Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County study recommends 24–30 T‑hangars, RFP process to pursue private developer at Fauquier Airport
Summary
An RS&H demand study presented to the Board recommended building 24–30 tee hangars and six midsize box hangars at Fauquier County Airport and advancing an RFP modeled on Leesburg's leases. Staff outlined a timeline for an RFP and said FAA and state reviews are required before construction.
Fauquier County supervisors received a demand study on March 13 that recommended building between 24 and 30 tee hangars and about six midsize box hangars at Fauquier County Airport and asked the board to authorize staff to finalize an RFP and begin solicitation of private developers.
RS&H engineers told the board the county currently has 126 hangars, of which the county owns 51, and a waitlist of 53 prospective tenants. RS&H distributed separate surveys to waitlist members and existing county tenants; they reported a high preference for tee hangars (about 71 percent of respondents) and found that most prospective tenants on the waitlist said they would need a hangar within a year. RS&H said survey responses and lease‑term preferences supported the 24–30 tee‑hangar recommendation.
Staff proposed using the Leesburg land‑lease model as a template for an RFP and described a timeline that would include FAA and Department of Aviation reviews, lease negotiations and legal review; staff estimated final lease approval as likely in August–September if the solicitation and negotiations proceed on the projected schedule. Kristen Hilton and RS&H emphasized that the demand study is informational for marketing the county land to private developers and that the county sought to avoid initial capital outlay by pursuing land leases rather than county‑built hangars.
Supervisors asked about stormwater and impervious surfaces, the potential revenue impact, and whether the county had considered building and operating hangars directly. RS&H said the site is mostly ready but that some stormwater work may be required and that market rental ranges they surveyed were higher than current county rents (survey respondents indicated market rents approximately 40% higher than county rates). Staff said the county could consider a county‑owned option in later phases but recommended a land‑lease RFP as a low‑cost way to test demand; construction lead times for a hangar were estimated at about four months once approvals and procurement are complete.
The board did not take a formal vote to issue an RFP during the work session but staff asked the board for direction to proceed with the RFP approach.
