Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 10
10
Demolition and Redevelopment Nothing Done
Airports may decide to demolish a facility as the best Some vacancies occur and because the tenant continues to
approach to ready a property for redevelopment. A decision pay rent, nothing is done. In these instances, airport spon-
to demolish is made because-- sors typically work with the tenant and the FAA to plan for
reuse in the future. The city of Dayton and Dayton Interna-
· The cost to maintain a facility is high, tional Airport (DAY) faced this situation when United Par-
· The parcel is needed for another use, cel Service (UPS) closed its Menlo Facility and cargo hub.
· Existing systems are highly specialized and/or UPS owns the building and has a ground lease on 166 acres
outdated, that will expire in 2020. DAY considered purchasing the
· Access to the airfield needs to be limited and secured, building but opted to receive rent for the ground lease and
· Environmental mitigation to remodel is extensive, market the property to one or several tenants. Ultimately,
· A low likelihood of reuse points to partial or full prospective tenants would negotiate with UPS and seek FAA
demolition, approval for any nonaviation use because the property has
· The airport does not have the immediate capital to ren- access to the airfield.
ovate and demolition is the least costly option.
In anticipation of opening its new terminal in 2005, Lee COMPLEXITIES OF REUSE OF AERONAUTICAL
County Port Authority undertook an extensive terminal PROPERTY
disposition evaluation at Southwest Florida International
Airport (RSW) that included its main existing terminal, Reuse of aeronautical buildings comes with special chal-
Concourses A and B, Concourse B extension, and the Inter- lenges to airport operators. The principal issues that
national Arrival Building (IAB). The evaluation involved influence reuse are--
inspection of all accessible building areas; mechanical,
plumbing, and electrical systems; underground utilities; · Security;
hydrant pumping systems; safety and fire issues; and envi- · FAA grant and obligation issues;
ronmental hazards. Four options were considered: · Airport/airline operating agreements;
· Environmental regulations;
· Reuse of the entire facility; · Technology changes;
· Removal of the main terminal and Concourses A and B, · Cost to maintain a building, cost to demolish, and cost
reuse of the newer Concourse B Extension and the IAB; to renovate (and who pays);
· Retention of the IAB, removal of everything else; · Market prospects for replacement tenants and alterna-
· Demolition of all structures. tive uses;
· Stakeholder support; and
For each option, the costs for demolition, construction, · Competition with off-airport sites.
and renovation; modifications to mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing systems; ongoing maintenance; and roof repairs These issues are discussed briefly in the next sections.
were estimated. Because the cost of system modifications was
so high for reuse of the existing facilities, Lee County Port Security
Authority decided to demolish all structures and prepare a
ready and flexible site for a secure airside reuse (see Figure 7). Most aeronautical facilities are located next to the airfield.
In this context, potential reuse options must consider and
address security issues, in particular, general access to all
airside areas of the airport. Reuse that requires access to the
airfield is the easiest from a security standpoint as a facility
that is totally directed at the landside would require closing
off access to the airfield and potentially a commitment of
security resources to ensure that the property is an indepen-
dent landside component of the airport.
FAA Grant and Obligation Issues
If an airport sponsor has accepted federal Airport Improve-
ment Program (AIP) grants, it agrees that its prime obliga-
FIGURE 7 Debris from the old Southwest Florida International tion is to operate the airport for the use and benefit of the
Airport terminal. (Source: Michel Fortier, Naples Daily News.) public. Furthermore, the FAA also views the airport's prime
OCR for page 11
11
mission as aeronautics; therefore, an airport's first obliga- (RSW), signatory airlines did not want to share in the main-
tion is to manage its assets in the civil aviation interests of tenance costs of both a new and vacant old terminal. How-
the public. It is important that all nonaeronautical uses of ever, at PIT, modified airline/airport operating agreements
land contribute to, or financially support, the aeronautical allowed for the airport's demolition of the former terminal,
mission of the airport. With regard to this overall mission, and at RSW, an MII of the signatory airlines voted to approve
Grant Assurances 19 and 29 direct an airport sponsor to a terminal project that included both construction of the new
retain and operate aeronautical properties for aeronautical terminal and demolition of the old.
uses. A sponsor may consider using aeronautical property
for nonaeronautical uses, after review and approval of the Environmental Regulations
FAA, including a period for public comment. Grant Assur-
ance 24 requires an airport sponsor to maintain a fee and Reuse of aeronautical property requires compliance with
rental structure that will make the airport as self-sustaining current environmental regulations that may include removal
as possible. Grant Assurances 24, 25, and federal law require of asbestos, lead paint, and hydrocarbon contamination. It
that airport sponsors that lease airport property for nonaero- is not uncommon for terminal areas to have fuel lines and
nautical use receive no less than fair market value rents. other utility corridors buried adjacent to an aeronautical
property. Fire suppression systems for maintenance facili-
With regard to specific FAA grant-funded improvements ties, although appropriate for aircraft, would be dangerous if
or equipment, a sponsor must operate and maintain the project they remained in place for an adaptive reuse to, for example,
or equipment for its full useful life. Grant-funded construc- office space.
tion or renovation projects are deemed to have a useful life
not to exceed 20 years. Grant-funded equipment is deemed Technology Changes
to have a useful life not to exceed 10 years. Land purchased
with FAA grants is to be operated for airport purposes in Increased use of information technology systems, advanced
perpetuity or until the sponsor receives specific release of fueling systems, alternative fuels, passenger tracking, self-
its obligations from the FAA. In the case of a grant-funded tagging and check-in, wireless communications, common-
building, the airport sponsor would need FAA approval for use baggage systems, and passenger transit are examples
an alternative nonaviation use or for demolition. The FAA of technologies that can be expensive to retrofit into older
may impose conditions for the reuse or demolition of the buildings.
building, including repayment to the FAA of its share of the
undepreciated value of the building or the reinvestment of Who Bears the Cost
that value as the federal share of a new AIP-eligible airport
improvement. Such repayment or reinvestment would not be When airport building leases are rejected by tenants dur-
necessary if the specific project had exceeded its useful life ing bankruptcy, ownership usually reverts to the airport
or if the reuse was for another AIP-eligible purpose. sponsor, which becomes responsible for maintenance and
repairs. The costs to maintain a building without tenants can
Because of FAA grant assurances and obligations, airport be considerable. Direct costs include maintenance and secu-
sponsors should consult with the FAA throughout the reuse rity personnel, materials and supplies, contracted services,
process so that the FAA Airport District Office can follow utilities, and other repair and maintenance. There may also
an airport's best efforts to secure a new aeronautical tenant be indirect costs for taxes and insurance.
before considering a mixed use or nonaeronautical use.
In addition to upkeep costs, airport sponsors may incur
Many airports consider interim uses (less than 5 years) the costs to remove environmental hazards and meet other
for a vacated facility to continue a revenue stream and/or building code requirements for an adaptive reuse. This might
solidify a long-term plan. include modifications to plumbing, electrical, mechanical,
and fire safety systems, as well as ADA access requirements.
Airport/Airline Operating Agreements The costs associated with these modifications can make the
economics of adaptive reuse unattractive from a costbenefit
Numerous airports have signed agreements with "signa- standpoint.
tory" airlines that include MII clauses. These clauses typi-
cally result in the airport losing the right to make fully Competition from Off-Airport Sites for Nonaeronautical
autonomous decisions about capital expenditure programs Tenants
by giving the signatory airlines a say on projects exceeding
a certain dollar amount. Thus, where an MII clause exists, Nonaeronautical reuse on an airport does not always stack
the disposition of older terminal buildings or other facilities up well against comparable property off an airport. Ware-
may be influenced by the signatory airlines. In the cases of houses, multimodal logistics centers, and other transport-
both Pittsburgh (PIT) and Southwest Florida International related activities that do not necessarily need airside access
OCR for page 12
12
have a much wider selection of properties off-airport that Despite the many challenges of reuse, the case studies
can be purchased outright (fee simple) or leased at a lower presented in the next chapter demonstrate some excellent
rental rate than aeronautical property. examples of facilities that have been modified and placed
back in service.
