Goncharoff, Trey Loy. Excused absence: Susan Winding. Absent: Willow Trent Visitors: Laura Balows, Bob Rodriguez, Barbara Furey, Naomi Jarvie 3. Correspondence: A. T.Goncharoff comment on hangar report. B. J.Bornstein comment on hangar report. C. D.Brewer comment on hangar report. D. Letter to Heike Arnold. E. T.Goncharoff letter re hangar location. F. B.Raabe letter re hangar construction. G. Agenda: Public Resources Committee on 23 October at 9:00am 4. Dog Park. A. Laura Balows asked how to proceed. B. D.Brewer asked how funded? Private, wiht public interest. C. T.Loy suggested Balows go to Parks Dept. D. D.Brewer suggested that Committee mention this to PRC. 5. Hangar Report. A. Discussion of rental costs. B. Discussion of two-tier rentals. C. Discussion of box hangars. D. Discussion of elements of letter to renters. E. Discussion of preparation for PRC meeting. 6. Adjourn: 1030 The committee's next meeting will be 11/17/00 at 9am. The agenda for this meeting is: Approve the minutes of the last meeting Communications (letters, FAXes, etc, sent/received since last meeting) Additional hangars at the airport will be the main focus of this and the next few meetings. A citizens group has asked if a dog park can be established on airport land. We will discuss this proposal. Reports from subcommittees Public comment Agree on a date, time and place for the next meeting Agree on agenda for next meeting Members of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee ------------------------------------------------------ Dick Ahrens pilot, airport neighbor Dave Brewer pilot, lives near airport Tom Goncharoff Trey Loy non-pilot, lives near airport Tim Scully inactive pilot (lost medical), computer programmer, lives near airport Willow Trent airport neighbor, non-pilot Susan Winding airport neighbor, non-pilot, business owner ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tim.scully Sent: September 21, 2000 3:35 PM To: gonch; tim@ Subject: RE: draft hangar report #3, for comments Thank you! > -----Original Message----- > From: tom goncharoff > Sent: September 21, 2000 3:22 PM > To: tim scully > Subject: Re: draft hangar report #3, for comments > > > Tim, > I may not be the first one to see this, but in the description of the > private box hangar built in 1999 you address the "slap" cost, > should be > "slab". All else looks good to me. > Tom > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joel and Judith Sent: September 24, 2000 12:32 AM To: ..Tim Subject: Hangar report, etc Hi Tim, Thanks for sending me the hangar report. I have a couple of questions: You have allowed for considerable, possibly exorbitant, increase in the construction cost, to accommodate the corrosive climate of this area. Are any of the present hangars showing unusual damage, due to this phenomenon? Have any of them been treated in such manner as you are suggesting? With the cost of hangars coming in at a rather high level, it seems reasonable to charge more for the new units. I didn't see any recommendation to raise the rent of the existing hangars. Will there be two separate levels of hangars? Finally, I saw no indication that the private hangar option still exists. Has that been dropped? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I have the agenda and will get it posted in the next day or two. Joel ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tim.scully Sent: September 24, 2000 8:38 AM To: jbjb ; tim Subject: RE: Hangar report, etc comments below > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel and Judith > Sent: September 24, 2000 12:32 AM > To: ..Tim > Subject: Hangar report, etc > > > Hi Tim, > > Thanks for sending me the hangar report. I have a couple of > questions: > > You have allowed for considerable, possibly exorbitant, > increase in the > construction cost, to accommodate the corrosive climate of > this area. Are > any of the present hangars showing unusual damage, due to > this phenomenon? > Have any of them been treated in such manner as you are suggesting? Tom Taylor's hangar has a main truss that is rusting seriously. The committee felt that it was better at this stage (before we have actual bids from vendors) to estimate on the high side. We felt it would be better to start high and come down rather than vice versa. Hopefully the final cost will be lower. > > With the cost of hangars coming in at a rather high level, it seems > reasonable to charge more for the new units. I didn't see any > recommendation to raise the rent of the existing hangars. > Will there be two > separate levels of hangars? Right, this has not been discussed yet. At many airports there are different fees for hangars of different vintages, based on their costs. Other airports keep the fees constant for similar hanagars, raising the rent on older hangars as new ones are built. Do you have an opinion about what should be done at O48? > > Finally, I saw no indication that the private hangar option > still exists. > Has that been dropped? Not to my knowledge. The Supervisors asked us to pursue the CalTrans option first. If that works out, we assume that people would prefer to rent than buy. If it doesn't work out, I think their next priority will be to try a private-public partnership. Then if that doesn't work, individual private hangars. But that's just my impression. I think there is general agreement that more hangars are needed one way or another. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > I have the agenda and will get it posted in the next day or two. Thanks!! > > Joel > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Brewer Sent: September 23, 2000 3:26 PM To: Tim Subject: Interim Hangar Report #3 Looks OK to me. I would like to think that we will be closer to $25K than $30K, but I can't prove it. The cheapest standalone hangar is Port-A-Port's Sport at $8400 at the factory, before tax, transportation, and erection. And utilities. I'm guessing we could put these up for $25K all in. It is probably better to start high and work down. Dave ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joel and Judith Sent: September 24, 2000 9:19 AM To: tim.scully Subject: Re: Hangar report, etc Hi, Re: multi-level pricing of hangars. I'm #2 on the list, as you know. I would be more interested in a $125.00 hangar in a good location. I don't know if it's reasonable, however, that the old hangars should cost less than the new ones. If the rents of all the hangars were to be the same, couldn't the fee be somewhat less per hangar? Joel ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Scully 10/8/2000 Heike Arnold Clerk, Board of Supervisors 501 Low Gap Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Ms. Arnold: I am enclosing 5 copies of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee's Interim Hangar Report #3, for our presentation to the Public Resources Committee on October 23. Please let me know when you know the approximate time when our item is scheduled. Thank you. Yours, Tim Scully, Ph.D. Chair, LRAAC ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Little River Airport Advisory Committee Interim Hangar Report number 3 20 September, 2000 SUMMARY Information: - information is provided about the CalTrans low interest loan program Recommendations: - Area C as a location for new hangars - Estimated cost per hangar is $30,000, estimated $225/month rent - Establish an escrow account and solicit $450 deposits to remain on waiting list (CalTrans requires this) - Have Dave Thorpe collect deposits Requests: - We request permission to contact PG&E and Pac Bell for utility estimates - We request permission to advertise once the escrow account is set up to let all pilots know about the waiting list We propose to report again in December. LOCATION Can we agree on location "C" as the site for additional hangars? In informal meetings with DOT, I believe they concur that extending the existing row of hangars is the best alternative. COST ESTIMATE We have researched the costs of hangar construction at Ukiah and Willits, where blocks of hangars have been or are being built, and we have also obtained the construction cost figures for two of the individual private hangars at Little River. Private T-hangar (Port-a-Port Exec 1) built in 1986 .... $20,900 Including full concrete slab and ramp. The basic hangar cost $12,749 and the balance was concrete work for the slab and ramp. Private box hangar 43x36x11' built in 1999 ............. $34,067 This includes full concrete slab and ramp The basic hangar cost $16,049 with the balance of the cost being structural analysis, erection and concrete costs. The City of Willits built a block of ten hangars, 42.5x36x12.5' in 1990. Electricity was provided, no water and no telephone. $160,000 for 10 hangars or .......... $16,000 each The hangars have concrete slab floors and ramps. The City of Ukiah has a quote of $86,639 for 10 hangars, NOT including slab, assembly or delivery. CalTrans says that they expect a block of 10 hangars to cost about $220,000 to build, or .................... $22,000 each including design and taxiway costs We believe that the per-hangar cost of a block of hangars will be lower than the cost of individually constructed hangars. Considering that we may have higher costs for utilities than Willits and that the salt air on the coast recommends extra cost for durable hangars, we suggest an initial estimated total cost per hangar of $30,000. UTILITY HOOKUP COSTS The committee would like to know if we can be authorized to solicit cost estimates from PG&E and Pacific Bell for the utility hookups to Area C. DOT asked Tim Scully to report on the feasibility of bringing power directly from Airport Roard to Area C instead of trenching from the airport office. The distance from the end of the existing row of hangars to Airport Road is about 1050 feet. The FAR 77 height limit at the back of the hangar row is 35 feet and it is over 40 feet on the far side of the drainage ditch. This suggests that telephone poles could be used to get power from Airport Road to the back of the hangar line, avoiding the extra costs of a long underground power line. The same poles could also be used for telephone wire. CALTRANS LOAN APPLICATION PROCESS We were asked to research CalTrans' low interest loan program for hangar construction. The loans are made at an interest rate determined by the most recent bond sale at the time the loan is approved. The term can be for up to 17 years. CalTrans wants the hangar waiting list validated by collecting a deposit equal to two month's hangar rent. We estimate the monthly hangar rent at approximately $225, so it will be necessary to solicit $450 deposits from pilots to prove the seriousness of their intentions to CalTrans. We suggest that DOT establish an escrow account and that Dave Thorpe, the airport supervisor, should collect the deposits. If this is done, we would like permission to advertise in the local newspaper, to let pilots know how they can get on this waiting list. Two documents from CalTrans detailing their loan process are appended: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Process to Apply for Airport Loans This describes the application process for loans from the Local Airport Loan Account. The Loan Account is a revolving fund that relies upon the payment of interest and principal on outstanding loans to fund new requests. The process is: 1. Sponsor Submits Application. Sponsors may apply at any time. a. Matching loans for local match to FAA grants. Use form DOA-0019 and enclose: o Local governmental approval (resolution or minute order). o Environmental documentation. Include a copy of the EIF, Negative Declaration, or Notice of Exemption. The sposnor must file a Notice of Determination with the Aeronautics Program before the Program can approve the loan. o Copy of FAA grant award or pre-application. (Loan Agreement cannot be finalized until the FAA grant is awarded.) b. Revenue-Generating loans. Use form DOA-0020 and enclose: o Local governmental approval (resolution or minute order). o Environmental documentation. (Same as for "matching" loans.) o Documentation of the project's engineering and economic/financial feasibility. (Use of the Program's Checklist for Economic Feasibility is one method to demonstrate economic feasibility.) o FAA approval (ALP and/or Form 7460-1 "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration). o Sketch/drawing showing the project's location on the airport. 2. Internal Review. The Aeronautics Program reviews the application internally to see if the project is feasible and if funds are available in the Loan Account. FAA may be contacted to confirm the award of AIP grants. If the application is acceptable, the term of the loan is set at the close of the internal review. At this point, the Program can provide a tentative approval subject to the public hearing and approval of the Loan Agreement by the State's Department of General Services. 3. Public Hearing. The Aeronautics Program conducts a public hearing on the loan. Typically, hearings are held every two months but they can occur more or less frequently depending on loan activity. Airport staff do not have to attend the public hearing. 4. Loan Agreement. Once funds become available and the sponsor is ready to proceed with the project, the Program prepares a Loan Agreement and sends it to the sponsor. The interest rate is set at this time and is equal to the interest rate for the most recent sale of State bonds. 5. Acceptance by the Sponsor. The local governing body must accept the loan via resolution or minute order (if acceptance was not delegated to a staff person in the initial resolution). The airport returns the approved Loan Agreement to the Aeronautics Program. 6. Department of General Services (DGS). The Manager of the Aeronautics Program signs the Loan Agreement and forwards it to DGS, acting as the State's attorney for airport loans. 7. Payment. Once the Loan Agreement is signed and returned from DGS, the Program requests payment to the airport from the State Controller via the Department's accounting office. 8. Repayment. The first payment on the loan is due one year from the date of the State Controller's warrant. The Department will invoice the airport for all payments. May 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Department of Transportation Aeronautics Program Checklist for Economic Feasibility Revenue-Generating Loans Public Entity ______________________ Airport_______________________ A. Hangar Loan --------------------------------------------------------- Type & Number of Requested hangars_________________________________ (T-hangar, corporate, etc.) Existing Hangars _____ Rental Rate(s) _____ Based Aircraft_____ Waiting List for Hangars? Yes-No (circle one) Number on waiting list ______ Deposit to be on waiting list $______ Estimated Costs: Hangar Construction $_______ Site Prep $________ Other Construction/Preparation Costs $_______ Total Cost $_______ Proposed Monthly Rental Rate, per Hangar $________ Proposed Future Increases in Rental Rate _________ (for example, 3% per year) B. Other Revenue-Generating Loan ------------------------------------------- Project Description_______________________________________________________ (for fueling facilities include types of fuel to be sold) Estimated Cost of Project $_____ Projected Monthly Net Income from Project $______ (or, differential income if this project affects an existing operation, e.g. the project replaces an existing fueling facility) Projected Future Increases in Monthly Net Income $_______ Check here if additional sheets are attached.__ The Department may request more information beyond this checklist. Documents to be submitted with loan application (form DOA-0020): local approval, layout sketch of project, and CEQA compliance. 09/14/98 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tom goncharoff Sent: October 17, 2000 3:50 PM To: tim.scully Subject: Re: New Hangar Location Tim, I neglected to tell you that Eric is a pilot and has been on the hangar waiting list for some time. I looked up the report Dave Brewer made concerning the waiting list and the only Eric on the list is Eric Miller. I guess that is him. He said that the recommendation that was made regarding the new hangar location and new taxiways for them, was that they be perpendicular to the existing taxiways. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: ; ; ; He is referring to the Master Plan. > > Certainly we can discuss this. We already have hangars on the main taxiway and, so far, this has not been a significant cause of traffic jams, due to the very low traffic level at the airport. It is a good point to cover in our report. Thanks for brining it up. > > -----Original Message----- > From: tom goncharoff [mailto:gonch] > Sent: October 16, 2000 4:48 PM > To: tim scully > Cc: willow trent; susan winding; Dave and Celia Brewer; Mike Dell'Ara; dick ahrens > Subject: New Hangar Location > > > Tim, > I met a gentleman named Eric. I didn't get his last name. He is a pilot and has been involved in airport issues in the past. He told me that there had been a Airport study paid for by the County in 1990 or thereabouts. It cost the County about $85,000. According to him, this study was either part of the Airport master plan, or a part of the master plan. He said the study indicated that new hangars should not be built along the taxiways because when there are airplanes on the aprons of the hangars, other airplanes are not able to use the taxiway due to the interference wings of the aircraft on the taxiway with the aircraft on the aprons. He said that even though it will cost more money to add additional taxiways, this should be considered due to this interference factor. Supposedly, this was all included in the study that was done by the County. > Should this be discussed at our meeting this Friday. > Tom > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Raabe Sent: October 19, 2000 6:27 AM To: tim.scully Subject: Re: Little River Airport Tim- If you need someone to build hangers for the County (the kind the County would be proud to own), you might consider calling my partner at Crosswind Properties. He can be reached at: Crosswind Properties Jeff Iversen, President xxx Shortly, we will be building hangers at thr Petaluma Airport and thr Lincoln Airport. These are corporate hangers which will ultimately be owned by the tenants and not the Airport. This seems to be a great way for Airports to attract aviation related business to their airports to increase rent, fuel sales, property taxes and overall airport utility. Good luck, Bruce Raabe tim.scully wrote: > I don't think the County will allow any more privately owned hangars to > be built until the policy for additional hangars has been resolved. The > Airport Advisory Committee is actively working on this issue with the > County. But, as I'm sure you have noticed, the process is very slow. I put > you on the mailing list for the committee's minutes, so you will have some > idea of what is going on. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bruce Raabe > > Sent: October 12, 2000 2:37 PM > > To: tim scully > > Subject: Little River Airport > > > > > > Tim: > > I thought I'd check in. I am still very interested in > > building a hanger > > for myself at the LRA. I'd like to build a 40X50 hanger and pay a > > reasonable rent to the County. > > > > Call me anytime at xxx > > > > Bruce Raabe > > -- > > Notice: All electronic correspondences are reviewed daily by > > the Collins > > & Company compliance officer as required by NYSE Rule 472. > > > > -- Notice: All electronic correspondences are reviewed daily by the Collins & Company compliance officer as required by NYSE Rule 472.