The town of East Hampton, NY
cannot divert airport revenue to pay for legal fees stemming from its
unsuccessful effort to impose access restrictions at East Hampton Airport (HTO),
the NBAA stated in an appeal to the FAA yesterday (Wednesday 25th March).
The appeal comes in response to a
preliminary FAA 14 C.F.R. Part 16 decision that declined to address the
misappropriation of airport funds, a course of action that NBAA maintains is
contrary to agency precedent, is bad policy and is plainly at odds with
congressional instructions.
NBAA President and CEO
Ed Bolen
noted that airport users were essentially double-charged in the fight for their
right to use the airport. The town of East Hampton hiked landing fees at HTO to
generate revenue to cover the legal fees associated with defending the
restrictions.
“There should be no doubt that
the airport dollars spent by the town in litigation seeking to perpetuate the
illegal restrictions constituted an improper use of airport revenue,” NBAA wrote
in its appeal, which was joined by 11 companies that operate at the Long Island
airport. “This is not a case in which an airport sponsor was called upon to
mount a defense to an unanticipated agency or court challenge.
“The town explicitly adopted an
anti-airport agenda, declined to utilize FAA administrative procedures and
represented to its taxpayers that - even though litigation would almost
inevitably result from its campaign - the consequences would be cost-and
risk-free,” the appeal states. “In the meantime, the airport has been starved of
needed improvements that could have been funded with those diverted funds. The
town now should be required to make HTO whole.”
The NBAA appeal explains that the
enforcement of the prohibition on revenue diversion, as has occurred at HTO, is
not just a matter of FAA precedent and policy, or even of congressional policy,
but rather a matter of congressional commands. Rather than complying with the
requirement to apply airport funds only for the benefit of the airport, “the
town had an explicit anti-airport and bad-faith agenda. The town openly refused
to utilize the opportunities provided by, much less comply with, the Airport
Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) and 14 C.F.R. Part 161. The FAA is unlikely to
ever have before it, in its own words, a clearer ‘unique’ case of the ‘abuse’ of
airport accounts to fund impermissible legal expenditures. The FAA should now
require their reimbursement, with statutory interest,” stated the NBAA appeal.
“While East Hampton apparently
has spent millions of dollars over the past several years in its attempts to
impose access restrictions that the federal courts concluded violated federal
requirements, the FAA decision puts at risk far more than the dollars currently
at stake at HTO,” said Bolen.
“The decision could jeopardize
the integrity of the national system of airports by providing the option for
sponsors across the country to utilize airport revenue in support of efforts to
restrict or shutter airports, rather than to grow and improve them as intended
by the statute,” Bolen said. “It is critically important that the agency
carefully consider the far-reaching implications of the preliminary ruling being
appealed.”
|