Advisory board hears Fly USA proposal for Clearwater Airpark lease; vote produces no clear recommendation

A special meeting of the Airpark Advisory Board considered staff’s recommendation to authorize lease negotiations with Fly USA for Clearwater Airpark, hearing presentations from city staff and the Fly USA team and extended public comment on safety, noise, tenant displacement and financing.

Eric Gandy, director of Marine and Aviation, told the board the city issued an RFP because the existing lease is expiring and the process required competitive proposals. He said the RFP asked respondents to “emphasize flight and neighborhood safety and also to bring higher value but less intensive activities,” and that a volunteer selection committee reviewed four sealed responses before recommending Fly USA.

Fly USA representatives, including Barry Chevlin, CEO of Fly USA, and Brian Onks Jr., outlined a proposal that they say commits private capital to build a new fixed-base operator (FBO), add hangars and carry out parts of the air park layout plan adopted in 2020. Chevlin said the company intends to reduce intensive flight-school activity and “prepare the airport for the future of aviation,” and that Fly USA’s response to the RFP was the only one to commit private funds to execute the 2020 Air Park Layout Plan.

Chevlin cited industry data to address safety and noise concerns, saying turbines have lower engine-failure rates than piston engines (he referenced FAA and Pratt & Whitney figures during his remarks) and offering sample takeoff decibel numbers he attributed to FAA data: about 61–65 dB for a Cessna 172, about 68 dB for a King Air 200 and roughly 80 dB for a Robinson R44 helicopter. “If we replace the Robinson helicopter that was based there with the King Air, it’s actually gonna reduce noise,” Chevlin said. He also told the board Fly USA would not seek 24-hour operations and estimated the company’s near-term goal would be to base turboprops at roughly 10% of the field’s aircraft over three to five years.

Residents and airport tenants voiced a range of concerns during the public-comment period. Multiple speakers said they worry that replacing shade hangars and tie-downs with t-hangars or corporate hangars would displace lower-cost tenants and reduce affordable options for flight training. One tenant, who identified himself as based at the field for 13 years, said he pays about $7,000 a year in rent and feared being priced out. Another long-time resident raised potential impacts on property values, citing past studies and the neighborhood’s opposition to earlier proposals to change flight patterns.

Current airport operator David King and FBO manager Barb Cooper addressed the board. King, who has run Clearwater Airpark for the past 22 years, said the field has a long waiting list for hangar space and warned that some displaced tenants would have limited local alternatives. Cooper said community activities and gatherings had declined during the COVID period and that the airport still hosts events and welcomes the public.

Speakers also questioned financing and timing. The Fly USA team described a structure that would absorb current airport operating costs the city now carries, and they said part of the proposal includes prepaid rent to support matching funds for state grants; Chevlin and counsel said the company capped a proposed prepaid-rent contribution at $1.5 million for the first five-year term in their written RFP responses but that other funding and FDOT support would be phased and depend on negotiation. The total cost cited for the Air Park Layout Plan during the meeting was $22,000,000. City staff characterized the airport as an enterprise fund that historically must cover its own operating and capital costs and noted council direction to avoid using general-fund dollars for enterprise operations.

Several pilots and airport users urged preserving general aviation access. A retired airline captain and other pilots said mixing higher-speed turboprops and very light jets with slower training aircraft at an uncontrolled field raises safety and traffic-separation questions. Fly USA acknowledged those operational constraints and said the runway (about 4,100 feet long, as noted during discussion) and existing approaches impose limits on the size and timing of operations; Chevlin and staff said instrument-approach improvements, if feasible, would be determined in later studies and negotiations.

Board action: a member moved and another seconded a motion “to move forward with Fly USA” (to recommend staff begin negotiations). The board held a roll-call vote that produced two votes in favor, two opposed and one abstention, leaving no clear majority for a formal recommendation. The transcript records the motion and the roll-call results but does not show a unanimous endorsement; the board chair then reminded members the city council will consider the matter during upcoming work sessions and a public hearing.

Next steps: Gandy said staff will ask council’s permission to enter negotiations with Fly USA at an upcoming work session and that the council will hear the matter at a public meeting later in the week. Board members and multiple public speakers were directed to use the council hearing as the next opportunity for public comment.

The meeting included multiple promises and clarifications rather than final contract terms. Fly USA representatives said tenant relocation, hours of operation, specific noise abatement measures, hangar placement and financing would be defined in lease negotiations and later public council hearings. City staff reiterated that any use of FAA or FDOT grant funding, instrument-approach work, or changes to operations would be handled consistent with federal and state requirements and subject to further review and public process.