Chickasha considers new hangar, then terminal, using state and FAA grant leverage

Toby Baker, an airport engineering consultant with Park Hill, told Chickasha officials that the Oklahoma Department of Aerospace and Aeronautics (ODAA) is encouraging the city to consider a new terminal building and to pursue available hangar grants.

Baker said ODAA’s terminal building/ramp program is typically funded on a 50/50 basis with the state’s share capped at $1,000,000; he suggested using a planning number of $2,500,000 for a new terminal (design and construction). “The city is required to have a dollar-for-dollar match to that grant program,” Baker said.

He recommended sequencing work so a replacement hangar is built first, allowing tenants to relocate before the city demolishes the current Hangar 4 and constructs a terminal. “The idea was to first build a replacement hangar for Hangar 4, and then after that new hangar had been constructed, then look at demolishing Hangar 4 and constructing a new terminal building,” Baker said.

On hangar funding, Baker said the ODAA hangar program typically funds 40 percent of a hangar project and that the city can leverage FAA non-primary entitlements to reduce its local share to roughly 5 percent in some structures. He cited a recent comparable hangar project with a total cost near $1.3–$1.4 million and proposed a 120-by-100 hangar as the airport board’s near-term priority.

Baker cautioned that FAA and state grant timing matters: FAA non-primary entitlement (NPE) funds accrue in FAA accounts and are available through grant applications based on bids, and the Airport Infrastructure Grants (AIG) introduced via the bipartisan infrastructure law have increased available funds since 2022 but are scheduled to sunset in 2026 unless Congress acts. He gave recent AIG annual amounts as examples (2022: $159,000; 2023: $145,000; 2024: $144,000) and said the city should plan the hangar for FY2026 and the terminal for FY2027 while recognizing those timelines could shift.

On costs that drive local decisions, Baker noted that hangars above about 12,000 square feet commonly trigger foam suppression or other fire-suppression requirements. “On a 100-by-150 hangar, the add-alternate for the foam suppression was a $1,000,000,” he said, underscoring how suppression requirements can change equations for smaller cities.

Baker also identified maintenance needs at the airport — pavement rehabilitation on the terminal apron and aging taxiway lights installed around 2004–2005 — and suggested the terminal apron rehab is likely a 2028 or later project. He emphasized that federal grant assurances already constrain certain airport decisions because the airport accepted FAA grants in prior years.

The airport board’s verbal consensus at the meeting was to list a 120-by-100 hangar in 2026 and a terminal building in 2027 on the five-year capital improvement plan (CIP). Baker said the next administrative step is to update the CIP and submit it to ODAA and FAA by the stated deadline so the state and federal reviewers can confirm whether the projects and years align with available funding.

Baker closed by stressing the CIP should reflect projects the city intends to pursue: “We don’t want to show anything that you have no intention of doing,” he said, because federal reimbursements are tied to bid-based grants and timing of available funds.

The city was advised to expect follow-up work — a detailed cost estimate, staff recommendations and, if the council favors moving ahead, task orders back to council to authorize design and engineering work prior to committing new local funds.