When East Hampton Airport reopens on May 19 with a new, private status, landing fees may at least double for most types of aircraft, according to a proposal unveiled this week during a town board work session.
Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc said yesterday that those increases were drafted with two factors in mind: that the fees, to begin with, were too low compared to other similar, small airports, and that more revenue would be needed to offset what the town anticipates will be less air traffic volume.
“We do derive a fair amount of revenue for operating the airport from landing fees,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said. “We may continue to balance those sources of revenue with the expenditures that will be necessary over time for sustainability.”
For the first time, Mr. Van Scoyoc said, locally based pilots of small aircraft would pay a small fee for using the airport.
According to town records, the landing fees were last updated in June of 2016. The proposal shows that only fees for aircraft weighing under 4,500 pounds — which the Federal Aviation Administration classifies as “small” aircraft, such as a single-engine plane — would remain the same, at $20.
Those weighing up to 7,499 pounds would see fees go from $100 to $300. For those up to 9,999 pounds, landing charges would rise from $150 to $450. The fee would go from $225 to $600 for aircraft weighing up to 12,499 pounds, and from $350 to $800 for those that weigh up to 24,999 pounds. For aircraft weighing up to 49,999 pounds, the landing fee would rise from $500 to $1,100.
The heaviest jets that the town may allow, those weighing 50,000 pounds, would see landing fees increased from $700 to $1,500. A ban on aircraft weighing more than 50,000 pounds has been suggested but is not yet set in stone.
Asked whether the increased fees would be a drop in the big-bucks bucket for the airport’s wealthier clientele, Mr. Van Scoyoc said, “I wouldn’t say that landing fees don’t matter to all of the users of the airport. It may not matter to some, but it does matter to others.”
Bill O’Connor, a consultant from the Cooley law firm, which is advising the town board, also suggested that the town separate the airport’s specific rules and regulations from the new prior-permission framework, or P.P.R., the general structure under which the airport would then be operating, which would be incorporated into the town code. That would allow the town board to update fees and policies by resolution, rather than having to hold a public hearing every time it wanted to make a change. Mr. O’Connor said this would effectively mean repealing Article 75 in the town code in its entirety and replacing it with a new one.
“Clearly, with the change in status, the code needs to be amended to recognize that the new airport is a private-use facility,” he said.
Mr. Van Scoyoc said the change would give the town “a lot more flexibility. We can be a little more nimble in our response.” As for what’s happening at the airport, he said that “some in aviation are very upset about it . . . and others don’t feel they go far enough.”
“This is a preliminary proposal,” he said. “People shouldn’t take those initial P.P.R.s as the final status at all by any means. We have a state-mandated process that we need to go through . . . that requires that we give a hard look to what happens at the airport. We will be studying that, and we will make adjustments as necessary to address ongoing concerns the community may have.”
The town is seeking community comments through Friday, March 18. They can be emailed to [email protected] or sent by mail to Carole Brennan, the town clerk, at 159 Pantigo Road in East Hampton 11937.
