Get to Know the Issues

View our "Time to Mobilize" Briefing Paper.

An airport Master Plan is a study used to determine the long-term (20-year) strategic mandate for an airport.  It provides a framework for all individual airport development programs.  The drafting process provides an opportunity for local municipalities and the public to make sure their goals and vision for the airport provide direction for how aviation at the airport moves forward.   Actions that contradict an adopted Master Plan should not take place.

The County has launched a process toward a new Master Plan in May, 2022, hoping to be done with revisions in about a year.  Leaders of the Coalition had been invited to give input into the RFP bid specs for consultants and the selection of consultants for both technical work and public input.  Despite the delays, we remain optimistic that resident input will be taken seriously and incorporated into Plan revisions, but only if residents and other stakeholders actively participate in the process.  

The last Master Plan was developed by the prior administration.  It is rife with recommendations that would increase airport capacity.  It ignores the existence of county law capping commercial airline traffic at the airport, and it neglects environmental considerations.  The Plan went to the FAA in late 2018 with a commitment by the Latimer administration to "supplement" (revise) the plan "promptly."  COVID intervened to suspend revision work.

Everything in the Master Plan should be guided by the principle that anything that could expand capacity at the airport is dangerous given federal laws limiting local control of air traffic.  A revised master plan that aims for no capacity expansion and that reemphasizes environmental protection would be aligned with Westchester residents’ vision for the airport.  This was the vision that the Latimer administration heard loud and clear during 3 separate public listening sessions in the summer of 2018.  

The Coalition commends the County for announcing it will pursue wholesale revisions to the 2018 master plan with a new consultant and a robust public input process.  The County has gone as far as labeling this as a new Master Plan as opposed to a revision.  

The Coalition implores its supporters to actively engage in the County's public input process and recruit friends and neighbors to participate and speak out.  This precious opportunity to set the airport on a better path forward comes with risk.   If we sit back and let airport growth proponents dominate the conversation, a pro-growth Master Plan could make things much worse.

Click to view our Briefing Paper and visit our Resources Page to learn more and view the Coalition's submitted comments on the Master Plan.

The County should undertake greater efforts to reduce disruptive overnight flights.  You might not realize it, given the number of nightly disturbances, but the County Airport has a voluntary curfew from midnight to 6:30 am every day.  It's referred to as the Voluntary Restraint from Flying period or VRFF.  And it's being violated far too often -- especially since these disruptions are known to be harmful to people's health.

While past attempts to make the curfew mandatory or impose financial penalties were overturned by court decisions, it’s been far too long since the County aggressively strategized about how to reduce overnight flights.  

Certainly, the airport can do more to publicize and show support for the curfew, which we acknowledge it is beginning to do.  It also should create mechanisms of accountability for those who disregard the well-being of Westchester residents by flying overnight without good justification.  The reminder letters currently sent out are clearly useless by themselves.  Other airports prominently post the names of violators and it’s time for a fresh legal analysis of stronger measures and strategies that could lead to mandatory rules.

The County has pledged more effort in 2022 to support the VRFF, including sit-down meetings with airport operators and actions at an upcoming regional aviation conference that is held at the airport.  While we applaud the County for its "Year of the VRFF" initiative, these measures don't commit the County to results, like targeting a percentage reduction in overnight flights.  Nor do the county’s planned efforts include any consequences for those who continue to flout the curfew, without which the prospects for success appear doubtful.

At a minimum, we call upon the County to agree that if its present campaign falls flat, it will embrace stronger measures and meanwhile fund a legal analysis of all its options.

It's worth pointing out the good guys as well as the bad.  Many of the corporations that base aircraft here - like Pepsico, IBM, and JPMC - rarely if ever violate the curfew.  In the past, awards have been given for this and the County has pledged to bring them back.  Meanwhile, airlines and fractional air charters that lease hangars at the airport, like NetJets and FlexJets, have frequently been cited for the most violations, along with non-based (so-called "transient") private planes.  Unfortunately, the County has no website that posts violators (and offers them a chance to justify themselves), but monthly Airport Advisory Board meeting documents now identify top violators, thanks to Coalition leaders who serve on the Board.

More information related to this topic can be found under Noise Pollution and Air Pollution.

View our Resources page for Coalition statements,  news coverage, and other documents related to this issue.

The Coalition urges the Westchester County Board of Legislators and the Latimer administration to continue to reject Million Air’s proposal to replace and expand its Hangar 2.  We congratulate the County on its successes against Million Air's  2021 lawsuit seeking to force the County to approve hangar expansion.   We urge similar restraint in considering hangar expansion requests from other lessees, like the Net Jets proposal.

We support the position of Legislator Nancy Barr, in whose district the airport is located, to wait for the new Airport Master Plan.  The Master Plan will express the county’s vision for the airport facility going forward, providing ground rules for major decisions like this one. 

Further, the Coalition insists on the prior completion of Million Air's delinquent stormwater management system and the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) approval process for Million Air's existing facilities.  We join County Legislator Damon Maher in calling on the County to declare Million Air in default of its lease, including provisions that clearly require it to "procure all required...environmental approvals...and...comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and orders..." (section 5.10).  

Finally, we urge the County to conduct a feasibility study of operating the facility itself, in line with common industry practice and as an alternative to replacing Million Air with another private Fixed Base Operator (FBO).

Million Air's proposed new 80,000 square foot facility (nearly 2 acres!) would bring many more private jets to our County airport in direct violation of longstanding County policy against airport expansion, including "no expansion in the total capacity of the airport's...hangars".  The non-expansion policy was established in 2003 by a unanimous vote of the County Legislature.   

The proposed project would have major adverse consequences for the airport and Westchester residents.  The County has a legal obligation to treat tenants equally and the approval of an expansion such as the one requested would directly create a precedent for granting other operators the permission to expand.  Other operators, like Ross West and Flex Jets, are already seeking a renegotiated lease with the County.

The core of Million Air’s case for an expanded Hangar 2 is that basing new aircraft there will decrease takeoffs and landings at the airport.  Million Air made similar claims when it sought county approval to build Hangar 1, which opened in January 2018, so Million Air must permit detailed analysis of whether Hangar 1 has in fact decreased airport operations before Hangar 2 receives consideration. This cannot be done with the incomplete information Million Air has provided. At a minimum, a credible analysis would require (1) detailed information including the tail numbers of all aircraft that have been housed in Hangar 1, and (2) completed Environmental Impact Statements for both hangars.  Furthermore, a project like this must have enforceable restrictions on usage to prevent the uncontrolled increase of operations at the airport into the future.

The bottom line with the airport is always this:  because air traffic is subject to federal, not County rules, our only way to even indirectly limit flight traffic is the scale of ground facilities. Therefore, nothing should be done on the ground that would enable expanded air traffic. Further, we cannot afford bad actors like Million Air operating at our County airport while disregarding and misrepresenting environmental risks and impacts.

Westchester County Airport is located adjacent to the Kensico Reservoir, the drinking water supply for millions of people.  Westchester taxpayers and residents should not have to sacrifice our air quality, water supply, and quality of life for the convenience of private jet owners, whose aircraft emit excessive carbon emissions and contribute disproportionately to the catastrophic dangers of climate change.

Help us stop this project and all airport expansion.  Tell the County and your legislators we don't want facilities at the airport expanded.

See below for More Things to Know, and view our Resources page for news coverage and documents related to this issue.

1.  The Airport is NOT in financial trouble and does NOT need increased lease revenue. Nor will increased revenue from the airport benefit county taxpayers since FAA rules prohibit the County from using airport revenues for non-airport purposes.

2.  Basing planes at Westchester will produce extra flights that offset any that are eliminated.  The Coalition reviewed limited data that Million Air shared previously about its last new hangar, built in 2018.  We found evidence of more flights, not fewer, after it opened.  

3.  Already, other businesses that lease hangar space at the airport, like Ross West, are clamoring for permission to move forward with their own expansion plans.  Given FAA rules mandating equal treatment, another new hangar approval will open the floodgates. Once built, the airport has no way to control increased flights from new hangars.

4. Million Air's existing facilities were built without the legally mandated NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) approvals and without required stormwater management systems, and were completed in violation of an FAA order to put construction on hold.

5.  Million Air has ignored our airport's weight restrictions and voluntary overnight curfew in its advertising.  It currently hosts an operator, Blade, that's violating the law we depend on to avoid unlimited commercial airline traffic.  The County is currently involved in litigation with Blade as well.

6.  Million Air's proposal also ignores the backlog of small planes seeking hangar space.  It would demolish an existing hangar designed for small planes that it permitted to fall into disrepair.  Repairing and refurbishing this existing hangar would be the easiest way to generate the new construction jobs Million Air is touting.

7.  Million Air hasn't pledged to give its construction jobs to Westchester residents. Westchester is adding jobs regardless due to improved economic conditions.

8.  The Latimer administration to its credit has not embraced Million Air's proposal.  It does not accept Million Air's claim that it already has the legal right to build the new hangar and has not buckled under Million Air's threats to sue. The Latimer Administration stated to the Coalition that it will not recommend the project to the County Legislature unless a super-majority of the Legislature comes together to support it.

9.  Million Air has found friends in the County Legislature, starting with Chairman Ben Boykin (Democrat for White Plains, Scarsdale, Harrison).  Chairman Boykin, who orchestrated a weeks-long non-public lobbying campaign of County Legislators in favor of the project, has received large donations from Million Air owner Roger Woolsey.  

We can't allow this proposal to unleash runaway airport expansion.  Westchester has come together to stop dangerous hangar expansion proposals over the years and can do so again.  

Make your voice heard on this issue as part of the Master Planning process. Contact your County Legislator and the County Executive directly. Tell them we don't want facilities at the airport expanded.

Westchester needs to radically change the airport's planning and policymaking process to move away from crisis management and emphasize steps to ensure care is taken to avoid expanding capacity. 

Underlying many issues of concern at the airport is a policy-making process that has not consistently served the County or its residents well.  For decades, the airport has been a political football for county politicians.  Power has been centralized with top officials who meet separately with different stakeholders, then make decisions behind closed doors with minimum public notice.  

Too often, the result has been public alarm and outrage over the airport.  Communities mobilize to push back, and whether their efforts are successful or not, the process wastes time, energy and resources on all sides.

The Coalition is working with the County to break this cycle and the distrust it has generated.  The current administration appears dedicated to greater transparency and community engagement. For example. we welcome the County's adoption of a Good Neighbor Policy, designed to let "Westchester municipalities and their residents to have input into the decision-making processes regarding the use of County land located within their borders."  The Coalition will monitor its implementation on airport matters.

As for aviation companies and allied businesses,  they don't set out to harm their neighbors or the environment.  They too live here, drink the water and breathe the air.  They do view airport issues through an economic lens, and  that shifts their focus away from community concerns and the environment. 

We are urging the County to bring all stakeholders together at the early stages of airport planning to understand each other's interests and seek consensual or win-win solutions.   Let's test the potential for a more open, collaborative, and respectul process that may also prove to be more productive and cost-effective.

Noise from Westchester County Airport is a public health problem.  Noise pollution has negative health and learning effects, including heart disease, high blood pressure, low birth weight, delayed reading and language development, and all the physical, cognitive, and emotional issues that arise from being too distracted to focus on complex tasks and from never getting enough sleep.  Numerous schools are within close proximity to and under the flight paths of the airport.*

In addition, anecdotal evidence from some communities as well as scientific studies report reductions in quality of life and property values because of the prevalence of aircraft noise.   The noise impact of the airport runs counter to the suburban and exurban character of its neighbors.

Formal noise complaints made by residents using the airport's Noise Complaint form and hotline have been surging.  The County posts four years of complaint data by month.  Comparing April figures for 2018 and 2019 versus 2016 and 2017, complaints are up 3600%  (no typo).  Certain households have been impacted enough to start reporting many more disruptive flights.  In addition, the number of households filing noise complaints rose by about 250% during the same period.  Evidently distress over noise is increasingly broad as well as deep. 

Combatting noise pollution from the airport is a complex undertaking due to federal restrictions imposed by the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA).  The Coalition looks to the County for active leadership and ample resources to explore every avenue for relief of impacted residents.  While the county's ability to address aircraft noise is limited by federal law, there are steps the county can take now to mitigate noise pollution.   

The FAA uses a 65 DNL (Day-Night Level) standard for “significant” noise impact.  This is widely viewed as too high by the scientific community studying health impacts to noise exposure.  Instead, it reflects the FAA's mission to maximize airport capacity.  DNL, itself, is a flawed measuring tool.  It is an average of noise over a 24 hour period throughout the year and is inadequate to capture the disruption caused by particularly noisy aircraft or periods of extremely frequent air traffic.  

The FAA is currently formulating new standards of noise measurement and significant noise impact.
However, whatever new standards are developed may not  be well suited for us locally.  Many communities affected by aircraft noise are in urban areas with much higher levels of background noise. 

Some national efforts have been directed at lowering the FAA's standard for significant noise impact to 55 DNL.  Most press coverage of nationwide citizen anger at aircraft noise, however, has focused upon the FAA's NextGen program, which has not been implemented in our area.  

* Schools most impacted by the County AIrport:

HARRISON:  Purchase College is located immediately adjacent to the airport, while Purchase Elementary and Manhattanville College are located under the main runway's departure path.

GREENWICH:  Sacred Heart lies under the airport's secondary runway flight path while the Brunswick Middle, Lower and Pre-Schools are adjacent to the airport.

MT PLEASANT:  Bear Ridge School lies under the main runway's approach path.

NEW CASTLE:   Chappaqua's Robert E. Bell School lies under the main runway's approach path.

RYE TOWN:  Blind Brook Elementary, Middle, and High Schools, as well as Thomas A. Edison and King Street Elementary Schools are located under the main runway arrival path.

Flight paths from HPN take aircraft over densely populated areas, including schools in Purchase, Rye Brook, and Port Chester, Pleasantville, Chappaqua and Greenwich.   

Meanwhile, airports are major emitters of a variety of hazardous air pollutants that are linked to asthma, lung disease, birth defects, reproductive and liver damage, cardiovascular and neurological disease, and certain types of cancer.  Light aircraft using 'avgas' are the only remaining source of leaded fuel emissions in the developed world.  A 2014 study – the most comprehensive of its type - showed adverse medical effects caused by aircraft exhaust in communities up to 10 miles away from LAX (Los Angeles International Airport). 

Air pollution near airports is greater than what might be expected from the level of traffic alone because of greater fuel use during takeoff and initial ascent at high thrust settings as well as lower aircraft speeds taking off and landing. An A320, for example (used by arlines and private operators at the airport), burns about 1700 pounds (250 gallons) of fuel per approach/landing/take-off cycle.  Aircraft also run auxilliary engines on the ground that also contribute to air pollution.

To its credit, the Latimer Administration conducted the first study of air emissions at our airport in years.  In spring, 2021 the County's Airport Advisory Board unanimously adopted an extensive list of recommendations on how to use that study for good and ensure that future studies would be conducted in ways that would produce better data.

To date, the County has not responded to these recommendations.  The potential benefits of the study and the recommendations remain largely unrealized, and there are no concrete plans for ongoing data collection on airport-related air pollution.  

We urge the County to act.  Embrace the AAB recommendations.  Share concrete action plans. Schedule frequent air emissions monitoring and evaluations.  Seek reduced exposure for our communities and don't let the problems get worse.

Alarming levels of PFAS and other groundwater contamination have been found around the airport and near the Kensico Reservoir.  These pollutants are believed to be draining into the reservoir, though to date no PFAS chemicals have been detected in the reservoir.  New York State and Westchester County have agreed to treat the airport as a polluted Brownfield (a step below SuperFund status).  Under state supervision, Westchester has taken extensive environmental mitigation steps and reports progress in building new systems designed to arrest migration of pollutants into the reservoir.  However, efforts to remove the most contaminated soil have stalled amidst difficulties finding a place to take it. 

May 6 2019 Update - EWG (Environmental Working Group) has released a study that looks at the science and concludes that the standard for PFAS chemicals in drinking water that would fully protect children's health is 1 part per trillion, far below EPA and most state guidelines/standards.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Groundwater from the northern end and western edge of the County airport drains into the Kensico Reservoir, the source of unfiltered tap water for 90% of New York City and 80% of Westchester County.  Pollution of the reservoir would be catastrophic, both for public health and in terms of costs for clean-up.  If a filtration plant were required, residents could be on the hook for billions.  The much smaller Croton Reservoir system did need filtration and the price tag was $3.5 billion plus ongoing operating costs for the filtration plant that had to be built.  According to New York’s Environmental Protection Bureau, a similar plant for the Kensico “would entail capital expenditures of over $10 billion and annual operation and maintenance costs exceeding $100 million.” Serious stuff.

In 2018 the County under George Latimer resumed airport groundwater testing that was discontinued by the previous administration. Testing now includes additional classes of chemicals. Sure enough PFAS (Per/Polyfluoroalkyl substances), considered an emerging polllutant and linked to cancer, thyroid, and other health risks, were found concentrated on the reservoir side of the airport at levels many times above the EPA's recommended standard for drinking water. A nearby office building and homes in Connecticut have had to stop using their well water and New York State has warned that it may designate the airport as a superfund site.

To its credit, the County is drilling new wells and conducting further tests to better gauge the threat to the reservoir.  Limited testing of reservoir water in early 2018 did not turn up signs of PFAS.  The Coalition is advocating for more extensive and more frequent water testing ASAP as well as a public action plan to aggressively safeguard the Kensico and clean up PFAS.

Other dangerous chemicals registered in the groundwater too and merit further investigation. These included petroleum-related compunds like Toluene in new sites at levels above EPA safe standards, as well as Dioxane, another so-called emerging contaminant.

While the primary source of PFAS contamination appears to be a firefighting burn pit at the site of a former Air National Guard base, the County does not closely monitor the chemicals used by numerous private airport operators. It has requested more detailed information, but progress appears slow and incomplete.  We are pressing for the County do what it takes to ensure no further release of PFAS and other dangerous chemicals anywhere at the airport. 

To recap, the Coalition is advocating for:

• aggressive mitigation plan shared asap with the Airport Advisory Board and public
• more extensive/frequent testing of reservoir water
• additional testing wells at south end of airport, esp. around current burn site
• pressure on private airport operators to promptly share full detail about their chemical usage
• credible risk assessment of this info with maximum appropriate public disclosure
• insertion into airport leases of a requirement to cooperate fully with future pollution investigations
• reimbursement by the Air Force and manufacturers of the County's costs of clean-up and other consequences
• investigation and report on the sources of other identified contaminants (petro-chemicals and Dioxane)

For more information about PFAS water pollution, check out the articles on our Resources page.  For more background on water pollution risks at the airport we recommend the Environment page on the website of Citizens for a Responsible County Airport.

Most of us utilize the airport's main passenger terminal and go through standard TSA security checks before boarding planes.  We may not realize that 85% of flights at the airport are on private and corporate planes based at private terminals located around the property.  There is no systematic TSA security screening for these flights.  Nor have the same COVID rules been applied at all private hangars. 

Concerns about safety and security came into view in the wake of an incident in January 2019.  A JetSmarter private jet en route to Westchester had to make an emergency landing with the crew barricaded in the cockpit after a passenger began threatening to kill and decapitate passengers in the small cabin and could not be restrained.  JetSmarter's claims that it conducts pre-flight background checks and luggage screening were contradicted by news coverage of passengers saying they were "grateful that [the man] wasn't carrying a weapon since there was no passenger or security screening before the flight."  Three days before the flight, he began tweeting provocatively, and his luggage contained drugs and a large amount of cash.  There have been reports that private jets are used frequently transport illicit substances that TSA security checks would flag. 

Flying private - for those who can afford it -  offers much relief for those wanting to avoid security checks.  Baggage checks are done only sporadically and without the advanced equipment available to TSA personnel at the main terminal.  The pilot must carry and show proper identification to terminal staff, while passengers need only show identification to the aircraft operator or pilot or be known to them.  Customs officials might personally meet the plane upon landing.  However, private jet companies can pre-clear with customs and immigration. The TSA requires all charter aircraft over 12,500 lbs. (turbo-prop and larger) to comply with passenger manifest and identification review requirements, but private aviation (aka "general aviation") largely relies on an "Airport Watch" approach, like a neighborhood watch model, instead of more formal and uniform rules and procedures.

In addition, a series of tragic and near-tragic aviation incidents have repeatedly brought the attention of policymakers and community members back to the risks posed by a facility like Westchester County Airport, surrounded as it is by residential homes, schools, and a critical reservoir that supplies drinking water to millions of NYC-metro residents and lacks filtration:

>  August 19, 2019.  A small plane crashed into a home close to Skyacres Airport in the Hudson Valley, killing two residents. 

>  April 12, 2019.  A plane flying out of Westchester crash landed in Meriden, CT after losing power and clipping a high-tension wire causing power outages.  Two aboard were injured.

>  December 21, 2018.  Poor visibility at Westchester County Airport forced a helicopter to make an emergency landing at the Kensico Dam.

> December 28, 2013.  A helicopter practicing flight maneuvers crashed on an airfield at the airport.

> November 16, 2012. A local pilot returning to the airport from Pittsburgh crash-landed in Rye Brook in the Reckson Executive Park rear parking lot (by today’s Kingfield housing development) less than a mile south of the airport.

> June 18, 2011.  Four people were killed in a crash about a mile north of the airport near American Way North in Greenwich after taking off.

A Greenwich Time article lists 34 other crashes involving planes leaving or approaching Westchester County Airport dating back to 1974.

Over 85% of flights at the County airport involve private/corporate planes, not airlines.  A big part of the reason for this is that Westchester has legal limits on airlines.  Our Terminal Use Regulations (TUR) law (§712.462) requires airlines to use our main terminal and limits the airport to:

>  2 airline arrivals or departures per half hour

>  240 passengers per half hour (incl. those arriving and departing)

>  4 airplanes using the terminal ramp at any time

Because these limitations were in place as far back as the 1980's, the County won litigation to have them 'grandfathered in' despite laws like the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) that otherwise prohibits an airport from limiting air traffic.  These laws are why our airport cannot impose a mandatory overnight curfew (the County tried in the 1990's but lost that legal battle).  They also create concern that the TUR, itself, could be vulnerable to future legal challenges.

While the TUR law does not sunset, the Terminal Use Agreement (TUA) contracts that it requires airlines to have with the County do expire at the end of 2024.  After that, without new agreements, the airlines will no longer be prevented from relitigating the TUR law's limitations on airline traffic.  The County should act early to secure enduring commitments from airlines to work with the TUR and should condition any passenger terminal improvements on airlines agreeing to this

The 1980s-era standards in the TUR conflict with some aspects of today's airline operations.  If the TUR could be amended without sacrificing the 'grandfathered' status it enjoys, the county could undertake a truly collaborative process to bring the airlines and airport neighbors together to create win-win improvements in the TUR.   It is, however, unclear whether changes to the TUR will render them invalid and this needs to be carefully investigated via specialized legal counsel and consultations with the FAA.  If the TUR cannot be safely changed, the County should consider joining with the airlines and our federal congressional representatives to lobby for changes in the ANCA law.  Either approach would bring traditional adversaries together to work towards a better approach for managing airline traffic.

Another concern we have is about companies operating at private terminals that seemingly should be operating out of the main terminal, subject to the TUR rules and TSA security checks.  These operators sell individual tickets on planes large enough to trigger the TUR.  The Coalition is exploring with the County why this has been permitted and whether these arrangements should end.

Terminal improvements should be used to negotiate desired commitments from airlines. These commitments could include refraining from challenging the TUR, adherence to the VRFF (voluntary overnight curfew), and acceptance of noise abatement procedures including restrictions on reverse thrust, and/or a formal runway use program.  The county will need to consult aviation counsel to determine what is possible under current federal law.

It is worth noting that the airline terminal is subject to spikes in activity during 67 days per year when the TUR limitations do not apply.  These fall on and around major holidays.  Sizing the terminal based on peak utilization is an expensive and inefficient use of resources.  Some crowding during peak travel periods is inevitable at any airport and should be accepted.  Any crowding at other times of the year is exacerbated by airlines failing to strictly obey the TUR, because part of the TUR's function is to limit the rate of passengers using the airline terminal to its intended capacity.

One of the few legal mechanisms the county has to control general (private) aviation, which comprises 85% of airport traffic, is through its leases with private aviation tenants.  Many, if not all, of these leases contain provisions intended to make these operators better neighbors. The county should aggressively enforce the terms of these leases, including:

● commitments to comply with the airport's environmental controls, including effluent and noise restrictions, and operational restrictions such as the reverse thrust limitation.

● commitments to reduce the number of operations during the VRFF “curfew.”

● allowable activities, including whether aircraft maintenance is allowed, the types of services provided, and what types of aircraft operations and operators (i.e. charter or management of non-owned or non-based aircraft).

● maximum ramp weights and restrictions on the size of aircraft that may be based at the tenant's facility. Smaller aircraft are generally less polluting, so this is an important tool in minimizing HPN's environmental impact.

● commitments to serve “Light GA” users (generally understood to mean aircraft under 12,500 lbs, but targeting small piston-powered aircraft rather than VLJs may be more in keeping with the spirit of the original agreements)

● approval of fee schedules by the county

● restrictions on the ability to sell particular types of fuel

● promises to pay local property taxes 

Many of the leases include provisions that allow certain uses with the consent of the county and the airport manager. The county should review all consents that have been granted and weigh future consent carefully to ensure that the expanded uses are concordant with the county's vision for the airport. 

For example, Ross West has partnered with JetSmarter, a company that bills itself as the “Uber for private jets,” to promote its operation at HPN. This has led to an increase in private jet traffic that may run counter to Article 3(a) of their lease stipulating that the facility is to be operated exclusively for Light General Aviation.  Ross West has also installed signage that may not have been approved by the county per Article 26 of their lease. The county should aggressively pursue violations not previously approved. 

Privatization of the airport means turning it over to a for-profit operator under a long-term lease.  It runs counter to the public's interest in minimizing the environmental impact of the airport and maximizing  accountability, transparency and local control.  Introducing a profit motive – whether for the county or for a private operator – will likely subordinate environmental and community concerns.  Even small actions may have major consequences because the County is unable to control usage of the airport once facilities are built or leases are signed. Therefore, we recommend against any privatization of the airport. 

The prior administration was  ready to lease the airport to Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation (“MIC”).  County Executive Latimer campaigned against this deal and shelved the plan upon taking office.  But privatization is not off the table.  Certain business groups continue to lobby for its reconsideration - sometimes calling it a "public-private partnership" (P3) or "changed governance" - and neither legislative leaders nor the administration have disavowed privatization entirely.

Proponents of privatization emphasize the money the County can take in and airport improvements that would be made.  The MIC deal  is actually worth barely 20% of what was claimed ($224 million, not $1.1 billion).  $550 million of the deal is capital expenditures, of which the FAA generally pays 90%.  Of the remainder, about 70% is payments for police that the airport already pays out of its revenues today.  Considering the length of the proposed lease, the County's take will be a few million a year at the price of losing direct control over the airport.  Furthermore, nothing prevents the County from undertaking its own capital improvements except concerns over increasing airport capacity and traffic, which would presumably be the true goal of MIC's investment.

Environmental considerations have been given little weight, anticipating potential neglect to come if the airport were to be privatized.  In comparing bidders, “commitment to the environment and to robust community relations” made up just a portion of their “general considerations” score, which was itself less than 17% of their final score.  It seems safe to say that environmental considerations were less than 8% of the final score despite the airport's environmentally sensitive location next to the Kensico Reservoir, which supplies drinking water to over 9 million people in Westchester and New York City.

The state's Environmental Protection Bureau has written that a filtration plant for the Kensico would cost over $10 billion to build and over $100 million per year to operate.  No feasible deal can generate revenue that comes even close to the potential cost of putting the reservoir at greater risk.  Actually, the insurance required of MIC ($5 million per incident) was not enough to buy one bottle of water for each person served by the Kensico Reservoir, much less remediate any pollution of the reservoir or nearby wells.