Just wondering what the normal charge for hangar rental is around the country. I am not that interested in the actual cost as much as I am interested in the friendliness to CAP. Are most FBOs taking care of CAP squadrons and either giving them free or greatly reduced hangar rent or are they treating CAP the same as general aviation?
The ones in my AOR provide the space at no charge, based on long-standing relationships of mutual support.
The Gainesville (FL) Airport Authority gives the T-hanger to CAP Rent Free.
CAP actually has an FAA exemption that allows airports receiving public funds to give us (CAP) a deal on hangar space, tie downs, office space etc. that would be prohibited for other entities.
That having been said, our MS airports and FBO's treat us right, and we do what we can to be good tenants and neighbors. Hats off to those fine folks! :clap: :clap: :clap:
My old squadron received a T-Hangar free of charge from the Airport Authority. New unit doesn't have an airplane...
Great responses. Keep em coming...
Quote from: Al Sayre on January 19, 2010, 01:38:59 AM
CAP actually has an FAA exemption that allows airports receiving public funds to give us (CAP) a deal on hangar space, tie downs, office space etc. that would be prohibited for other entities.
That having been said, our MS airports and FBO's treat us right, and we do what we can to be good tenants and neighbors. Hats off to those fine folks! :clap: :clap: :clap:
I'm not questioning you, but would be interested in seeing a citation for this that could be passed on. Thanks.
When our squadron had an airplane, we approached the county legislature (with the blessing of the airport manager) which unanimously granted us a free hangar at the airport. Incidentally, it had been previously used by the county's then-defunct sheriff's helicopter, had not generated income for the airport, and was at the time vacant. We had a very nice, free, heated hangar for a number of years. After some aircraft got "moved around the wing", we turned it back to the county once it was clear we would not need one in the foreseeable future.
the Sq that I belong to shares a former USAF alert hangar at a former AF base, courtesy of an undertaker, who happens to like CAP. The hangar once housed an F-106 and now houses a C-206 and a Piper Meridian. It is free to our Sq.
My former Sq, in San Jose, got a tie down on the ramp free of charge, but no hangar or shade hangar(too expensive and too much in demand).
As you might imagine, hangars in CA are usually very expensive, so not too many of the CAP aircraft rest inside.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 19, 2010, 03:18:03 AM
Quote from: Al Sayre on January 19, 2010, 01:38:59 AM
CAP actually has an FAA exemption that allows airports receiving public funds to give us (CAP) a deal on hangar space, tie downs, office space etc. that would be prohibited for other entities.
That having been said, our MS airports and FBO's treat us right, and we do what we can to be good tenants and neighbors. Hats off to those fine folks! :clap: :clap: :clap:
I'm not questioning you, but would be interested in seeing a citation for this that could be passed on. Thanks.
I believe it was referenced in the Real Property regulation before they made all the changes to property and finance regs. I think it is also referenced in the standard CAP lease agreement from that document. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of our lease at hand - I can get it at the Squadron, but that will be next week (If I can remember to make a copy), nor do I have a copy of the old reg.
Got an approximate date for the olde reg? I have digital copies of everything that's been on the net, and a couple of "big blue sleeping pills" from before that.
Fairly recent. Less than 3 years...
OK, gimme a little while. I gotta dig 'em up and post 'em.
Here you go - all the regs affected by the new one:
Superceded
R61-1 (http://members.cox.net/xanadu99/CAP/R067_001.pdf)
R67-4 (http://members.cox.net/xanadu99/CAP/R067_004.pdf)
R87-1 (http://members.cox.net/xanadu99/CAP/R087_001.pdf)
R100-2 (http://members.cox.net/xanadu99/CAP/R100_002.pdf)
R900-6 (http://members.cox.net/xanadu99/CAP/R900_006.pdf)
Changed (portions deleted)
R77-1 (http://members.cox.net/xanadu99/CAP/R077_001.pdf)
OK, Found it in the Federal register Vol 64 No. 30: http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/federal_register_notices/media/obligation_final99.pdf
See pdf pg 17 item d.
Quoted. Civil Air Patrol Leases
Reduced-rental leases, including nominal leases, to the Civil Air Patrol/
United States Air Force Auxiliary (CAP) at a number of airports have also been criticized in OIG audits. As a result of this criticism, some airport operators have been seeking higher rents from the CAP when leases have come up for renewal. In its comments, the CAP contends that the current standard airport
industry practice of permitting CAP use of airport property for a nominal rent confers substantial benefits to the airport and, in general, to the aviation
community. The CAP, therefore, requests that a policy be adopted which would formally permit CAP units to continue to occupy facilities on federally obligated airports at a nominal
rent, whether under formal lease arrangements, or otherwise, at the discretion of the airport owner/operator.
The Final Policy: The Final Policy permits reduced rental rates and fees to CAP units operating at the airport, in recognition of the benefits to the airport and benefits to aviation similar to those provided by not-for-profit aviation museums and aeronautical secondary education programs. As with other notfor profit-aviation entities, the reduction must be reasonably justified by benefits to the airport or to civil aviation. In-kind services to the airport and airport users may be considered in determining the benefits that the CAP unit provides. In addition, this treatment of the CAP, which has been conferred with the status of an auxiliary to the United States Air Force, is not identical to the treatment provided to military units in the Final Policy, as discussed below, but is consistent with that treatment. The reduced rental rates and fees are available only to those CAP units operating aircraft at the airport. For CAP units without aircraft, a presence at the airport is not critical. The airport operator can accommodate those CAP units with property that is not subject to Federal requirements on maintaining a self-sustaining rate structure, without compromising the effectiveness of the CAP units. Of course, if such units provide in-kind services that benefit the airport, the value of those services may be recognized as an offset to FMV rates. The Final Policy permits but does not require nominal rental rates. The airport operator is free to treat a qualified not-for-profit aeronautical CAP lease as it would any other aeronautical activity in setting rental rates and other fees to be paid by the education program.
And pdf pg 27 Section E.
Quote
E. Use of Property by Not-for-Profit Aviation Organizations
1. An airport operator may chargereduced rental rates and fees to the following not-for-profit aviation
organizations, to the extent that the reduction is reasonably justified by the tangible or intangible benefits to the airport or to civil aviation:
a. Aviation museums;
b. Aeronautical secondary and postsecondary education programs conducted by accredited educational institutions; or
c. Civil Air Patrol units operating aircraft at the airport;
Four aircraft have donated hanger space :), four have donated tee-hangers :clap:, and we pay for one hanger :(.