Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hangar Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Airport board votes 4‑2 to recommend percentage-based hangar increases, not flat fees
Summary
After comparing regional airports the board recommended any future hangar-rate increases be percentage-based and capped at 5%; members asked that increases be tied to reinvestment in airport maintenance.
The Cleveland Airport Advisory Board voted 4‑2 on Sept. 4 to recommend that any future city increases to tenant hangar rates be percentage‑based and not exceed 5 percent.
Board members discussed comparables at nearby airports, tenant amenities and maintenance needs. Dean McFarland, chairman, reviewed comparisons with Liberty, Lufkin and Huntsville airports and noted differences in management structures. Board members said some Cleveland hangars are decades old and tenants expect reinvestment if rates rise.
During the discussion, members emphasized transparency about how additional revenue would be used. One board member said airport revenue and grant funds are intended for reinvestment into airport facilities; another noted the city’s insurance, electricity and payroll costs have risen and that overall airport revenue after costs is limited.
After deliberation the board moved and approved the recommendation that—if the city council decides to increase the master fee schedule for airport tenants—any increase be percentage‑based and not exceed 5 percent. The board also asked that any rate changes be accompanied by clear communication about how the money will be used for maintenance, lighting repairs, ramp work and future hangar construction.
The meeting included some confusion: one speaker noted that city council had already approved a $50 monthly increase, and board members requested staff to clarify the status with the city manager and place any final council action on the agenda for transparency to tenants.
The board directed staff to forward the recommendation to city council. The motion recorded in board minutes shows the vote tally as 4 in favor and 2 opposed.
