Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hangar Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission weighs hangar options for Survival Flight; no formal action taken
Summary
Commissioners discussed a proposed second hangar for Survival Flight including size (50x50 vs 60x60), an insulated build-out, and a 20x20 crew room with generator; staff said a conditioned, built-out hangar would raise costs and could exceed FAA entitlement limits, and no motion was made.
The Alva Airport Commission discussed design and funding options for a proposed second hangar intended to serve Survival Flight. Staff reported that flight crews requested a 60-by-60 hangar with an insulated 20-by-20 crew area, electric door with a backup generator, and climate control. Commissioners and staff debated whether to keep the scope limited to a basic storage hangar (50-by-50 or 60-by-60, insulated shell only) or to build the conditioned, built-out space requested by the operator.
Staff explained grant-share and entitlement implications: using anticipated FAA entitlements for the 2026 construction year, staff estimated a construction budget around $1.4 million where the FAA would cover approximately 55% of the eligible budget, the state about 40%, and the city 5% within the entitlement budget. Staff cautioned that any scope or cost beyond the entitlements would change the city share dramatically — items beyond the entitlement budget would be subject to the state—s 40% and the city would absorb the remaining 60% of overrun amounts.
Staff provided rough ballpark prices: a generator in the order of $20,000, a 20-by-20 build-out at roughly $100 per square foot (staff—s quick estimate), and substantially higher costs for a 60-by-60 conditioned hangar versus a simple storage shell. Commissioners asked whether a build-out could be leased and recovered over time; staff said lease terms and return-on-investment should be clarified with Survival Flight and that build-outs could be structured in leases so the city could reclaim or remove improvements at lease end.
No motion was made on the item and the matter died for lack of action. Staff said they will prepare a scope for a 60-by-60 insulated basic storage hangar (no interior build-out) and will return with more precise estimates and a recommended scope.
Ending: Staff recommended a scoping meeting with detailed requirements if the commission wishes to pursue a conditioned hangar; commissioners asked staff to return with engineered cost estimates before a funding decision.
