All right, I'm going to go ahead and call this meeting of Council's Transportation and Mobility Committee to order.

Happy New Year.

We are not hearing any legislation today, so there is no need for a roll call, but I see that we have some pretty good attendance.

And then I'll call up the administration.

And this is the beginning of, I think, a conversation that has been a long time coming.

And I'm I'm thankful to the administration for being here today for getting information together so that we can have this conversation publicly, transparently on behalf of the community.

Just, you know, my remarks are it's it's very clear that Burke gets a lot of attention.

And uh the public sector, in my opinion, uh regarding the conversation of should Burke be an airport, should it be something else.

I don't believe that we have done a good job of educating we the public sector, educating this community on how complicated this site is and all of its ins and outs.

And my goal is to help council and this community understand all the various aspects of Burke and really lakefront development writ large.

Uh but specific to Burke, what it does, its limitations, its budgets, its economic impacts, the site conditions, so that we can all make an informed decision given the mayoral support for closure, which we all saw a letter that was sent in October to the federal government.

Um, you know, and I will say the mayor's preference to close the airport aligns with many in the community who see Burke as an opportunity to connect us to the waterfront, which is something that I think most of us do aspire to be able to achieve.

These hearings will scrutinize such a decision, and bluntly, I do think that they're going to scrutinize a little closer the close aspect because I anticipate that's the trajectory that we're on, and there could be a decision point at some point in the future that this body could be met with.

I believe this body needs to understand why the site is so complicated.

In the report that I sent out to council members last night, the CHA consulting report provided to us by the administration where it lays out all the costs associated with closing the airport.

It also concedes that redevelopment would be very expensive.

I want us to understand why that is, and I don't want us to rush to close an airport that per also per the report supports hundreds of jobs and does have spillover economic value, only to be faced with future legislation requiring un unforeseen levels of subsidy and I worry levels of subsidy that this body has not been asked to uh consider for other large scale economic development projects.

Um I'm gonna close my remarks there and just say uh that today is gonna be a dense topic.

We're gonna take a couple breaks along the way for questions.

I'm going to try to limit our questions so that we can keep things moving forward.

If questions are more appropriate for maybe one of the future hearings, I'm gonna ask that we put a pin in that and staff will make sure that that is brought up at a future meeting.

Uh but I want us to make sure that we get through all of this today, and with that I would invite the administration up today who have provided a presentation that'll be available, and it's also on our tablets.

Good morning.

And uh deputy uh actually go ahead.

I'm gonna ask you all to do introductions, and then uh since it is the first hearing of the year, and since there are some new members of council, I think it would also be useful for us to introduce ourselves as well.

Good morning, everybody.

Jessica Trevesano, I'm the mayor's deputy chief of staff and chief strategy officer.

Uh good morning, everybody.

Scott Skinner, President Executive Director of the North Coast Waterfront Development Corporation.

Uh John Hoos with the Department of Port Control, senior manager of development.

Hi, good morning.

Marty Kane, director of public utilities.

And um, Chair will also be joined later in the meeting by the Port of Cleveland staff uh who will introduce themselves there.

Thank you.

And uh just as a remote as a note to everyone, I was told that the we are still working on getting our new audio system in order, so make sure I know we always say speak into the mic, but we might need to super duper speak into the mic today.

Uh with that, I'll start down with Councilman Bishop and we can go down the line and introduce ourselves to you and to the viewing public.

Um Councilman Kevin Bishop, Ward Two.

Here we go.

Councilman Austin Davis, uh, ward seven, which includes Burke and many of you are residents.

Um Councilman Slife, Ward 15.

Brian Casey, Councilman, or Councilman Ward 13.

Councilman Gray, Ward 3.

Ridger A.

Starr, Councilman War 5.

Councilwoman Nikki Hudson, Ward 11.

And Chris Harsh, new ward for same old Brooklyn.

Oh.

And uh Councilman Polenzik?

Councilman Polencick, Ward 10.

And with that, I will turn it over to you, Deputy Chief.

Thank you, and and thank you to the chairman for calling us for these uh this series of meetings.

We agree that it's really important to make sure that uh both the public and council members uh have a full sense of uh everything that is being planned and all of the intricacies that are Burke Lakefront Airport.

Uh for today's meeting, we're gonna start with an overview, a meeting purpose, uh, and some history on the Burke land.

Uh I'll cover that part of our agenda.

I'll turn it over then to John Hoos to talk about regulatory and legal considerations.

Uh this will be the densest part of the meeting, so like maybe stretch right before we get there.

Uh, and then I'll ask Scott and our director of utilities to talk about utilities on Burke, and then uh we'll be joined by our friends at the Port of Cleveland to talk about operations of the port on Burke.

Uh so just starting with an overview of kind of what we hope to uh communicate uh in this meeting.

Uh the first is that redevelopment of Burke Lakefront Airport is feasible and a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

Burke offers a rare opportunity to access large assembled lakefront land with no fragmented private ownership.

That's unheard of really anywhere except for here.

Uh we can which reduces the risk of allowing for master planning or development on scale.

Uh, the site is somewhat complicated due to its status as submerged lakefront land.

Uh, because we've been working on Burke for so long as a city, there are fewer unknowns on the site than there are for other development sites around the city.

Uh, and the Burke Lakefront property includes multiple confined disposal facilities.

Uh, you're all going to be experts about dredging by the end of this.

Uh, we share the same purpose uh as what Councilman Slife communicated earlier.

So that any future decision regarding its closure or continued operation is informed, transparent, fiscally responsible, and aligned with the long-term interests of Cleveland's taxpayers.

So let's start with what is Burke.

Much of Burke and much of our lakefront was created through landfill and dredge material that extended the shoreline outward beyond Cleveland's original natural shoreline.

So you can see here where the shoreline was in the early 1900s.

Up to today, which uh is all you know more built out.

It is about 450 acres of site and grows slightly every year because it is dredge material.

With that, I'm gonna turn it over to John to talk a little bit about the complications of selling lakefront property.

Uh he'll talk about submerged land leases and what is emerge, what it means to have a submerged land lease.

We'll also talk about uh littoral property rights and uh uh we'll talk about all of the sort of le legal and regulatory framework for uh how we would go about developing Burke.

John Because as Jessica showed, um Burke is comprised of the former uh bottom of the lake.

Um there are primary primarily two legal barriers to prevent uh the selling of the property.

One is the public trust doctrine, which holds that uh essentially it's uh the state holds um the natural sh natural lake bed in trust for the public to preserve access and to prevent it from falling into private hands that would obstruct access for commerce, fishing, recreation, those type of water activities.

The other is um the uh section 45 of the charter um prevents uh the alienation of waterfront lands unless there is a public vote.

Um although although these um legal barriers prevent the sale of the property, you are able to cumber the property on a long-term basis through um long-term ground leases, license agreements, management agreements, that type of thing.

Um so the lakefront can be developed, and it's typically through um long-term ground leases.

Um recap recap what Summer's lands are.

Um their lands presently underlying the waters of Lake Erie and the lands formerly underlying the water of Lake Erie and now artificially filled between the natural shoreline and an international boundary with Canada.

So pretty much the whole lakefront from west third to the 50 east 55th was open water, you know, a hundred years ago.

So when it when it comes to Burke, Burke is presently encumbered through a submerged land lease with the state of Ohio.

And that land lease extends out into the next century.

Um the approved uses under that land lease are um activities consistent with the lakefront master plan as amended over time and uh CDF operations and airport operations.

Important thing to keep in mind is any assignment, sublease, or mortgage of this SMERGE land lease requires the consent of the director of ODNR.

Um it's called the consent to sublease.

And and to the listening audience, just for acronym, CDF refers to the combined disposal facilities that the port uses that we'll talk about in the latter half of today.

Yeah, okay.

Correct.

Um the current um the current rent for the SMERS land lease is one dollar.

Umce it it it you start the development process, it goes up to possibly four cents per square foot.

So the rent is is not a barrier to development, it's a pretty de minimis amount even for private development.

Um I know this was regressed a request by to cover uh littoral rights are essentially um if you are uh a property owner abutting the lake, you have the right to wharf out to have access to the lake.

Um that can't be a P impeded by um you know private commerce essentially.

Um it comes to Burke, the city owns essentially the whole stretch of the natural share line shoreline, the pretty much the land that abuts that natural shoreline.

So there are really no other littoral claims to Burke.

Um so to John's point, just to sort of put it directly, um, while submerged land create complications and sort of structuring real estate transactions, whether that's uh uh sort of civic use like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame or Science Center, whether that's a private development like Nuevo or the apartments you see on Voinovich, uh it is possible to lease submerged land uh in a way that is financeable for private development or buildable for any sort of uh public use.

It's uh submerged land is not something that is unique to Cleveland either.

Ummerged land leases exist in a number of different states, including Virginia, Florida, Illinois, and New York, um, all of whom have built over the last century um uh large scale development and public access uh on submerged lands.

Um so they are financeable and uh developer will ultimately have a right to sublease without city and state approval as long as they remain primary primarily liable for the property.

And John talked a little about ODNR, which for the viewers is the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, um, who are the ultimate deciders of what sort of can and can't be used on submerged land.

Um to John's point, as long as uh use is uh consistent with uh Lakefront Master Plan as amended and adopted over time, um, and we are informing ODNR about what future uses could be.

Um there really aren't uh uh significant risks uh to new development from like an entitlement level at the state.

Next slide.

Did we want to stop there before we sort of dive into utilities and inviro?

Let's go ahead through utilities and we can pause and develop a breakpoint for the report.

So Jessica mentioned this at the top of the meeting.

Um my background is in multifamily development, and one of the unique things about Burke that actually make it makes it an attractive development side, if aside from its location, is that there are few unknowns.

Um we've been doing diligence work on Burke that's environmental assessments, that is geotechnical studies, that is utility analysis, uh for decades and decades and decades.

And um while we are still sort of a lot of due diligence already exists on the site.

Um I have a team that is compiling all of those environmental studies, geotechnical studies, and utility surveys in a sort of memo report that is not quite finished yet, but we will be able to share with this body uh in time that can sort of summarize the tens of thousands of pages of due diligence on Burke uh that exist in a uh in a much shorter document.

Um that I want to make sure is sort of known is I I personally get a lot of questions on you can build on Burke or you can't build on Burke.

And that's not a complete way of thinking about it.

It really depends where on Burke and what the uses are.

Burke is a gigantic site, it's 450 acres, and the southwest portion of Burke is very different than the northeast portion of Burke.

Um so as we're thinking about you know what is buildable, what is financiable, what potential costs or utility needs could be, it's important to put that in context of it really depends on what you're building, um, whether it's dense development or open park space and where it is, whether it's sort of the southern, northern, western, eastern portions of the site.

Um the uh the general takeaway from the initial analysis, again that is still ongoing of all of the diligence that work that currently exists on Burke is that uh low density buildings and shelters and a combination of both active and passive recreation use is feasible without unusual high costs from infrastructure or remediation work.

And I'll give you sort of a couple reasons for for why that is as we go through this.

Uh the first is because of its current use, actually.

Um because uh runways have planes have to land on them, you actually have to have soil compacted underneath those runways to quite an extensive level.

It's the same amount of soil compaction as you would need to do to put any sort of building on Burke.

So whether it's public space or low density or even medium density buildings from a geotechnical perspective, because the sites are currently used as runways, um, all of that soil compaction, which um I know no fewers can see me, is basically just putting the soil together as closely as you can, so it can it can hold a building and a structure.

Um all of that has already been done where the runways exist on Burke currently.

Um additionally, we're working on a number of additional environmental reviews.

Um, but initial findings do actually indicate that Burke will not require significant environmental remediation.

Again, that's all dependent on the use.

Requirements for remediation are very different for a trail than they are for uh uh a dwelling unit or any any sort of housing.

So it depends on the ultimate ultimate use.

But um over the last 20-30 years, a significant amount of remediation work on the airport site um has already been done.

And the initial analysis, and again, these are still ongoing, so um, this there are still new information being discovered.

Um, but the initial analysis is that the eastern portion of Burke is primarily sediment and dredge and not sort of the trash and landfill that used to be in other portions of Burke.

Um, still work to be done.

I expect that to be complete in the next few weeks, and I'm more than happy to share uh this uh sort of memorandum on due diligence on Burke with this body.

Uh uh then I guess I'll I'll add in um I've built uh on a in previous roles on a lot of sites around Cleveland, including Detroit Shoreway and the Scranton Peninsula and Battery Park.

And compared to those sites, Burke is actually remarkably clean in environmental site.

Heavy industry creates much more significant environmental remediation costs than sort of dredge and fill over time.

Um so again, studies are ongoing, but initial findings suggest that cle that clean dirt was imported, was imported for the construction of the airport and the runway expansion.

And we talked about the eastern portion of Burke as well.

Uh, two next steps in addition to finalizing um this this document that we can share with this body um are file uh requesting a buster report, uh, which is uh report um a body that can give you a determination on a confirmation on whether there are any underground storage tanks still under the site.

Uh again, initial findings indicate that there are not.

Um they were likely removed between 1987 and 2007 when a lot of sort of in remediation work was being done on Burke.

But there is a process to formally sort of get clearance that you're not gonna find anything else underground there.

And again, to reiterate, because this is fill and not heavy industry, um, you actually can sort of get those reports with a higher degree of certainty than you would um otherwise.

Uh and then the the next the next step here, there are differences obviously between what you are legally required to build when you're thinking about environmental remediation, and what, if any health risks could exist for folks experiencing the site.

So in addition to like an environmental site assessment, there's also a process uh called a health risk assessment that we are we have already started engaging in, which sort of separates the process of determining what is legally allowed to be built with a certain level of environmental remediation from what if any health risks still remain on the site for people using it for recreation or just being out there generally.

That could be um yeah anything you could find underground that would impact soils that a child might put in their hand or anything like that.

So we are moving forward to analyze both what you are actually legally allowed to build with certain levels of remediation if needed, um, as well as understanding and confirming that there are no actual health risks to people enjoying Burke if it were to be a different use in the future.

Uh in terms of utilities at Burke, I'm gonna go through this very very quickly, then I'll hand it over to uh the water department to dive into detail as well.

Um Burke's current electrical service is provided by CPP, and an existing electrical duct bank is located on North Marginal Road.

Um that that duct bank will like would likely be able to serve uh low density development on most of the western portion of Burke.

There would likely be additional electrical work required if there were to be significant development on the eastern portion of Burke.

Um I will uh skip the water and get to get to that at the end here.

But um uh Enbridge serves Burke from a gas perspective.

Um and then from a sanitary sewer perspective, Burke currently has three sanitary sewer pump stations that send materials under the shoreway and into existing combined sewer infrastructure at East 20th and East 40th.

Obviously, because of the bluff and the the uh the topographical uh dip between where uh sort of St.

Clair Superior is and where Burke is, you do have to like pump water up, but that infrastructure for low density development generally already exists.

Again, these are initial findings, need to be further examined.

Um, and any further testing examination uh would have to have a very specific use in mind to be able to understand if there is capacity.

If you want to talk about water or uh as well.

Thank you.

Uh just plenty of water at Burke.

Happy to serve them and uh including power and sewer.

So happy to answer any questions.

Yeah, so so I think what we're gonna do is we're gonna pause here.

Yeah, and well, we can ask.

My microphone's not on.

So what we're gonna do is we're gonna pause here and we can ask questions of the city administration uh and then and get to the port aspect later.

Uh, given the number of us, I'm gonna say that we can start with 10 minutes.

I know that this was dense and really difficult to wrap our heads around.

Uh, but uh again, I think that it is uh you know I'm a former site selector.

It's important to understand the value of the site as we start talking about potentially using it in a different manner.

And I think one of the challenges, and and I guess I'll start with this being my first question to the deputy chief.

Uh there's a lot of data out there about and and the consulting reports speaking to procedurally how to close the airport, what the cost associated with that would be.

What we don't know at this point, though, is the cost of new development, what the new development would be, what the scale of subsidy would be.

So I think that one of the apprehensions that I have is uh the the potential for having to make a decision in a vacuum and then uh the risk of it being a very expensive decision.

Uh could you categorize where we are with what we've heard low density development, what specifics of the development could be.

I know it's broad, I know that it is being uh made more finite, uh, but uh I I think it'd be helpful for us as we start kicking this off.

Sure.

Thank you for that, Chair.

Um kind of talking about the the opportunity at Burke, in addition to the CHA report that I believe you said you sent around to council, um, there's also an economic impact study that was completed that if council doesn't have, we'll make sure that you all get, and I think we'll talk about more in detail in our April meeting.

Um there's really a couple ways that we're thinking about development, and and as Scott mentioned, um you can think about sort of low density development.

So those are things like recreational uses or relatively like single story construction buildings, relatively low density.

Um that was studied in part of that economic impact report, and the findings were that even that very low density development would be a net positive to the city or could be a net positive to the city, to your point.

Um, and then when we think about like high density development, that is more of what we're thinking about with um the uh stadium site.

So when we're thinking about you know multifamily uses, um building, you know, multi-story buildings, um, those types of dense uses.

Um that's what we're talking about with the lakefront site.

And I think one of the challenges of this conversation uh is we are thinking about both sites in context of one another and what would be possible in in Cleveland's market.

Um so we don't want to talk about any specific utility costs until we get to more certainty on what we would want to put on the Burke site, and we need to do that together with council and with the community.

So layered on top of uh these next four months of committee meetings, we are also building out a public engagement process with the public to solicit input about what people's expectations are for the site, building off of all the public engagement that we've already done for the lakefront on the stadium site.

And so when you ask what is going to go on the site, the reason that we aren't being clear is because we don't know yet.

Uh and I think a lot of these conversations will inform what we can all kind of stack hands and decide what will be better.

At its core though, where the mayor is at and where the administration is at, is that there are thousands of uses that could be better for the city and the residents of Cleveland than a an airport that is used almost entirely for private use, which is the impetus for the mayor's advocacy uh with Senator Marino to close Burke.

Thank you.

And and um, I think the first request is it possible uh to utilities uh to take the utility slide that we have and put it onto a map.

I think just for those who would be able to understand where the water line is, where the utility duct is, uh I think that GIS could probably throw that specifically together or e together pretty easily.

Um I'm also interested in the excess capacity specifically of the wastewater system and the wastewater pumps.

Um for my colleagues who don't know, uh, when I worked for the previous administration, I actually worked very closely alongside Mr.

Hoos on the opening of the Nuevo Mexican restaurant, uh which almost did not open in time for the RNC, basically entirely because of sewer capacities.

And as as the deputy chief, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but as the deputy chief was characterizing it, the sewer sewer systems generally rely on gravity.

Uh and the challenge with the lakefront is that it sits below the sewer network.

So we have to pump everything up into downtown so that it can then naturally flow through the gravity system.

And the what we ran into with Nuevo was uh uh a lack of capacity at the pumps and also difficulty in running lines to the pump because of how high the water table is.

So when I talk about having a lot of specific questions with sewer, it's because there's uh if if we were to do substantial development, at some point there's a tipping point where we don't have enough capacity in the network and we wouldn't have enough capacity in the pump.

So and that would become then a a public infrastructure project uh that we would have to absorb somehow.

So I I'm trying to understand where that tipping point is so that we can begin to think through if if we need to anticipate that level of of sewer infrastructure improvements in order to facilitate even low density development.

So, Chairman, if I could briefly the um so existing conditions from the water side and the power side, certainly on a GIS and the sewer side, but a lot of that ends on marginal road.

It is all Burke Lakefront from the roadway.

So that would be as in any of our customer, the customer's responsibility, including some of the fire suppression systems on the property.

But we have plenty of capacity on the power and water side, and to your point from the sewer side, and we have forced mains all over the city and and partner with NEO on any number of different projects.

That is to uh Jessica's point, the thousand other uses, right?

That determines the capacity and then the appropriate engineering to move that storm or well, the storm I think currently all goes into the lake, but the the sewer um sanitary sewer up into the distribution than to NEO for treatment.

So uh I don't know if we could put estimates together for that until we have a better idea of the use.

But um certainly we are as a city familiar with the forced main on Voinovich Park and at East Bank of the Flats or at the stadium.

There's so many different uses that we that require the forced uh moving of the sanitary sewer system that we can give you examples if it would be helpful for the discussion.

Um but existing conditions on a GAS map, we can certainly get to in very short order.

Thank you.

And then if it's possible also to get just the just even the excess capacities at the pumps, um uh which I know might be a little more elaborate, but we'll we got we got time.

Um I will kind of close out my portion and um say one of I think the things that people it's uh what my worries about the land trusts and submerged land is not the impossibility of building on it, but the the uh uh appeal, uh the administrative burden layered on top of the fact that it costs the same amount to build something in Cleveland as it does in Chicago and New York, but we don't get the same rents, and it becomes a financial burden on top of existing financial burdens.

Uh in some ways, there's that we we we we can't completely resolve that.

It is what it is, it's submerged land.

Uh but one thing that I've always wondered is what efforts have been made with through the state of Ohio to recategorize Lake Erie so that we are not beholden to this antiquated shoreline that is not going to be, you know, that's not going to return.

This is a this is a hurdle that I think has challenged development along the entire lakefront uh over decades, and it just seems that the state of Ohio redefining Lake Erie legally would remove a significant obstacle, but it's not one that I've seen the city of Cleveland ever proactively pursue with the state, to my knowledge.

To the chair, I I think you're right, and that that's a great opportunity for us to think about advocacy, especially in context of um it's always tough to advocate for something without kind of saying what you're advocating for it to become.

And so I think all of this leads up to both a state and federal advocacy strategy.

Uh, and I think that's a great example of something that should be added to that strategy.

Okay, uh perfect.

Uh I will close there because I know there's some questions.

I want to turn it over to Council President Griffin, and then uh we have some others who have indicated they'd like to be on the list.

Uh so just give me a head nod or something.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and I'll be brief.

And uh once again, congratulations for really putting forth this uh very educational um hearing.

Uh just a couple of questions, and I would like if uh Ms.

Travisano or anyone else could uh expound upon a little bit more.

Is my understanding that is different standards for residential building versus commercial.

Um could somebody break down the differences between um some properties known in our neighborhoods, uh we can build a manufacturing company, but we can't build a residential community.

Um I'm just trying to understand if anybody can outline the differences uh for that.

To the councilman through the chair, I'm gonna ask Scott Skinner to start.

Um so when you're building property, whether it's commercial, residential, or sort of open public space, the level of environmental remediation required is highly dependent on what the ultimate use is.

So a residential community, whether it's single family homes or multifamily multifamily homes, uh, requires the highest possible level of environmental remediation if you were to build on it.

Um that that is generally more expensive than the the amount of remediation required if you're putting a manufacturing use on it or any sort of commercial use or even like just a store that doesn't have actual residents dwelling there.

Um same with public green space, the requirements are significantly less from an environmental remediation perspective than they are if people are actually living on them and sort of staying there overnight.

Um that being said, it's all a matter of how much.

Um environmental remediation has become incredibly sophisticated, especially in a market like Northeast Ohio, where almost every site requires some degree of environmental remediation.

It just depends on what the willingness of the user is to pay.

Um so it highly dependent on what the ultimate use is going to be, and that's why in some areas of the city, you may hear people saying, I can build manufacturing here, but I can't build residential here.

It would be because the uh level of remediation required for residential uh does not fit within the developer's pro forma um and it's not a financially viable product.

That being said, like we talked about a little bit earlier in the presentation, um, we're still doing a lot of environmental analysis and compiling a lot of analysis that has happened over the last 40 or 50 years.

Um but the Burke site for low density uses as of right as of our understanding right now um is relatively clean from an environmental perspective.

So a follow-up question through the chair, uh through the vice chair who's uh presiding over me.

Uh so because we don't understand different the because we don't understand what the end use is going to be, we don't know how much the potential environmental cleanup would possibly be.

Do we have any modeling around both or how many different ways that we can potentially be on the hook for some of the environmental cleanup?

Not at this time.

Um I should add in though, um you know environmental remediation for a site, especially if it's dense usage, is in in the industry is generally a cost that a developer would be expected to absorb as opposed to the general public.

So, or or using sort of state grants.

I'll give you an example that I know you're familiar with.

Uh both Detroit Shoreway and Scranton Peninsula um required a high levels of environmental remediation.

That cost was borne uh primarily by the development, and that's why those developments are so dense and there's so many units.

It's to absorb the cost uh of what is significant environmental remediation.

So don't have any modeling at that point.

But you know, I I think part of this whole conversation is making sure we are taking into account uh site constraints, cost to a private developer, as well as prop potential cost to the public, as we're thinking about what potential uses for Burke even could be.

Thank you.

I think that my colleague Councilman Slife, you know, accurately stated yesterday or through his interviews that we want to make sure that there's not a lot of unanticipated costs.

And as we go into this venture, I think it's going to be imperative that this council really understands the potential uh cost that we're going to be asked to bear, because a lot of times we get into these things and then cost creep happens.

And we want to be careful uh to make sure that we understand the full impact of that before we move forward.

To the council president through the chair, completely understand.

Um I think that's a very warranted discussion to have as we start to move forward.

I will say, and we sort of mentioned this at the top, um, there are there's still a lot of work to be done.

But one of the unique aspects of Burke as a site for any development, whether it's public space or anything else, is that there has been so much studying of it over the last 40 or 50 years.

When you get into sort of uh horizontal development work going underground, that cost creep is not exclusively, but is generally tied to unknowns, to things that you find underground that you didn't know were there before.

Um while and one of the benefits about Burke as a potential site is that there's been a lot of work done on it.

So those those amount of unknowns are relatively small compared to some of the other uh sites in Cleveland.

Thank you.

And uh just as a couple of follow-ups, and I'll try to be brief.

Um Mr.

Chair, um, I remember the county court got built on 93rd and Quincy.

And unbeknownst to a lot of people, even though they dug 90 feet down into the ground, they did find sections that had PCPs and layout contamination and other things, uh workers that actually had to work their day to day actually started getting sick.

Um, and they had to almost cap certain parts in order to retain where the environmental impacts would be.

Uh, so those are things we want to make sure we understand.

Um is there going to be did we look at any compactness of this area?

And has anybody studied or are we looking and planning on looking at the compactness?

Because when we were having stadium talks, one of the things that the teams basically stated is that it will be a little bit more difficult to drill down further, um, which will make costs go up because the compactness was not very um sturdy on that site.

Uh to the council through the chair, uh, we have a good amount of information on the level of soil uh compactness and so what's called soil elasticity, like how malleable the soil is, right?

Um and while it is not perfectly compact for a stadium, there are very few uses that require that level of soil compaction.

And a stadium is one of them.

And I can say pretty confidently it is unlikely we're going to build a stadium on Burke.

Um but I I think the uh to the point um uh and in seriousness uh for any sort of low or even medium density development, because the site is currently made up primarily of runways for airplanes, um, you you have to have a very, very high degree of soil compactness um on those runways because they have to be safe and immovable when planes land on them, right?

So that portion of Burke uh has if you're looking at low and medium density development, uh the soils from a geotechnical perspective is in relatively good condition.

To your point, Council President, there are always unknowns and what I think this set of meetings is going to be, as well as a lot of additional due diligence work over time is to narrow that amount of unknowns.

As you get to the eastern portion of the site, we're in more of an unknown in terms of a soil compaction.

Thank you.

And last couple of questions, I have to ask this question because I have to do a board meeting in about another hour with the uh Cleveland National Air Show.

Have we done any analysis about potential loss of revenue?

I mean, I know a lot of people don't realize this, but the people that come to that air show are not just the people that actually come inside that air show, their hotels they are packed.

This is a major event that brings in a significant income, but not just the air show.

I know we've had the Grand Prix and other things there.

Have we looked at comparables to make sure that what we're swapping out can actually replace some of that income that's generated for some of those huge events that we currently have at Burke and what we're renting out there because it's my understanding that I believe it's about 75% rented out right now.

Yeah, to the council president through the chair, we're gonna talk a lot more about Burke and budget implications in our next hearing, but I I do want to address uh that's deferred in.

I'll defer.

I think the air show is a great question, though, and I think we would I would I would, yes.

So I'll defer.

We'll get no, we'll I'm happy to get into the the uh the finer details of the budget next time, but I think but the air show is I think a uh question that is uh a burning issue is a great way to put it.

So if you want to address thoughts on the air show, I think that would be useful.

Yeah, so so the the air show and its economic impact are really spelled out in that economic impact assessment that we've talked about that again, I'll share with council if you haven't seen it.

Um there are a lot of air shows around the country that don't use a lakefront airport.

Uh they they come off from their kind of regional airport or their um domestic airport and then do the air show um from that airport.

So what we are really looking at right now and kind of taking initial steps with is whether we could continue to support the air show in Cleveland, even if there was a closure at Burke.

So that is the where we're at right now.

And I defer to follow the chair's uh point, so my apologies, Chair.

The only thing that I did want to end up with is are we gonna use sites fund for any remediation that's needed there?

Um, and then last but not least, um, have we done anything with FAA to determine how if that's going to be taken offline as a reliever airport, what's going to be the reliever airport?

Is it Akron Canton?

Is it Richmond?

Is it Lake County?

And then I'm done, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Yeah, to the council president, through the chair, um, the to the reliever question, uh, that is part of the sort of how to close an airport um portion.

So we'll we'll get into all of that.

Um but the county and Hopkins are two really good options, but we'll we'll talk about that in more detail.

Um and I'm sorry, what was the other site's fund?

Oh, the sites fund.

Uh, we haven't gotten into that deep of detail, but that is exactly the type of uh benefit that the sites fund can offer the city.

So on the table.

Okay.

Uh thank you, Council President.

I am going to turn it over to uh the Dean Palencick and then uh to the vice chair, Councilman Jones.

And then I also have uh Davis Casey Harsh, is there anyone else?

Let me know.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I didn't expect that.

Um I just want to again, I want to echo the council president's comments.

I want to thank you and members of your committee here uh for undertaking this very important discussion as it pertains to Burke and the um lakefront.

But I want to preface it this.

I had the um the um uh ability and I I had the uh opportunity to serve as vice chairman of the aviation committee many, many years ago, under then JM Jim Rakakis, who chaired the committee, who then went on to be county treasurer.

Uh since I've been in council, there's been discussions about Burke Airport.

The whole time I've been here, 48 years, there's been discussions about Burke Airport.

And so the I'm trying to put the Burke um not standalone, Mr.

Chairman of mine of the colleagues, but I'm trying to put Burke a part of the big picture.

And this is the big picture that I've been thinking about since the announcements have been made.

Um January 5th, we swore in 15 members of city council.

When I came in, there were 33.

Now we're at 15 due to population loss, and a bunch of bad decisions that have been made over the years as it pertains to the city of Cleveland that affected our city and our population base.

So we're we're here discussing the Burke Airport, and that and a vote has not been taken by this body whether or not Burke should go away.

And I want to say that again to the legislative body.

No vote has been taken by this body to do away with Burke Airport.

So there's this assumption by the administration that Burke's going bye by.

And I can tell you right now, when you start talking to people in the neighborhoods, there's a lot of questions whether it should go away, as I heard this morning from some people when I was at a meeting in the neighborhood.

And so I'm gonna put it in this perspective.

As we sit here today, Mr.

Chairman honorable colleagues, we're about to lose 700 plus jobs from the county jail.

Good paying jobs are leaving the city.

We're losing the Cleveland Browns and the stadium, which is right here.

We're losing that.

Uh and it's gonna be demolished.

We're losing 18 more schools that are gonna be closed, on top of the 29 that have already been closed on the east side of the city.

We've lost the I we're gonna lose the IX Center from an exhibition facility, and I could go on and go on.

I want to say this.

We cannot continue to make bad decisions in this city.

We cannot continue to make bad decisions.

I ask myself, and what I've heard from my residents when this has been announced some time ago about Burke.

How will this impact?

How do our neighborhoods benefit from it?

How show me a plan that benefits the neighborhoods in the city of Cleveland by Burke Airport going away?

We don't need another 450 acre park on the lakefront.

We need jobs, we need opportunity, we need revenue into this city.

All you have to look at what we're confronted with.

We're losing the ARPA funds.

We're not gonna get any more help out of the state.

So I'm trying to put Burke, not standalone, Mr.

Chairman, my colleagues.

I'm trying to put Burke as a part of the big puzzle.

Where do we go forward?

How do we generate income?

How do we generate opportunities?

I'm not convinced that Burke Airport has to go away.

And I want to say again, state for the record.

The last mayor who made an effort to make Burke work was Mike White.

That was 26 years ago.

Since then, Burke's been like an afterthought.

There's been no effort, and if you talk to employees, and I want to say this, and I don't know if you're aware, there have been employees calling members of council and former people who were in uh key positions there, saying there's been no effort to make Burke Airport work.

It's an afterthought.

It just sits there.

I can remember when there's restaurants there.

I can remember on the first floor there were there were aviation businesses that that place was humming.

I can remember getting on planes on city business flying to Detroit or flying to Cincinnati.

There was a time that Burke Airport did work.

And then again, it became an afterthought, and it was this there.

The air airlines are gonna pay for it, operation, they're gonna cover any deficits, et cetera.

And there it sits, and now the from the administration, i.e.

the mayor, uh we're gonna we're gonna ditch it, we're gonna get rid of it.

How many cities have an airport right downtown?

Tell me, I think that's part of our questions you shouldn't be asking, Mr.

Chairman of the administration.

How many airports, how many cities have airports right downtown?

Um so I would say to the administration, to the mayor, you got a lot of work to do.

You got a lot of convincing to do to me, because I again I want to see linkage to the neighborhoods.

I keep asking myself, is there is somebody in the wings that we have not been told who's gonna get Burke Airport, some developer?

Have there been are there side arrangements been made?

I mean, my gut tells me we need to ask a lot of questions, and I appreciate Mr.

Chairman the role and the position you've taken on this whole process.

You're gonna do your due diligence, you're gonna deep dive, and Mr.

Chairman, at some point, this body is gonna decide what we do at Burke Airport.

And I want to say that again, it's not gonna be the executive branch that's gonna decide.

The legislative body is gonna decide what to do with Burke Airport.

And if we don't look at the big picture on how this links to our neighborhoods and to this growth and future development of the city, then um then shame on us.

But I've been here, I've seen it, I've experienced, and it's time that some real serious um discussions take place at this table.

How does Burke, whether we keep it or not, how does it fit into the bigger picture?

And again, I want to thank you and members of your committee for the role that you've taken and for the council president for supporting this approach.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilman.

If the administration, if there's any reactions you'd like to share.

Sure.

Um to the chair through the councilman, always appreciate your comments and share so many of your concerns as well.

I will say we we share your desire to increase the population of the city of Cleveland to grow our city to be competitive with cities like Chicago, with cities, even like Columbus, right?

Where we see our populate those populations growing.

Burke Lakefront Airport is not contributing to the city's growth.

It is not contributing meaningfully economically.

And I have never once met a resident of the city of Cleveland who has utilized Burke Lake Front Airport.

This is 450 acres of space that should be for our residents, whether it's for economic impact or their enjoyment or a combination of those things.

So I share your concerns, Councilman Polensick, and we are committed to not only having these conversations so uh council has a full picture of what the kind of situation is on Burke budgetarily, regulatorily, and the um economic impact that it can have.

Uh but working together with council and our community to really come up with a use for this 450-acre site that is felt throughout the city as a benefit to the city as opposed to 450 acres that is used by a handful of private businesses.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Palency.

And before I turn it over to uh Vice Chair Jones, I did forget to mention I know there is so much interest in the topic.

I had anticipated people might be coming wishing to express uh some public comment.

Uh there is a sign up with the clerk over in the corner.

We'll do that at the very very end if people are able to stick around.

But I do want to give people the opportunity to offer public feedback if they would like to.

And with that, I will turn it over to Councilman Jones.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um to um Mrs.

Trivassano, I know that this is uh one of several meetings.

Um do we have an idea what the other meeting discussions will be about, and if you could articulate that.

Absolutely.

Yeah, to the councilman through the chair.

The next meeting is on February 4th, I believe, and we'll be focused on um Burke and the impact on the budget.

So both the small enterprise fund uh and general fund.

I think we might get into uh Burke operations a little bit there too, as we're talking about its budget impact over time and how operations have changed.

Um the next meeting will be in early April, uh April 1st, and we'll focus on sort of the logistics of how to close an airport.

We'll also talk about um outstanding federal grant obligations and implications for those if we were to close the airport, kind of what the the impact on the aviation industry would be uh if Burke is to close.

And then the last meeting uh is will be on April 15th, and that's where we'll talk more about the sort of broader market conditions, uh possible uses for Burke and uh the kind of overall development uh of Burke that we could see.

Did I get it right?

Great, Mr.

Chairman.

Um there was a couple of pieces in the presentation that I kind of like looked at submerged land for an example, and um the real estate is one dollar per year.

Can you elaborate on that?

Um I will ask John Houst to elaborate on both the submerged land, uh the submerged land lease that we have for Burke.

Uh Chair to the councilman, yeah, it is uh one dollar for public use.

Um that is imposed by the state of Ohio.

And then for private development, it could go up to four cents per square foot.

And to the to the councilman, maybe just to add a little bit, the city has to lease the land from uh the the state of Ohio because it's Phil.

So because the way that the state categorizes this land as submerged land, uh we have to lease from the state of Ohio, which is why we have a lease as opposed to just outright owning it ourselves.

I would just add once we sublease it, then we are free to charge whatever the market will bear for that rent.

So it's we're not limited to four cents to you know sub-leases.

So currently, Mr.

Chairman, to Mrs.

Tribisano right now, how many businesses are actually occupying the airport and using the services there?

Yeah, to the councilman through the chair, I can get you a list of all the businesses, but it's a handful, a relatively small handful of businesses.

And Mr.

Chairman, to Mrs.

Trivisano, how much uh revenue is being generated by Burke Airport?

To to the councilman through the chair, we'll get into it more at our next meeting.

Um it's a complicated question because it's a small enterprise fund, and so the enterprise fund is actually underwater and being subsidized by Hopkins, but there are other impacts uh of Burke or Anslayer impacts of Burke from something like the air show that does have some impact to our general revenue fund.

We'll talk about it more and the next meeting.

Is there a possibility, Mr.

Chairman, to Mrs.

Tribisano, if you can give me that information ahead of time before we begin the proposition of going into the discussion so I can understand just how underwater it has been, and if you could, Mr.

Chairman to Mrs.

Trivisano, uh give me a 20-year previous past uh how what is those funds totaling in terms of being underwater for Burke Lake Airport?

And then second, Mr.

Chairman to Mrs.

Trivisano, when we talk about the big picture of the development of Burke Lake Airport, have the city uh looked at more of a or have you started looking at more of a comprehensive look because there's a lot of territory, a lot of land now there that has been like just sitting there undeveloped, and um and and what are we doing about all these other parcels and all these other spaces to assemble them so that when we do uh look at uh how we attract development, how do we develop all the parts and pieces?

Yeah, to the councilman through the chair.

So the 450 acres that you see on the screen right now is all one sort of it's it is already a parcel of city owned land, so there isn't a lot of um parcel consolidation that we would need to do there.

Um we are certainly thinking about Burke in context of all of the other lakefront development that is going on.

Uh we'll talk about cheers a little bit here with uh the Port of Cleveland.

Uh you know, Scott Skinner is here and helping to lead our efforts on the stadium lakefront site.

Um, all of that is happening within context.

We have not, you know, we've kind of thought about and in the economic impact study that you all have access to, have um estimated kind of low, medium, and high uh develop like impact development and what the economic impacts would be there, but have not gone to the step yet of you know saying this use should be on this space because we want to do that in collaboration with the community and with city council.

And I know, Mr.

Chairman, to Mrs.

Tribasano, that's like a jump ahead, you know, but it just you know it just makes sense to me that the public and um the elected officials who represent the various territories have a better idea of a master plan, a real you know, development system moving from where we are at the stadium all the way over to Goring Park, and um and what will happen in between that entire whole proposition, um, where you what we're talking about right now is um limited development on this particular property be due to the fact that it's landfill.

And then if Mr.

Mr.

Chairman to Mrs.

Tribusano and the part of the proposition we were talking about, um landfill, can you show us on the map here where at Burke Lake Port uh there is the landfill issue, what area no you verbally talked about it, but visually, can you show us?

Sure.

Um to the council through the chair.

So I'll start with that because it's sort of the simpler explanation, then we can sort of talk about development and community input and all of that.

Um so the entirety of Burke is landfill.

Um everything to John, I think John mentioned this earlier.

Everything north of the shoreway from West Third to about East 55th is landfill.

Um and is and it is technically submerged land.

Uh within Burke, there are different sort of levels of soil compaction um uh on different parts of Burke because some of it is being used and some of it is not being used for any sort of development purpose.

So if you're looking to this image, anywhere you see runway, so where planes are actually landing on those portions of the site, there is, and we were talking about this with the council president a moment ago, um very little sort of geotechnical challenges to building the site because the soil has been compacted to a degree that allows to a degree that allows for planes to land on it.

The parts of Burke where you do not see runway, so that's that far northeast portion as well as some of the parts north of the runway.

Um that, if you were to see like dense development on it or medium dense development, would require significant geotechnical work.

Um, but that will all that will also impact sort of what the development plan is.

Um and then to get to the part of your question about sort of the development plan and the and master plan and all of those things.

Uh where we are in that process is one, you know, we spent three years sort of doing community input for the stadium site prior to the administration's uh master plan that included a stadium.

So we have a lot of data on what folks say they want to see on the lakefront.

Well while there are thousands of ideas, uh it real really boils down to two sort of guiding principles.

One is public access and two is economic impact.

So those are the values that we'll take as we start the master planning process with Burke.

Um and over the next four months, as we're doing these sessions with you all, uh, we'll also be starting to do some community engagement that could look like events that could look like I'm happy to come to your council neighborhood meetings um and and and poll your residents about Burke as well.

More more than happy to do that.

Please let me know.

And we'll include sort of reaching out to the community as well as having a number of places online where folks can submit uh sort of comments uh in addition to getting feedback in person.

Uh in terms of a master plan for Burke, we thought that it may and I I think that it makes the most sense to do two things before we spend money on a on a new master plan for what Burke could be.

And the first is get some community input uh and talk to folks about what they want to see and what potential uses could be.

Uh and the second is make sure we have a solid understanding that doing this is possible and what that timeline looks like.

Um I again did not think it was a good use of time or resources to start a full formal master planning process before we've interacted with this body um a a number of times, um before we've talked to the community and before we have a clear path to closure.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Chairman, um, I appreciate that.

Can I get according to the presentation that was here?

There was a bust report that talked about the underground storage tanks.

Can I get that report?

And then Mr.

Chairman, request of that report in addition to a request of the information of what the public wanted to see there on that particular property, like to kind of like peruse through that and see what you guys looked at.

It would be really great to kind of get an ideal of what the public is looking at as a possibility there.

And then also, Mr.

Chairman, um there was an impact study um uh that was talked about here.

Can I also have that impact study so that I can review that and be prepared?

And then lastly, Mr.

Chairman, um I just want to just take this opportunity to thank the administration for at least looking at the possibilities.

Um, even though we have as eloquently as uh my colleague Mike Polinsic talked about the direction of the city financially and economically going, you know, of course, all of us who are sitting here uh at this table uh is very concerned with the what what has previously happened with the loss of the Browns, and then the challenge and the issue is is when we start talking about Burke Lake Airport and whatever we want to do with Burke Lake Airport, it would be really nice to have a holistic approach.

Uh, not only just talking about that, but also other sections down there that have been quite vacant for quite some time, and and and the possibility of that being some kind of inclusion in this entire process.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I appreciate uh um the time.

Thank you.

I have Davis Casey Harsh Star.

Excellent, excellent.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um first, you know, before we begin, I would be merissed if I didn't thank the chairman for putting on this um series of discussions.

Burke is in many ways the future of Cleveland.

What we do at Burke will affect all our city for generations economically, um, in terms of residential value and population density.

And I I'm grateful that we're bringing these questions uh to bear, that we're surfacing questions that may have been submerged.

Yeah, it's we got to use more submerged jokes.

I think it's the when it's the budget's underwater, it's okay.

Come on.

Um the Burke is, you know, by happenstance in uh geographically located within Ward 7, which I am privileged to represent.

And so, you know, it did come up a little bit on the campaign trail this past year when I had the opportunity to talk to folks, and you know, they would ask what's the new ward boundary from Battery Park to Burke, and they'd be surprised to hear Burke, but they would ask me, you know, what are your opinions on Burke?

And I I would consistently say that it's a missed opportunity, and I look forward to finding new ways to reinvigorate um this public asset for the use of the public to just as Councilman Palencick um eloquently like Mr.

Jones said, uh underscored, there are it's a this site, this unique 450-acre opportunity has to find ways to benefit the people of Cleveland and find ways to generate revenue for the city budget and and for the general prosperity of our region.

So really excited to have the opportunity to discuss what that looks like in great detail over many months here together.

Um I'll ask a couple questions just focused on the um expenses and obstacles to development.

It sounds like from your estimation, team, that the utility costs aren't going to be prohibitive for any development that we have.

That if we do a uh you know larger scale development in the western half, their utilities hookups are there.

If um, it may be more expensive to utilities on the eastern half, but maybe that's more appropriate for lower density or open space.

Is that right?

Uh to the councilman through the chair.

Um, generally, yes.

Um the hookups are there, utility infrastructure is there.

Um, I think the takeaway that I'd want everyone to have is to answer to all of these questions is it depends on on where it is and what it is, and the um to the uh to the chair's point, the uh sanitary sewer pump capacity um is wildly dependent on what the ultimate use is um and and how many people it drives down there on a regular basis.

So the generally the answer to your question is yes.

Uh utility capacity uh is likely not going to be a huge barrier to development um that ultimately depends on what uses are.

It's through the chair.

That's that is helpful.

Um I'm trying to keep the hope alive and continue to dream big about what this potential is.

And so it do you see any reason that we shouldn't be dreaming big on the utilities front?

Um to the chair uh to the councilman through the chair.

Um I think as we sort of start to talk to community members and and get some more data on what folks are thinking um and as we start a more formal master planning process uh with more information.

Um I I think everything should be on the table as we're thinking about what Burk Burke should be.

Um and obviously things that are grounded in economic reality and financial viability.

That's fair enough.

It's well, and then to that point through the chair to the assembly here.

The it's right now we pay a dollar to the state for the use of this land, it goes up to four cents a square foot.

Um I I'm not a developer, and sorry to ask you, is this uh going to be prohibitive for future development possibilities?

But this seems like it's deal.

You tell me.

So uh so to to to the to the councilman through the chair.

Um generally yes, I should add in there's sort of it's it's a comp there's a complicating factor there.

So, yes, we pay a land lease to uh the state for the submerged land.

Um, but it is submerged land because uh it used to be Lake Erie and the state of Ohio owns Lake Erie out to a certain point.

Uh the fill on top of the land, the city will still be able to lease land to developers at more than a dollar or uh or dollar and four cents per square foot.

Um it'll ultimately be decision of what the market will bear and what is economically viable for a new development opportunity.

What we would offer is a lease payment to uh public park is different than we would offer as a lease payment to a multifamily building, right?

So it ultimately depends on use, but the the city is able to sort of understand market conditions and determine what a lease payment to the city would be.

But the city's responsibility to the state is one dollar plus four cents per square foot.

Fair enough.

It's and thank you for walking us all through that.

It where where I'm starting to think is um that four cents a square foot that we'd have to pass on to any future development or developer.

Um that is it your ex expectation that would stop any projects or air like is there that any reason to not dream big?

Uh to the councilman through the chair.

No.

Right.

So it's the utilities hookups are complicated, uh, but there's some potential there.

The cost of the submerged land is negligible.

Um are there any other factors that you think expenses or obstacles to development that would stop us from dreaming big?

Um, yeah, uh to the councilman through the chair.

Uh again, it it depends on what the ultimate use is going to be, right?

So utilities, um, soils, environmental uh remediation.

Uh what I presented to you today are initial findings based off of a lot of data that exists, like as tens of thousands of pages of due diligence.

Uh there is still work to be done.

We're still and the reason I'm not presenting you the full, fully finished sort of report on this is because we're still compiling that data.

So um while this these are the initial findings we're presenting, there is still information to be gathered, uh, and we'll share that with you as we have it.

Just uh minor point of clarification on the four cents, it only applies to the private developed area.

So it's just the part it wouldn't be the whole 450 acres times.

Oh, interesting.

So it's through the chair, if the city maintained a 50-acre park, we would not have to pay that four cents on that part.

Okay.

Well, that's even even better.

Um and through the chair to Mr.

Skinner, I appreciate you repeating sort of the main points over and over.

But it's it is helpful to hear, you know, where where you and your expertise, both um in your development background and and at the North Coast Development Authority, um, see the pain points.

And it it's your expectation, the environmental remediation.

I mean, first of all, that there's very limited unknowns at this point, expected at least, and that second, the the land is pretty clean, and so from a development perspective, this is feeling pretty good.

Uh to the councilman through the chair.

Um, I'm not an environmental engineer, so I want to caveat that.

Um, and there's still a lot of information uh being required.

Initial findings suggest that environmental remediation likely wouldn't be a barrier to low density development, but ultimately it depends on what the use is um and more information as we find it as well.

That's fair.

You're in the um the realist business and I'm in the uh dreaming big business.

So I appreciate that.

It's I I think I'll just I'll close close with um you know a request and a charge to continue to be ambitious at this site.

There is so much potential here.

The residents you know are looking for something that lives up to the incredible potential of Cleveland, uh, that lives up to the city that we know we are in our hearts and should look like in terms of physical infrastructure.

The site doesn't reflect that right now, and and I'm excited about the opportunity to engage deeply and figure out what that looks like, that it's economically viable, that doesn't cost uh a continuing subsidy that continues to bring Clevelanders in uh to our lakefront, but you know, succeeds at all those above.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, and I'll turn it over to Councilman Casey.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh and again, also thank you for for hosting these.

Reminds me of a couple years ago when we did the same thing with CPP and we were able to dig deep and educate everybody.

So I think this is this is gonna be good for for the education for the administration, council, and and our residents.

And Ms.

Travisano, congratulations on your uh new role with the city of Cleveland.

Uh I want to start with kind of piggybacking and piggybacking on uh Councilman Palency.

And that is the mayor has already come out and said that we're gonna close Burke, so much so that he has contacted our Republican state or you know, state senate or U.S.

Senator Marino.

In the negotiations with the Browns, Haslam has agreed to use his contacts in Washington to get to get this this closed.

But I'm unaware of, and I have asked a number of my colleagues if the administration had any conversations with any council member regarding the closing of Burke.

So Mr.

Chairman and Ms.

Tribassano, or deputy chief, I don't know we do we could what what do we call you?

Ms.

Travisant, I don't know.

Chief strategy officer.

Okay, chief.

All right, chief.

Um do you know of any conversations that the administration has had with members of council in regards to the possibility of closing Burke?

Yeah, to the councilman through the chair, I know that the mayor has had some high-level conversations with council leadership about the possibility of closing Burke.

I will say that there is a long runway.

Thank you.

Um to getting the the airport closed.

And so um, you know, the the real step that both the mayor took with the um county executive to ask Senator Marino for help in closing Burke.

It was an important step, but one that we know is one step out of many that is required for the closure.

All right, and then Mr.

Chairman, to either chief uh or even Mr.

Sky Stein Skinner.

Um by your own admissions, there's a lot more information that needs to be received regarding the closing of Burke, whether it's environmental studies, whether it's contamination, whether it's what's the port going to do with dredging or the army engineers.

Um hearing from Cleveland residents, right?

Not not outside forces, but Cleveland residents, on whether Burke should be closed or not.

So what happens if you gather all this information?

You've already indicated that you're you know you want Burke closed, but it's just not feasible, right?

You're not gonna be able to build on it, and here we are making grand plans to close Burke, and then in reality, closing Burke, and then what, right?

What happens if there are still tanks under there, according to the the Buster report, or it's going to cost too much to clean it up?

Uh and I don't want you know, I'm just gonna play devil's advocate here for a minute.

That are we putting the cart before the horse by saying we're gonna close Burke, but then we don't have all the pertinent information, and by your own admissions, you don't even have a plan yet for Burke.

So are we gonna build it and they will come type of thing?

Is this is this the administration's field of dreams?

Um that may or may not come to fruition.

To the councilman through the chair, we have two really key studies that were completed um a couple years ago now or last year, uh, that really talked to two two key items.

One is that economic impact, and that report was brought, right?

It looked at what would be the economic impact of closing Burke, but keeping it relatively green green field, right?

Just what if it was just a recreational space all the way up to closing Burke and building high density on that site?

Anywhere within that spectrum, it we found that it would still make sense economically to close Burke.

And so that is enough for us to say, okay, let's take one more step.

We also completed a study about the logistics of closing Burke, and so knowing kind of all of the impacts and the various different paths to close Burke.

Um that study was also very informative.

So I you know, as Scott Skinner said, there's a lot of work to be done to decide what to build on Burke, but we feel confident that we've done all of the homework that we need to do to advocate that closing Burke is the right thing for the city of Cleveland.

All right.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, to anybody who can answer, does anybody know the depth of Burke?

To the to the councilman through the chair, um specific depth.

Uh what like what I can say is uh you just about 12 feet before you hit groundwater on Burke.

About twelve twelve feet before you hit groundwater.

That's not much, is it?

So to the councilman through the chair, um, all analysis that we have is that that is sufficient for low density development.

Mr.

Chairman to Mr.

Skinner, tell us you just use the term low density.

Sure, right?

Explain the difference between because I know that I know the difference, but sure we keep saying low density, density, whatever explain the steps.

Absolutely.

Uh to the councilman through the chair, um, and I believe Jessica mentioned this a little bit ago as well.

We're looking um low density would refer to sort of uh recreational space, so spaces without actual buildings on the site, as well as one to two story buildings um on the site.

Think of uh like the Nuevo building and the apartments on Voynovich.

Um that would constitute low density development in addition to sort of public space or recreation space around it.

And Mr.

Chairman and Mr.

Skinner, when you say 12 feet, do we know how much of the 450 acres is 12 feet?

Uh to the councilman through the chair, all of that is part of what I said we're still compiling a lot of information that already exists out there, all of that is part of that compilation.

So there's a possibility that we're not going to see if if it's only 12 feet.

And I and the first thing that popped into my mind was Brook Park, right?

How they're digging down 120 feet, right?

To to put something up there.

And if we are only going 12 feet before we start hitting water, we're not looking at big grand hotels or or anything like that.

Yeah, so to the skyscraper, change our skyline looking type type development.

So to the councilman through the chair, um, one point of clarification that I can answer your question as well.

Twelve feet before you hit groundwater does not mean 12 feet, and then it's the lake.

There's still there's still significant for the viewing public.

I want to make sure there's still significant dirt well below that that is buildable.

Um in terms of digging down to build foundations for lar for high density buildings, skyscrapers and grand hotels.

Um there's a common saying in development that is you can build anything, it just depends on how much it costs.

Um so what would likely happen if there were to be a large multifamily or hospitality developer interested in looking at Burke is they would run the economics between what the cost would be to solidify found a foundation for high density development versus what the revenues would be based off of that foundation.

Then the insurance for when it falls into the lake.

All right.

Mr.

Chairman, to to Chief, um in your grand plans, um, is there any possibility that you would look at selling any portion of the lakefront?

I just want to get I just want to get that out there.

So the councilman through the chair, selling a portion of the lakefront would require changes in state law that we have not been advocating for to date, but you know, could or a vote or a vote.

And a change of the charter.

So both things would have to happen in order to sell.

So um thinking about path of least resistance, we are you know not currently contemplating selling a portion of the property.

Okay.

And then Burke is a uh Class D airspace, right, as opposed to Hopkins, which is a class B airspace.

So Burke controls the MedVac helicopters for UH and the clinic as well as CPD's um aviation unit.

Has anybody had that discussion on who would take over that responsibility?

The last thing we need are MedVEC helicopters running into each other, right?

So um has anybody had the conversation with Hopkins able to take that over, or is anybody else in line to take over the airspace for MedVAC?

Yeah, to the councilman through the chair, we've had a couple different conversations, uh just exploratory, so nothing um certain right now.

Uh both us, you know, finding that we can you know have all that happen between Hopkins or even the county airport is an option.

Uh but we're also exploring whether we could keep uh helicopter sort of vertiport portion on the Burke site so that we could continue to have that downtown access from Burke, uh, exploring whether that's valuable to our medical partners uh in town, and then also what constraints that would add to the site.

So there's a couple different paths as it relates to medical transport, but is something that's top of mind for us as well.

All right, and then Mr.

Chairman and to to the chief, when do you plan on having uh a plan for Burke?

So to this council, you know, just like the IX Center, you know, we we gave it away without even knowing what's going into it.

Um this council I I believe should be knowledgeable of what the plans are for Burke prior to us coming through with any sort of legislation closing Burke.

Uh we I don't think we would feel comfortable, and I'm just speaking for myself of closing Burke, and then all of a sudden it we're seven or ten, twenty years out from just having a plan, right?

And I know that's a long time, but when do you plan on coming up with what it is we could put there?

Yeah, to the councilman through the chair, uh we have already had some initial conversations with some of the other stakeholders in town around what conceptual uses they would want to see on Burke.

So, for example, we'll keep up from the port, talking about ongoing port operations and what that could or couldn't look like um on Burke, have had other conversations with stakeholders.

So we're we're starting to get some stakeholder input uh from institutional partners around town, as Scott said, uh we are developing our community engagement strategy now, with frankly the goal of trying to have something at least more tangible conceptual uses to talk to this committee about by that April 15th meeting.

We would like to talk about uses.

I do want to say, as we all know, plans change.

Or what you know, whenever the it all comes together, but we are working with urgency to develop a plan, like I said, in in concert with council in context of these conversations and with the community.

And Mr.

Chairman and Mr.

Tribisado, one thing we keep hearing is access to the lake, right?

So closing Burke does not, to me, access to the lake means I'm able to get to the water, right?

So, you know, we have access to the lake through edgewater, you can get to the water.

You have a Euclid Beach Park, you can get to the water.

Closing Burke gets you closer to the water, but it doesn't give you access into the water, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

And then um I'll wrap it up with this, Mr.

Chairman.

Um in your own words, Chief, uh, Mr.

Chairman to the chief, you said Burke is not contributing to the growth of Cleveland.

Correct.

And then uh Councilman Davis wants to say that it's missed opportunities.

So it's a missed opportunity, depending on how if you're which way you're looking at this, because I think it's a missed opportunity by us not investing.

You know, 40,000, there's still an average of 109 flights leaving a day uh or landing at Burke, right?

Uh and if it's not contributing to the growth of the city of Cleveland, neither was Highland Golf course that we were subsidizing, neither was the West Park West Side Market at one point, and we figured those out, right?

So are we missing out on an opportunity?

And we could just look at this at two different sides.

Are we missing out on an opportunity because we're not utilizing Burke to the full capacity that we could be?

And I don't I don't know if that's anybody's fault, but are we have we looked at that aspect of it?

Have we looked at the investment into Burke and bringing it back to more businesses there?

And and and are we marketing it the right way?

Because it's I don't think it's failing, right?

It's just not as you would say, contributing to the growth.

But if we invested into it like we did the market, like we did the golf course, could it?

Do we know that answer?

Yeah, to the councilman through the chair, I think I'm gonna defer the the deep cut discussion to our next meeting, but I will say there is a really substantial opportunity cost to Burke that I don't think is there with Highland or with West Side Market that I think distinguishes this specific conversation about um our city's assets and the way that we subsidize and support those assets in in context of what else could be done with the site.

But I will uh defer to our our teammates at the uh airport to talk more about the operations of Burke and the opportunities that have been attempted over time.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I have uh councilman Harsh, uh Councilman Starr, and then if there's no one else on the list, we'll turn over to the port of Cleveland.

So let me know if there's anyone else that would like to be on the list.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um I do appreciate you putting this together this morning as well.

I think in a situation like this with the magnitude of this decision, the only bad question are the ones we don't ask.

So I'm glad that we have the time to get all these questions out here.

Um, Mr.

Chairman, I was also uh in Toronto this past weekend where they have a downtown airport uh sitting right on their lake.

Uh it's not their main airport, it's a commuter airport.

It doesn't land the largest planes that fly in and out of their area.

But uh I'd be very curious to to find out ultimately at the end of this what other cities that have downtown airports that have grown substantially view the benefit of those airports.

Toronto's three million people.

Um they apparently have sought fit to keep their downtown airport on the lake.

But anyway, um, neither here nor there or there now we're here.

Uh regarding ownership, uh, I want to just make sure I understand this issue because um the lease situations are a little bit complicated.

So I don't know who wants to answer this question, so Mr.

Chair, I'll just address the uh uh the the our friends here.

Um, whoever wants to jump in here.

Um to be clear through the chair, the land is owned by the state of Ohio who has leased it to the city of Cleveland.

Correct?

Through the chair?

Okay.

And you want that.

I think I think I would if correct me if I'm wrong, I think the uh the the land is owned by the city of Cleveland, what's below the land is owned by the state and leased to the city of Cleveland.

So it's sort of the opposite of air rights.

So the land is owned by the city of Cleveland.

However, the submerged part is the state of Ohio held by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

We just happen to have built some of that underwater part up into the air by putting debris in it over the last hundred some years.

Correct?

Okay.

Through the chair, does the county factor into any of this ownership title?

Would Cuyahoga County be able to stake a claim and say this is we we are in the chain of title?

Uh chair to the councilman, no.

And through the chair, is that because as a chartered city, we bypass county ownership of land within the municipal borders of Cleveland?

To to the councilman through the chair, I would have to ask our law department to explain why.

I just know that the county does not have a right to the land.

Okay.

Um flashbacks from real estate class.

If the lease is held by the city of Cleveland and we sublease to another party, and our lease is canceled by the state, the sublease's rights evaporate.

They they go away in a situation like that.

Would that be correct through the chair?

Um to the councilman through the chair, I am sure that the sublease would have some sort of recourse at in some way to the state.

I I imagine, or at least they would try.

But I would anticipate that, yes, because we are the listsee, then the sublessee would they could only get the rights that we have.

To the councilman through the chair, I would add in the the length of the lease that we have with the state is a determining factor here.

So right now the lease that we have with the state for most of Burke extensor is it 2113?

Um so it's a very long-term lease.

So we would then sublease it to a development partner on say a 75-year ground lease or a 99-year ground lease?

Yeah.

They would then factor in that lease into the risk of whatever they're doing.

But through the chair, if our lease were canceled, that would then nullify the sub lease, correct?

Uh to the councilman through the chair, but are it is highly, highly unlikely that there would just be a cancellation of a lease?

The city would also have recourse in that case as well, because we have a lease agreement signed through the next century.

Okay.

And the reason I'm asking, Mr.

Chair, is that I don't know that the behavior of the state of Ohio is entirely predictable over the course of the next century, right?

We don't know what's going on in Columbus all the time.

We don't know what they're going to do or how they might change their minds.

So I I'm not trying to ask trick questions here.

I'm just trying to get into very real potential entanglements that could happen down the road through the chair to to our friends who whoever knows this.

Who actually holds the lease with the city of Cleveland?

Is it's or let me rephrase that.

Who could cancel it?

Would that be an act of the governor?

Could one person with a pen cancel our lease?

Would the legislature have to pass something?

Or is it the director of ODNR?

Who actually has the authority to administer from the state our lease for that land?

Um Chair to the Councilman, uh it's the department of ODNR, um, but I believe they administer the lease, the governor signs the lease, and the lease can only really be canceled.

I don't know the exact uh verbiage of the of the lease, but they would have to have costs, you know, some sort of cause um mismanagement or not following the lease terms by the city in order to cancel it.

So uh but through the chair, who would would one person be able to start that domino falling?

Would one person be able to say, you know what, I think that they're out of compliance with our expectations.

I'm going to begin the process of canceling the land lease.

We we live in a strange world where strange things happen.

And I I I'm I I'm asking the questions.

Based on my historical knowledge with historical or uh submerged land leases, uh and and it is hundreds of or over a hundred years of legal precedence that is not only mandated by federal law, and it's not unique to Cleveland, right?

So all of those precedents, all those court actions, all of those leases that currently exist in compliance with a submerged land lease would be jeopardized and challenged legally should something change uh materially in that lease, which is passed by this body and presented to the any amendments are presented to this body.

So I think it's a very complex question, which would take hours of the law department's time, uh, not mine.

And maybe just to add to the councilman through the chair, I would um I I'd be fearful of creating like a boogeyman that this lease is something that could be taken away at any time, uh as the director said, we have uh the legal precedent, we have a long-term lease, we have terms in that lease that state when the lease would be terminated.

Uh that's not a we don't have quick answers because it's not something that we anticipate would be a likely risk to happen with the submerged land lease.

Through the chair, could the state reclassify the land?

So it's currently classified as submerged.

Um there used to be an old saying that you can make more of everything except land, but that's not true.

We do make land here in this world.

Could the state reclassify it away from submerged to I don't know.

I don't know what you would agree, what the other classification is, but solid land.

How about that?

Could the state say, you know what?

This is now solid land.

We are going to reclassify it, and that means that we're gonna start from scratch with with ownership and and rights.

To to the councilman that uh through the chair, that was kind of gets to the chair's question of would it benefit the city to advocate for that reclassification?

I can't anticipate I don't anticipate that they would be able to do that without our consent because we have a long-term land lease, submerged land lease.

Okay.

Okay.

Um so then to be perfectly clear, um, because we have to hold this in public trust.

The uh presentation talked about public trust doctrine.

Yeah, the uh uh public trust doctrine.

Um there is no scenario in which we can parcel this off and sell it to new residential owners who can buy their property, build their house, and this turns into the north side neighborhood that never was.

To the councilman through the chair, not without a lot of complication.

We can't sell it.

Uh we the question about parceling it off.

There could you could parcel off long-term ground leases.

Right.

Whether that's financiable or advisable is a very important thing.

But it would not be we could not be.

Correct.

That's what I'm getting at.

So we could parcel it off, but we could never actually parcel it off and sell it to a new permanent owner who says I now own this all the way to hell.

That's correct.

Right.

Okay.

Um so that means that we can't ever turn Burke into a residential community owned by citizens who purchase like I own my property and I own the ground underneath my property all the way to the core of the earth or whatever.

We can never do that at Burke.

Yeah, to the councilman through the chair, you couldn't do it as a sale, but you could develop in a way that it still looks and feels very similar to the sale of rent.

These would be rentals.

So we could we could sub we could sub lease to uh developer who wants to build an apartment building and they think they could rent apartments down there.

It would be the sublease would be held by the apartment building owner, and then tenants could move in and and live there as residential property.

It's just they couldn't we couldn't sell it individually piece by piece to new residential owners.

That's what I'm saying.

So the councilman through the chair, you could ground lease individual parcels and then folks could decide to build whatever they wanted on those parcels.

For example, we have a ground lease with the rock and roll hall of fame, right?

They don't own that piece of property, but they are investing a hundred and thirty million dollars in uh expansion right now on land that they don't own, but they have a long-term ground lease that gives them sufficient property rights to make that investment and finance that investment.

So it it would be, I think.

But we don't anticipate the rock hall ever selling their building to their kids.

Correct.

Right.

So there's really no train no reason ever transfer that that property.

Okay.

Um would uh condos ever be a legal use if we were to sub-lease to a residential developer who built a building and then wanted to sell off condos.

Would that be the same scenario as you can own the building just not the land?

To the councilman through the chair, correct.

Yes.

And any purchaser of those condos would take in that risk into their purchase price and would approach the understanding that um a a lease will end at some point in the very, very far future.

Okay.

Okay.

Um it all sort of gets into my you know big question, which is you know, maybe not for today, but what is the highest and best use?

Um are we looking, you know, there is I've heard over the years that once upon a time progressive insurance was going to move.

There were there was conversations in the 80s about moving their campus from wherever it is they're out there by on the east side to downtown Cleveland by offering them up Burke.

Um that we could build new residential neighborhoods there and have a north side or whatever.

Um I think from a real estate perspective, it would be absolute chaos to make it all developable for commercial use, it would collapse downtown real estate markets.

I think we're gonna actually dive into that later on, the economic impact, so I won't get into that.

But um it seems like we have limited capacity to do we can't do every type of development.

And so it would be really good, I think, soon or through the course of these meetings to understand what is the sort of close your eyes and and envision Burke.

Um what is the highest and best use that we're actually aiming for?

And I feel like we don't we aren't really close to that yet, but we should be if we want to continue.

So, Ms.

Chairman, that's all I'm sorry, I'm rambling.

That means I'm done.

Um appreciate you uh putting this together today and uh giving me time for the questions.

Thank you.

We will punt over to Councilman Starr and then we will uh bring up the Port of Cleveland if there are no other questions for the administration at this point.

Well, go to Councilman Bishop first.

Thank you, Chairman, for this briefing and update about the Burke Airport.

Um, definitely just want to make sure.

Um I know a lot of questions have been asked to the administration.

I just like to make sure I have point of clarification regarding the decision making um process.

So just just correctly, I have a few lists of questions that I prepared um within those those questions.

I will first ask um through the chair, what specific factors led to the administration to pursue um the closure of Burke Lakefront Airport at this time.

What was the what actually happened through the chair?

Yeah, to the councilman through the chair, there there were a couple of things.

Uh one is, you know, as the mayor's in the community, he hears all the time that folks believe that there's a higher and better use for Burke is that's kind of the underlying uh principle of kind of why we even started this exploration from there, the findings of both the economic impact study and the logistics, kind of what would be the impact of closing Burke or the process of closing Burke.

Uh both came back in a way that indicated that taking another step and talking to our federal counterparts uh about their willingness to help us with this effort made a lot of sense.

So I would say those are kind of the the key items that have been that were factors so far.

Yes, and through the chair though, from that response, I definitely will ask when was the decision first considered and who was involved in this planning process through the chair.

Uh to the councilman uh through the chair, I would say that the decision to make a move towards closing Burke was made by the mayor uh in consultation with his senior leaders uh and with you know talking to experts in the field.

All right, and then what community engagement has occurred to date and which stakeholders were consorted prior to advancing this proposal to the chair?

Yeah, so to the councilman through the chair, as um councilman Falencick said, there have been discussions about Burke going back 50 years at this point at least.

Um and so I think all of that has sort of built on of on each other.

Uh specifically with this administration, uh, as part of our uh broad lakefront engagement, we have engaged uh over 5,000 residents via surveys, uh attended hundreds of community meetings to talk about what people want to see with the lakefront.

And when people talk about the lakefront, uh, even if we're talking about one specific site, we get answers about all of the lakefront, and that has covered all 15 wards of Cleveland.

So that is some of the public engagement that has underlined uh this this effort on Burke.

And then um we have also talked to uh other community partners, stakeholders, um, for example, the port of Cleveland that you'll hear from who have a stake in Burke.

We've engaged with uh some of the lessees on Burke, and as I mentioned, have also talked to uh or are planning to talk to uh some of the users of Burke.

Uh we've also had meetings with uh folks in opposition to closing Burke to get a better sense from them about kind of why they're opposed to the closure and what their concerns are.

So all that has happened to date, but we still have additional community engagement that we're planning moving forward.

And then definitely I would like to ask from that standpoint, Chief, um, through the chair, why was city council not formally engaged earlier in decision making process through the chair?

Uh to the councilman through the chair.

We have first the mayor has had discussions uh with with council leadership about the closure of Burke.

So I don't know that it's fair to characterize that council has not been engaged.

Uh we've also talked to individual council members who represent this area about their kind of takes on Burke.

Uh so I would say first that council has been engaged, and second, that you know, this process I think shows the administration's willingness to be trans transparent and collaborative with city council to make sure that everyone understands what the future of Burke could look like and why the decision has been made.

Thank you.

And I thank you for clarifying clarification of that.

And when I mean by council engage, I just obviously you understand um whoever ward who represents that area should be one of the first persons contacted.

But then also if it comes to a certain committee, making sure those members are abreast too, as well as council leadership, just so therefore it doesn't seem as if we picked up the paper or looked on social media and then find out news.

So I'm glad you was able to clarify that.

But in the meantime, making sure we have that type of process is good to make sure that we don't have folks or council members feeling as if they don't know what's going on, and then being asked later to vote on something that they were not included on, especially when it has to go through the legislative process.

Um definitely I would like to get into a little bit more about the economic and the physical impact.

Um, what is the current annual operating cost for Burke Airport and how does it compare um to its economic output through the chair?

Uh Councilman Sar, if it's okay, I I I think that the it's a great question.

Uh, but uh the next hearing is gonna really dive into that very specifically.

Uh just I can give uh the the short answer is that the um that the study that I did email to the body last night does kind of go through the the financial impact, uh, but also note that Burke operates at an average of a $900,000 uh annual loss, uh, which is absorbed through the uh through the Hopkins budget.

Um I think that the purpose of the next meeting is really to try to understand uh that current reality versus what the uh future potential financial reality would look like so we can compare and contrast.

So definitely so I I I hear you, and I know I read your um email as well as your attachments.

I definitely was just asking that question for the viewing public um because those things are very important for the viewing public to understand what is going on, what decisions are being made behind the scenes uh for possible discussion.

So therefore I definitely will leave those economic and physical impact questions for the next committee here to be able to discuss, but I definitely would like to uh possibly talk about a little bit more, dive a little more deeper into the land use and the development because a lot of different talks and conversation about the lakefront continues to happen.

We heard from the dean itself, he's been here for 48 years and continuously hear these thoughts, these plans, these ideas about the lakefront, but 48 years later, still nothing has happened because the investment has not been brought into it.

Now, I was one of the ones who stood here at this committee and spoke about how we subsidize for certain different areas, but we don't really invest in those that need um the most support, such as the lakefront, if we wanted to make sure it is a thriving lakefront.

So, from the standpoint of possibly closing this lakefront or the Burke Airport on the lakefront, um, when you talk about land use and development, what is the administration's um specific redevelopment vision for just the Burke site through the chair?

To the councilman through the chair, uh there is no specific vision for Burke Lakefront at this point.

Uh we are working through the steps with the community with city council to develop that vision and collaboration and intend to have a deeper conversation of that uh later this year.

And so that's that's important because therefore, if we don't have that vision yet, making uh informed decision to say close it, it where does it align?

If we don't have a plan to do something and just say close it, it's almost similar to what we deal with when we close schools.

Like Central Middle School, the school that I graduated, closed.

And guess what?

It closed maybe about 2010.

Now we're talking about 2016, I mean 2026, 16 years later, the building just sitting there.

So if we close the Burke airport and we don't have an actual plan, what are we actually doing?

What are we actually trying to strive to?

So sometimes I like to look at the end goal and say, hey, this is the goal that we have.

These are the steps that we need to work backwards to get to that goal.

And that's what I'm trying to get from you all through the chair.

So we really don't have an actual development vision for the Burke site at this moment.

I definitely think that is something we need to put in place, including making sure we have projected timeline for development, what funding source will be required.

And then also I will ask the question when you talk about closing Burke, will we have um how will we have equity public access and neighborhood benefits be assured in any future development when you talk about closing a Burke airport?

Do you have any comments you could yield to the chair?

Yeah, to the councilman through the chair, I do want to maybe take one short step back to say what we feel confident about is that what we've hear from residents, and I would I am sure you hear from residents too is people want economic impact and they want access to the lake.

We know that Burke is not offering either of those things to our residents right now, which is why the administration has been so uh out, you know, out front saying that we want to close Burke because we know that it's not meeting either of those goals.

And so when we look at the future of what we want to do with Burke and this 450 acre site is to uh make sure that any use that is being proposed there, and while I don't want to talk about specific uses because we're just not there, we know that it's not meeting it's you know, I think what councilman uh Davis said.

We need to be aspirational with the site.

There's more that it can do, and so we we know that we just don't know the what of it yet.

Um, your question about equity and public access is I think a key one and one that is foundational to all of what comes next on Burke and making sure that the way that Burke has developed is for the residents of Cleveland and then it's done so in a way that's equitable and accessible to all residents.

Thank you.

And I believe that is very important and making sure we have guarantees that we can possibly present or talk about to ensure that this land does not remain vacant for years.

That is that is a key focus, you know.

Like I gave you the example of the school that I the middle school I went through, and it still sit vacant, still have nothing been done.

It just became an eyesore.

Do we want that downtown where we're talking about redevelopment where you talk about 60% of the revenue that is generated for the city city is downtown to have something like that?

That that is something that we definitely need to be cautious and careful.

And I also want to make sure the administration understands.

Um the way we get things done in government is by collaboration.

And within collaboration, we have to understand that we all have a role to play.

And what you look at it from my standpoint, in my view, as what I discuss to residents to be able to get them to understand how things work.

You have the mayor and the administration are the CEO and the executives that run the entire city, but the council serves as more like the board of directors.

So please, please, throughout this this next term, this 2026, please make sure we work calls.

Please make sure you let the board of directors know what's going on in any way, text form, however, you need to, just so we all are on the same page because some questions could be answered offline and we can get clarification and we can possibly um have a press release of what we're doing together, lock steady as opposed to um the administration made a decision to do things, and now we here try to discuss those things.

Um I know I do have more questions, but I know I'm running out of short on time, and some of these questions um I know will be able to be asked in the future committee area that um wonderful councilman um Charlie Schleif is doing a great job to do.

I just want to make sure we do everything in our power to understand what the end goal is for the Burke Airport before we make a decision to move forward with um the support of trying to get it close, and I yield chair.

Thank you, Councilman Starr.

And uh so order of events.

I will turn it over to Councilman Bishop.

We will bring up the port of Cleveland, and then there is at least one individual who signed up for public comment.

Councilman Bishop.

Uh thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, I want to echo a few points that it's gonna sound pretty redundant, but I uh appreciate, I just want to express my appreciation for you, Mr.

Chairman, on your um your uh how you have this thing structured, the timeline, uh the way you have have communicated, uh, how are you gonna proceed to tackle this very important issue with Burke Lake Front Airport, Mr.

Chairman?

I do want to say I appreciate how you lay this out thus far.

Okay.

That's the first thing.

Other thing other things I'm gonna be be redundant about is I want to um uh kind of echo the comments of uh Councilman uh Casey, Star, and Councilman Um Polencick is that the real risk is is uh whether we sh the real risk, I think, is not closing Burke Lake front airport or not keeping it open.

I think the real risk is closing the airport if we don't have a clear-cut plan first before we close the airport.

I think that if we don't that we don't have a defined um goal, how we want to proceed with our downtown Cleveland, how can we close an airport and justify that if we don't have a goal first?

So I I think I want to hear some of the administration's goal for the downtown Cleveland and what we want to do with downtown Cleveland first, and then I want to kind of see how Burke Lakefront Airport can be incorporated in that plan first, because we're just going we're just kind of approaching this and saying we're gonna close Burke and we don't have a clear-cut plan.

I think that's a this a plan for disaster.

Um Mr.

Chairman, I want to specifically ask the um the notion that we have to repay some federal funds back if we close Burke Lakefront Airport.

How would we pay for the what dollar amount would we be fined and how will we pay for that um uh expense, Mr.

Chairman, through the chair.

Uh uh, I will I will tackle uh that briefly before punting it over to the administration.

Um my understanding is if we were to close the airport overnight, like what happened in Chicago to their Lakefront Airport, uh, we would be on the hook for over $9 million of repayment to the federal and state governments based off of grant obligations.

Uh we'll get into more of the details on that at a later date.

Uh but that is that that is certainly one of the externalities that we are having to consider in all of this that guides the various paths that one could close an airport.

Uh, with that, I will I'll I'll kick it over to the administration if there's anything you'd like to add or comment on based on Councilman Bishop's remarks.

Yeah, council councilman uh to the councilman through the chair, not not much more to add beyond um we'll really dig into it in our third meeting around how to close an airport, uh, what those grants are, what the implications would be of closing Burke uh and the various different paths for closure and how it would impact those federal grants.

So it's kind of a complicated matrix that we'll walk through when we get to that third meeting.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, one other question.

Has the administration uh been in the talk in talks with the Haslam group as far as their role in um their role in developing this lakefront or their plans.

Uh do they have any plans for Burke Lakefront Airport?

To the councilman uh through the chair, thank you for asking that question.

The answer is no.

Okay.

Um so Mr.

Chairman, I th I think uh any uh plan that we have has to uh incorporate this the entire city itself and how we can benefit the city as a whole with closing Burke front lake lakefront airport and not just uh enter this plan with the idea of we're gonna we're doing this for developers or for a small group of uh individuals who wants to see something done with the lakefront.

If we cannot show a clear-cut plan of how this can benefit the entire city, I think we are we're headed down the wrong road, Ms.

Chairman.

I'll leave you there.

Uh thank you, Councilman Bishop.

And and I think you outlined a lot of my perspective uh better than I have, uh, which is that I I think the the unknown of what the down the road plan could be and specifically what revenues it would generate for the city uh is is the a missing piece of this puzzle.

Now it's gonna take a long time to assemble this puzzle, so I don't think that we need to be overly anxious that we don't have that answer yet, but we do need to understand that as we move forward and and I'm trying to put us on the trajectory towards that.

Um so with that, I want to thank the administration.

Uh you're happy to stick around.

Um, but the next group I want to bring up is the Port of Cleveland.

Uh if you didn't have a chance to read the report that was sent over last night, one of the uh larger it's it's kind of funny, one of the main benefits that's listed of closing the airport is actually that it benefits the port of Cleveland and how they currently use the land between the runway and the water uh for their dredge disposal.

Uh so it uh but the the the other side of that is if you were to close Burke magically tomorrow, you do not have the ability to get near the water to Councilman Casey's point along most of the along most of the property because that is still an active facility.

So I think it's important for us to understand how that facility operates, what its ramifications are for development, uh what the timelines would be for even being able to access portions of those properties uh because this is essentially comparable to uh the lakefront land preserve, which was for many years cordoned off uh for environmental reasons.

So I want to make sure that what we're not doing is overstating lakefront access, but also trying to understand the importance of the port being able to continue to use dredge facilities here and elsewhere along our lakefront to keep our economy going.

So with that, I'll turn it over uh to Linda and allow you to introduce yourself and your colleague.

Thank you for being here and then thank you for your patience.

Um thank you for having us today.

I'm Linda Sternheimer, I'm the senior vice president of urban planning and engagement for the Port of Cleveland.

No, it's on it's on, but get really close.

Okay, how about now?

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh I'm Linda Sternheimer.

I am the senior vice president of Urban Planning and Engagement for the Port of Cleveland.

And I'm Gabby Isel.

I'm the environmental and GIS specialist for the Port of Cleveland.

Thank you for having us today.

So just starting with some basic facts about the Cleveland Harbor, what you're seeing before you in red is what is defined as the Cleveland Harbor, which is congressionally authorized.

Uh you have the area behind the breakwater, and then uh just shy of six miles up the Cuyahoga River to Cleveland Cliffs steel mill.

And this economic impact for the harbor in its entirety is over 23,000 jobs and 7.07 billion dollars annually.

So I want to uh emphasize that those are new numbers that the state of Ohio recently did an economic impact on maritime for the state, and these are the the numbers for the Cleveland Harbor.

Dredging is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers, and we'll get into a little bit more detail about what dredging is and why it's important, but want you to keep the context of these numbers in mind.

Okay.

Yeah, so um a little bit of background on dredging.

Um dredging is the act of removing accumulated sediment from the bottom of the river as sand and silt washes downstream, it get gradually fills the channel.

Um the Cuyahoga River is maintained at a depth of 23 feet to allow commerce, and then CDFs are designed to contain the dredge sediment.

So at Burke, there are three active CDFs.

Um we have CDF 10B, which is under Army Corps control, and then CDF 9 and 12 are operated by the Port of Cleveland.

There are two dredge cycles annually in the spring and the fall.

Um and the average amount of material placed is 250,000 cubic yards per year.

I just want to interject.

I don't know if we define CDF, and there might be another other anacronyms we use.

Please stop us and ask.

So CDF is confined disposal facility.

Um it's just a visual of what happens when the cargo river is dredged.

So it's almost like a clamshell that picks up the sediment from the bottom of the river, puts it in the barge, and then it's taken back to the CDF sites where it's pumped into the pond system.

And then just a little bit about how the CDFs operate.

So CDF 12 receives um mechanically placed dredge material that remains on site, and we expect CDF 12 to reach capacity in 2029.

And then CDF 9 is our recycling facility that receives up to 80,000 cubic yards per cycle.

So the dredge material is hydraulically pumped into CDF 9 and it flows through our pond system, giving the material time to settle out before the water is discharged back into the lake, and then that material is harvested and gets used on projects elsewhere.

Um, and then here's just a better visual of CDF 9 and 12.

Um, it is necessary for CDF 9 to remain in use indefinitely, but could be screened with landscaping, um, so there could be public access, a trail along the lake, um, accessible most of the year when dredge material is not being placed.

And then here are just some examples of how the material is beneficially reused, um, general purpose backfill construction aggregate, landscape applications, brownfield reclamation, and then the Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve.

So uh just I'm gonna go back to this for a second just to make sure you have a good idea of which confined disposal is which.

So Gabby was talking about 12, which is the northeasternmost corner, um, which will be at capacity in 2029, and um, and then could be turned over, closed and turned over.

Uh CDF 9 is our recycling facility, which is intended to be used in perpetuity, and then CDF 10B is under the control of the Army Corps of Engineers, and they have roughly half a year or one dredge cycle of capacity remaining.

Um there's a process to close that.

Uh, just wanted to give you context of how much materials remaining or how much capacity is remaining there.

So the process is you need federal authorization through the Army Corps engineers to change the use.

These sites were constructed to hold dredge material and to let water uh settle out.

So there are operations and maintenance requirements that continue after that, and those would then also be transferred to the city or uh whoever the local sponsor is for the land.

Gabby mentioned that there is an opportunity still to have lakefront access or trails on the lakeward side of CDF 9.

This is an example of Fairport Harbor Harbor and their confined disposal facility where there has already been a trail constructed, and they have educational information about dredge material and what's happening on the site.

We believe that it could be screened with landscaping and usable for most of the year.

It would, however, have to close when dredge materials actively being pumped in.

So I think I'm gonna just touch on cheers before you do the summary.

So we mentioned CDF-12 is going to be at capacity at um in just a few short years from now.

And so looking forward to the future of dredge material management in the Cleveland Harbor, the port, along with our partners, Cleveland Metro Parks, City of Cleveland, this council, and um state of Ohio through Department of Transportation and Natural Resources, and then the Black Environmental Leaders have come up with a plan to receive dredge material over the next 20 years while creating parks and public space for people.

Now this is a 20-plus year plan to build out, but we're constructing it in phases so that the public doesn't have to wait the entire time to be able to access and use any of the park spaces.

Um however, this plan does not account, this plan accounts for keeping nine open as our recycling facility.

And I know the councilman mentioned getting in and touching the water.

This plan does allow for that with that center area, which we call the cove.

So that would be right now.

If you stepped off the edge, you'd be dumped into roughly 27 feet of water.

This cove would use sediment to fill in so that it would be 10 to 12 feet deep and protected by the outer piece of uh which we call the aisle, which would be protected so that it would be safer to use for like small paddle craft, um, waiting in the water, those types of uses, but it would provide for an area to feel and touch the water.

So, in summary, dredging is necessary to protect our local economy.

Um the filling in nature fills in the river.

Um, it's not also a steady fill.

We have a big storm, more sediment is dumped into the river, so it's necessary uh to dredge, and that is again the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers.

However, it is our local responsibility to help them have a place to put the material.

Building new CDFs are very expensive, and currently 10B, 12 and 9 are the only federally approved places to put dredge material.

We do we are in support of BREC closing, but we'll need to work together to ensure that the beneficial use facility can stay operational.

And as I showed you the pictures from Fairport Harbor, we do believe there is still uh a way to access and have a trail along the lake.

Um I looked roughly, I think the entire linear feet around this BERC area and the CDFs is I think three and a half miles, and nine makes up less than half a mile of that.

And the overall area of nine is less than 10% of the overall 450 acres.

And with that, we'll take any questions.

Okay, before I uh turn it over to my colleagues, um so to me, I view this as a there's some good news here.

Uh a good news is that by and large the dredge, the use of BERC as a dredge facility is winding down.

Um, and I've heard a lot of people say that they're designed their actual concern of overdeveloping BERK and to the to the detriment of public use in park space.

I think it's is it fair to characterize that the dredge the CDFs are by and large kind of restricted to park use.

I'd like for you to talk about the developability of former CDFs, uh the practicality of it, the environmental aspects of it, and and how that kind of gets us towards parkland.

Um yes, so I think a great example here locally is the Cleveland Lake Front Nature Preserve, which was formerly Dyke 14, which was the first uh confined disposal facility built.

And it was filled uh roughly 20 years, not quite to capacity, but when they built the um facilities north of the airport, they stopped filling, and nature just took over.

And so what you have largely at the nature preserve is what will happen from seeds in the seed bank that nature will take over and just naturally populate it with trees and shrubs and birds and other animals will find their way there.

So after some environmental testing in 2011, the port opened the nature preserve to the public for passive recreation.

There was an environmental study done of each acre and found that it was safe for passive recreation.

Um however, there was a small area which was an old city of Cleveland, like landfill before the EPA was in existence, so this helped close that that five-acre areas needed some cap.

And what we did was we took clean newer dredge, cleaner dredge, and capped that area.

So it is safe for passive recreation.

We know the dredge material we're pulling out of nine is used for projects that you know Gabby um talked about.

As far as development on 12, we haven't done any geotechnical studies.

Um, we do know there are some contaminants, but you know, not necessarily prohibited from uh resolving those.

Okay.

Is it uh one more question and then a comment?

Uh what so is to use Dike 14 as an example.

Is if there was a desire to develop that for non-passive uses, would that require so so my like to the listening audience?

The level of remediation as it relates to brownfield sites is contingent upon the proposed end use.

So there's a higher standard for residential because people are gonna live there, they're gonna spend more time there.

There's a less stringent for commercial and then industrial, and then uh I believe the lowest, but correct me if I'm wrong, is passive, uh, which is it can be used for parkland, but you are you go to the park, but you're not spending your entire life at the park.

Uh so if there are environmental contaminants, the risk of you becoming sick from that exposure is uh statistically insignificant because you are not spending the duration of time there to get that level of exposure.

So I guess the question for Dyke 14 to use it as an example is would other uses require remediation and does that lead us to conclude that non-passive uses north of the Burke runways would also require some level of environmental remediation if people were to put like commercial uses along directly along the lakefront there.

Um I guess like Linda mentioned, we don't have too much data on the material going into 12.

So I think before anything could be determined, we would need more testing to see the makeup of the material.

Okay.

And and I mean, uh a reason for asking is uh the Cuyahoga River has come a long way.

Uh but uh we're we're maybe stirring up some old stuff, right?

And I know that there's been proposals in the past that the city has fought really adamantly against in lieu of doing the combined storage facilities to dump dredge out into the open lake, which is our water supply, and we fought that kind of tooth and nail uh for I believe environmental concerns.

So I want to I want to understand as we're talking about accessing land what those environmental concerns are.

I will turn it over to uh councilman Jones, but just by closing, saying I think that the availability of passive parkland along the lake is great.

Um I hope that this process bears out what the non-passive uses would be elsewhere on the site because as great as parks are, they don't make money.

And uh as others have said, we need to understand revenues coming off of a potential closure of the airport so that we're not putting ourselves into a situation where we already have now spread the city budget too thin, uh thinner than uh it already is.

Uh so with that, I'll turn it over to my vice chair, and then I have Casey and Davis, and if there's anyone else.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I will go into where you led off uh in terms of uh economic impact.

Um I was looking at the presentation here and just wanted to get a little bit more of information.

Um as it relates to 23,000 jobs.

Um and I I would presume that these numbers were extrapolated from the I presume the port or is from the state.

Uh both.

We do an economic impact roughly every five years, and then the state also did one.

So that's the actual study that you have.

Uh uh, Mr.

Chairman, can you make that available to the council?

Sure.

Um now the 7.7 billion economic activity.

Can you kind of like go into what that what that consists of?

Yes.

So that's also in the same study, which I'll um make available.

It is the economic impact of having maritime commerce in the Cleveland Harbor, it accounts for all the companies along the river, all the material that's um shipped in and out of the port.

And um, you know, big driver of that is the steel mill, which needs the river to bring up the raw material to make steel.

There's no way to ship it um or truck it rather, and um, or by train.

So but basically a lot of this is I would presume the biggest bulk of the seven billion is based on the steel industry that we have.

Um without those numbers in front of me, that is a large portion of it, yes.

I see.

And um, Mr.

Chairman, to um our distinguished guests from the port authority.

Um it's a delight to have you here.

And um I was really uh uh captivated by the presentation where you're showing the park area, you use an example of the Fairport Harbor.

Um, and then you have this picture.

If you could go to that slide, cheers.

Yes, cheers.

Um I'm looking at this.

How do where I would presume where is where we're looking at here on this slide?

I know that we have some development, but I'm not if you could so uh all the way to the right is the Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve, which is existing.

Um and the marina on the left-hand side exists as well.

So this is over by 70 seconds?

Yes.

Okay.

So if you see that dashed white line that's through out, that's existing.

And anything beyond that is new material.

And how long would that take to is it 20 years, or will you be developing it?

Are you have you started the proposition of developing it out?

We are um completing the engineering work for the in-water structures and going through the process with partnering with the Army Corps of Engineers and working on permitting so that we can start construction before ideally before capacity runs out at 12.

I see.

And Mr.

Chairman, to the distinguished lady, um how much would this cost and will the city be uh a part of the cost here, or is will this all be taken care of as relates to the port authority?

So we're still figuring out financing, roughly um 300 million to create the in-water structures.

Um is it a way you can show me where that where you're talking about?

I don't see it on the there we go.

Uh what was the question, believe it?

So there you said that the the question was who would be financing it, where would you actually be starting?

And then you left with 300 million dollars.

For the in-water structures, not the park.

Okay, and where would that be at?

I see your little late.

I can see it if you keep it slow.

Right there is where the 300 million be developed.

The whole like the um hard infrastructure that would need to be placed there so that dredge material could be put there is the 300 million.

And um we are using a combination of federal financing, the port or sorry, the Army Corps pays to put the dredge dredge material there.

So we're looking at other ways which we can partner with them to pull down funding to construct these facilities so that the Cleveland Harbor can remain open.

Now, as far as where we start, we're looking at this hook that is where the old um first energy site is, and we refer to this as the habitat loop.

Looking at starting here, a big part of the reason the state is a partner.

One is because if you've driven on 90 during or after a storm, you know how it's beat up from the lake.

And so there's tremendous interest in protecting this infrastructure.

So this build out would accomplish that.

Starting with the habitat loop, we could get some immediate relief from a portion of for a portion of that roadway there.

And then with the stone that exists as those hooks, it's a little bit less expensive because we can use the um stones that are already there.

And this would be the first phase of the project as you're building it out.

Yes.

Anticipated this would be the first phase.

It would hold roughly two years of dredge material.

So after it's filled with material, it would need to settle, and then the parkscape and habitat could be built on top of it.

Next, looking at this uh westernmost edge, because you have the existing parking here and access, um, this makes this easily accessible.

We don't want to cut off any existing amenities before creating something new, and so very aware of how um this area is used for fishing and other recreation.

So by starting over here, we don't have to close that until you know we move further east.

Um and in addition, the edge or the breakwater for the marina is coming up on its useful life.

So by creating this structure out Lakeward from there, we are also you know not spending money on just redoing this infrastructure without having further benefit, and then it would move east.

Uh another important piece is this outer aisle.

Building this earlier helps um we would have to you know harden this more to um account for the wave action that comes in from some storms, and if we could build that sooner than the interior, that means we can make these edges softer and less expensive.

Yes, that's smart.

So right now you're probably is what I'm hearing.

You want to do the innermost part, you will start there, but you want to build that out there first, and that would that would help to break the water coming into the highway.

Yep.

Um Mr.

Chairman, um, so you're talking about this entire project as a whole would be about roughly 300 million?

Uh the infrastructure in the water.

So it that doesn't account for park or landscaping or you know, any utilities on top of that.

So just to get it where it's at, it's gonna be about 300 million in terms of the infrastructure you're saying fundamentally in the water.

Yeah, and that would also be a part of the dredgy.

But that doesn't account for uh the loops and the circles and the landscaping and developing that whole portion out.

So do we have a rough idea what that potentially would cost us?

We're still working on that as the engineering is coming to completion.

Um we also don't want to spend the funds we have, which um largely are from grant funds with match from council uh and all the other partners, and um we don't want to spend that planning for park phases that will happen you know years down the line.

We we've done a large amount of um engagement, but are cognizant of you know people might want different things in 15 years.

So we haven't prescribed exactly what the park will look like, but looking at different areas for different types of habitat.

I see.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, I have no further questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I think the the value of the cheers relative to Burke is that Cheers allows CDFs to move away from Burke.

Uh I think that uh and before I turn it over to Councilman Casey, uh, do we have I don't see where we've had this level of planning of or conceptualize conceptualization of what parkland could look like at Burke?

I think that that is also still coming.

I'll get a nod from the audience because that's sort of an unfair question to you all.

Um I'll turn it over to Councilman Casey Davis and then Paul Lensick, who will still be on council when that is finalized.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Mr.

Chairman to our presenters.

Just for that's not Burke, correct?

Correct.

All right.

So we can go that's way down by East 72nd, correct?

Okay.

So if we can come back to Burke, all right.

Um if you could go to your confined disposal facility slide right there.

So if your presentation, are you proposing closing 10 B 13 and 12?

Um then leaving nine open.

Okay.

And then how much tonnage per year, Mr.

Chairman, to our presenters is dredged a year and placed currently at any of these facilities.

On average, it's 250,000 cubic yards per year into CDF 9 and 12.

And currently 9 and 12, correct?

250,000.

What was it?

Cubic yards on average can vary depending on how much sediment needs to be removed from the river.

All right.

And then Mr.

Chairman to our presenters, who gives you permission to put the dredge there?

Is it the Army?

Uh the Army Corps of Engineers.

And then there are other permits that we work with with the state of Ohio.

Right.

So it's not the city of Cleveland does not give you permission to put the dredge there, correct?

Correct.

I'm asking.

Yeah.

There, so when these were constructed, there was the federal government partnering with a local sponsor.

And so the that was set up at that time.

So okay.

So if we close, Mr.

Chairman, to our our presenters, if we close 10, 13, and 12, all right.

How long can we put 250,000 cubic yards at 9 before we're at capacity?

9 is um designed to remain in use and definitely because of the recycling aspect of it.

So once the dredge material is placed in each cycle, then our site operator comes and clears out the ponds and gets it ready for the next cycle.

So there's not really a plan, I guess, for nine to reach capacity because of the recycling facility, but 12 is just permanent storage.

So that is um estimated to reach capacity in 2029.

Okay, so 12 because of capacity issues, Mr.

Chairman, to our presenters.

12 is gonna close, right?

Because it's gonna be right.

It will no more capacity for dredge material.

How much capacity, Mr.

Chairman, to our presenters is at 10.

Uh so as I mentioned, that's under control of the Army Corps of Engineers, and I did ask them for a number, and they said roughly 160,000 cubic yards, which is left that can go there?

Is left that can go there.

Um so we could fill that one more time through one more cycle, right?

Yep, right.

Okay.

And then what about 13?

13.

It was just like a one-year demo project before the rest of the CDFs were built, so that's no longer in use and hasn't been in use for a long time.

Okay, so Mr.

Chairman, to our presenters, 13 is gone, correct?

Right.

All right.

Does the city of Cleveland, Mr.

Mr.

Chairman, to the presenters, do we pay for any dredging that you know of?

No, no.

You guys, you guys are all on it.

So what happens if we close 10, 12, and 13 go away, right?

13's already gone, right?

12 is going to be a capacity.

10 can only do it one more cycle.

Right.

Right.

So we'll just say by 2030, the only thing remaining is is nine.

Right.

What happens if nine something happens to nine?

What happens if where are we at if it's for some reason they stop recycling, it becomes to capacity, then what happens to all the drudge?

That's a good question.

We the 20-year plan that the um Army Corps is currently undergoing, they are looking for all other possibilities.

Um, I don't know that they plan for that contingency, but we would need cheers to be in development and allowing for dredge material to be um received there.

It could take material from nine, however, that then just kicks the can down the road road of we're gonna be at capacity at cheers a lot earlier than we anticipated.

And if that were the case and that were known now, that would make it look less attractive for the Army Corps to pick that as their preferred alternative.

So, Mr.

Chairman, to our our presenters, if if we run into this this problem, right?

Do we stop dredging the river?

What I mean, if we have no place to put it, chairs isn't ready to go, three of our four CDFs are closed, one's at capacity, or you know, I'm just trying to think of any possible snag that we may have down the road.

So if we get into a situation where cheers isn't ready to go, three of our four CDFs are closed, nine can't nine is at capacity or it stops recycling or whatever happens to that.

I mean, that's all that's a big chance we're putting into just one facility, right?

So that goes away.

Do we run into a problem now?

We can't get freighters down the river, we you know, bit you know, yes, what happens?

That would be not dredging is a big problem, and that's why we're trying to get out front of this and designing cheers for the federal government because they're still in their process of figuring out which is going which option is viable and which is their preferred alternative.

So the port and partners have been trying to be proactive and hand them a an alternative that can be ready to go so that it doesn't happen where we have to first.

I believe ships would not load as much material, but that it comes at a cost.

So um, but eventually you're right, freighters would not be able to go up river.

All right, and Mr.

Chairman, maybe the Army Corps of Engineers are something we could probably try maybe sneak in uh in our in our process here.

I mean that that that could be that could be a big snag for our whole economy if we can't get you know, if we can't do so, Mr.

Chairman to the to the our our presenters.

How much does dredging cost?

And who bears that cost of dredging the river and placing it up in our CDFs?

The Army Corps is responsible for dredging the river and the cost.

Those numbers I don't have in front of me.

The operations out at uh CDF 12 and 9 are break-even for the port.

So basically we're charging them to put the material there.

We don't make any money off of it.

We also charge through that tipping fee any improvements we need to do to handle material.

So the federal government bears that cost.

So does the port make money on dredging?

I guess is the question.

All right.

Okay.

Um I will just want to add one thing that's 12 being at capacity and 10B being at capacity.

There would have to be significant investment if possible, and I don't know if it's possible to handle more material.

So it's a risk whether those stay in um the Army Corps control or local control, or if you close BERC.

Who Mr.

Chairman to our our presenters, who has control over the CDFs right now?

Um 10B is the Army Corps of Engineers and the port is nine and twelve and thirteen's kind of like just there.

Yeah.

It's the city, I guess.

All right.

All right.

Um I I think it's something you know to look into to deeper, you know, considering if the dredging and how are you gonna build on it?

And you know, uh from what I'm hearing with 12 feet of no till we hit till we hit surface water, now we're hearing dredging.

Looks like we're just gonna have a 450 acre park, um, which we don't want.

We're gonna need something more than just you know 450 acres of green space.

Um that's a lot of fuel to cut.

Um thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

And and I would add uh something that that's we've said, but maybe haven't sussed out.

It sounds like any passive use or any any use would have to uh exclude not nine CDF nine, it would have to remain as is.

Um I think that there are other questions of what happens after cheers, but that's for uh that's for a different council on a different day.

Go ahead, councilman.

You you just said any redevelopment, right?

For CDF nine.

Can you repeat what you just said?

Yes, since since CDF nine is recycled, so it's in uh going to be in continuance use, right?

That could not become a passive use, I would presume.

Uh maybe it could become a passive use similar to Fairport Harbor, where it would have to be closed for some portion of the year, but it would not be able to become uh passive use in the same way of the others.

Correct.

I would argue that.

I'm I'm I'm I'm asking.

So of the 450, we're down to 410, right?

Just because that's 40 acres that we would either have to close at some point because of the dredging that's got it that takes two or three weeks, correct?

What however long it takes to do it?

Um three to five weeks in the spring and the fall, depending on um how much material needs to be dredged.

Okay, so so if you develop BERC, 40 acres of it is closed for up to possibly 10 weeks a year just for for dredging, uh give or take.

I mean, no one's holding you to these numbers, but nine would be close, would not be public access.

However, during the time that dredge is not being actively placed there, you could have access around and and nine just happens to be right in the middle of Burke, pretty close.

Right?

54 acres to the to the one side, 68 acres to the other side.

Chief, if you want to, you know, you want to weigh in.

I don't know, you want to weigh in?

Yeah.

Thank you thank you for letting me come back up.

Just for context, this is I mean, it's it's the northeast corner.

Um this is a zoomed-in portion of Burke that you're looking at right now.

So when you go back to the kind of broader Burke, I'm gonna get up and I'm gonna show you.

Right.

Okay, so a good portion to the right of it.

It's less than 10% of the whole site.

Still 40 acres.

Correct.

It's a big site.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, uh, Councilman Davis.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, to our assembly, thank you for being here.

Uh I'll be brief because Councilman Casey really did uh nail the questions I was hoping to ask.

But first of all, Gabby, it's good to see you again.

You too.

Um Linda, we haven't met before, but great to meet you.

I I'd recommend to anybody here on this committee who would like.

I I was able to take a tour of these facilities last month in the frigid December weather with Gabby, who drove me around in a pickup truck, and I got to really see what we're talking about here.

It it it really helps things click for me.

What what we're talking about when we talk about CDF 9, which is in many ways just a sequence of holes in the ground, but but operates as this really impressive machine that's able to sustainably recycle contaminated dredge material uh without dumping it in the middle of the lake, as Councilman Slife referenced or doing other expensive remediation materials.

So um I I'm not to make an offer on your behalf, but I it really helped me understand the the first of all the incredible ingenuity involved in in the like you know the conquest of man over nature here and and also the um the importance of our economy.

Yeah, yeah, we extend the offer to anyone on council who would like to have a tour.

I'll just also add that Cleveland has been at the forefront of using dredge material this way.

So we um speak at different conferences on exciting conferences on dredge material and things like Fairport Harbor are modeled after see the recycling facility here.

That's amazing.

It's and I'll through the chair to the assembly.

Uh I I've also seen um uses of the dredge material for uh filling in demolitions as well.

Uh that it because it has these certain it's it's higher quality fill than normal demolition material, is that right?

Yeah, all the material um is tested before beneficially reused and in compliance with permits.

Okay.

And then just to re kick recapitulate what Councilman Casey was asking.

So uh 10B will c will uh hit capacity soon.

Right.

Uh 12 will hit capacity in 2029.

Right.

These will become that that leaves nine, which is intended for use indefinitely as a machine that just recycles.

Uh, but the other remaining 68 plus 54 acres will become available for some kind of use, and in fact can't be used by um your operations at that point.

Right, yeah.

There will no longer be capacity for us to place stretch material.

Right, and then just as I understand it that you have no use for like it's just empty land.

Yeah, just empty land at that point.

Okay, that's great.

Um I mean, there's opportunities here is what I keep seeing.

I think the 40 acres will I guess you're saying is essential to maintaining uh rivers economic viability, but the remaining is is just naturally hitting a limit soon, and we'll find out what we need to do with it.

So thank you all for being here.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I have Councilman Palencick.

Is there anyone else that would like to be on the list after Quebec?

Councilman Palency.

Thank you.

Um thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and again, thank you because I think by having this hearing, um you've opened up uh a lot of questions and and proper discussions.

So I'm just gonna follow up uh a line along the line of questioning, and I'm I didn't bring this up earlier when I had the opportunity to speak.

Um has the port authority actually secured the approval from the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers and the feds as pertains to the parameters pertaining to the cheer site.

No, we're currently working with them on that.

Okay.

So we and how long do you think that's gonna take um with the federal government today?

I don't want to guess, but we have meetings every other week to work on it.

Um we on east side refer to this as Gordon Park.

And then the 55th Street Marina.

Um my observation is that the cheer site is not big enough.

It's not big enough for the dredge materials, because unless someone can figure out how to levitate ore boats, um they're gonna continue to use the river, not only our boats, but other large vessels.

So we're gonna have to continue to dredge and as we've dredged forever along the river.

Here's my concern and why I say that the site, the cheer site is not big enough, and that's why this this discussion about Burke is so critical.

Because we heard at this table, at some point we're not going to be able to deposit material there.

Either us or the U.S.

Army Corps.

Therefore, it has to go somewhere.

We know the occupant of the White House is not a member of the Sierra Club or the World Life World Wildlife Federation.

Several years ago I was engaged with then Congresswoman Marsha Fudge, Congresswoman Chantel Brown, her predecessor.

The U.S.

Army Corps veneers wanted to deposit the dredging materials in the lake.

They did not want them to go into the CDF.

And as Councilman Casey knows, we had this discussion at the Utilities Committee where there is a massive blob in the lake right now from the original dredge material that was deposited in the 50s and the 60s, and I think even into early 70s, where that blob is moving east at a slow pace, but it's moving.

The concern that we've had and been expressed to us is the potential impact on our intake.

Our intakes for the division of water, should this blob get that way, plus the blob is contaminated, as you know.

So we have to we have to make sure in the whole discussion about Burke and with the U.S.

Army Corps of Veneers and a Port Authority that we don't find ourselves in a situation where the folks in Washington now say we have no place to deposit, and they're gonna try to dump it back in the lake.

Because the let's face it, the track record in Washington uh as of late has not been pro-environment.

So I want to say to my colleagues, we got to be very careful what we do here, because there's long-term implications.

Water quality, impact on our Cleveland residents.

Let's face it, we are the suppliers for water for all of Northeast Ohio, and that dredging material has to go somewhere.

We were fortunate to have Burke Airport where that material went, and that's how the airport grew over the years.

Uh because if you look at the original plans, that the time the border that I've been here, it has it has grown to the north and to the east.

Um so these this discussion, and again, I want to thank the chairman for having it.

But this who presently represents the city on the Port Authority.

Um our board is uh nine members, three appointed by the county, and six by the city.

Who are the six from the city?

Um memory, um our chairman is Dave Wondolowski.

Um appointment.

He's broke Cleveland, right?

Okay.

Um we have uh Ryan McCafferty.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

So just reading the website, the and I don't know this doesn't speak to the appointment authorities, but the chair is David Wondolowski, the vice chair is Peggy Zone Fisher, uh, Stephen Holmes is the secretary, then uh Luis Cartagena, Darrell McNair, Talange Thomas, Ryan McCafferty, uh Glenn Schumate, and uh uh Kate Corgan Topkins.

Okay, who's a Ward 15 resident.

Well, again, I think it's important because we've never had, to my knowledge, any engagement at this table or even in a caucus with the Port Authority.

And maybe that time has come, Mr.

Chairman, uh, through your um deep dive on this issue.

There has to be a place to put the dredge material.

Cheers is not big enough.

There has to be either another location, is there another fallback location besides Cheers for the dredging material?

If you go to Berkeley, not that we have planned.

So Cheers is intended to hold 20 years capacity with nine operating.

I do want to add that you're right.

The Army Corps wanted to put the dredge material in the lake because that's the cheapest option.

And you mentioned the um there were you mentioned at that time I'm blanking out what year that was that the city and the port and the state came together.

There is a state law now that you cannot, they cannot place dredge material in the lake.

So as long as that state law holds, and then in addition to that, every two years the uh federal government has a water resource development act.

Right.

And each time that comes up, we lobby to get that language in that law as well.

I was involved in that heavily involved in that lobbying press because I have a lakefront ward, and I have the Nottingham water plant, which feeds the northeast side of the city, and that intake was being threatened by the blob that's moving east.

But again, we all know the group in Columbus has not always looked out for the best interest of the city.

And I'm reminded of HB6, what took place there.

So I I am always very cautious because when we say there's a law in effect in Columbus, we we have seen recent actions, especially pertaining to the Browns.

So again, I'm just saying to all of us collectively, we've got to think ahead.

We've got to make sure that dredging material has a place to go and doesn't wind up back in the lake at some point, because the good old boys in Columbus all of a sudden decide to change the law against the city of Cleveland.

So again, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, my colleagues.

Again, I state cheers is not big enough, and I hope we continue to have that discussion with the Port Authority.

Thank you very much.

And thank you, Councilman Palency.

And I think it it it kind of bears out an interesting talking point when I hear the community talk about Burke, where they kind of say, why would only Cleveland would be so silly to put an airport along the lake?

The airport, I think is I would argue, sort of a secondary uh solution of what to do with uh the primary need of us dredging the river to maintain the shipping channels so our economy doesn't collapse.

And I think that that will that will need to continue moving forward as long as that steel mill continues to operate, which I hope is in perpetuity.

Um are there any other questions for my colleagues?

Yes, Chair.

Councilman Gray.

Yes, I just want to say thank you for this awesome uh structure of the um meeting today.

But I also want to see if you can set up a tour uh with the Port Authority as well as um chief.

Um so have a better understanding for the next meeting that we have to have a better understanding coming towards the next meeting that we're gonna set up so I can be better prepared with questions as um Councilman Davis suggested that tour helped him out a lot.

Sure.

I will so the question was uh the availability of a tour.

I think it's a great idea.

I think between um you all and the administration, uh it it should be workable.

I'll work with uh our law department to understand the needs for notification and quorum and everything because I can envision that it might be difficult for a public access all the way out and an unknown number of participants.

But I would I would encourage everyone to avail themselves of that opportunity when we uh are able to schedule that.

Thank you, Councilman Gray.

Um, with that, I have uh one person signed up for it.

Thank you very much, and I'll let you get back to uh all the important things that you do.

Um we have one individual signed up for public comment.

If uh Daryl Houston would like to come forward.

I don't know if the clerk did anyone else sign up.

Yeah.

Uh there, I'll I'll look to see if they're indicating uh right there, perfect.

How are you doing, Mr.

Houston?

We'll we'll uh try for uh three minutes like we do at council.

I don't even think I need three minutes.

All right.

Um just as a concerned citizen uh born and raised in the city of Cleveland, uh just sitting here listening to uh some of the things that were discussed.

Um Mr.

Polenzick, I would like to agree with you.

Uh the most important thing that I've just heard out of this whole entire meeting is that SUS that we have to deal with.

That's the most important thing that we should be sitting there talking about.

That's environmental health and our children are growing up, and if we put anything in that water, that affects our community, right?

So I think that's the most important thing that I heard today.

Uh besides development of downtown, I think that should be at the top of the list.

That should be discussed more than any development going on downtown.

The port uh supports our uh city income, and it's a vital piece to our development as far as the income, and I would urge you guys to pay attention to that.

Uh I would also like to comment too, uh Mr.

Richard Starr made a great point as well.

Um we have a lot of park facilities already, and we haven't developed those parks other than just sand.

Uh there's no activity apparatuses at any park along the edge of our lake.

So that should be considered.

And I don't think that for one minute we should even utter the words of properties down there for living.

Right now, we're losing too much revenue in the city of Cleveland right now.

Let's develop some revenue down there that pays the city and the residents for them to enjoy their environment until God calls them home.

These are the things that I think are most important, right?

Like right now, we're sitting here and we're wasting taxpayers' dollars having this discussion, and we haven't even got off the starter's bench yet.

So why are we sitting here and talking about this when we have so many other things going on in the community right now that needs our attention?

We're 22 days into a fresh year.

How many African American people have been killed in the last 22 days that we don't even sit here and discuss?

And then we sit here and talk about three and four billion hundred millions of dollars, but we don't put our money where it needs to go.

So I'm a concerned citizen.

Okay, and I'm concerned about minorities sitting at the table as well.

And have a great cold evening.

Thank you, Mr.

Houston.

Thank you to the administration, thank you to the port.

Thank you to my colleagues for sticking around.

And I'm looking forward to seeing everybody at meeting number two, which is on April 4th.

Thank you.