Okay, um good morning, everyone.

I am going to call this uh meeting of council's transportation and mobility committee to order.

Uh could the clerk please call the roll present.

Thank you.

Could you please mark Councilman Jones, Bishop, and Starr as having excused absences, and we are going to begin with one piece of legislation in just a moment.

For the sake of quorum, could you please add Councilman Harsh as a member pro temp?

Thank you.

Um before we begin, uh, just something for me to read, and then we will ask the administration to come up for the first piece of legislation.

Uh uh and please note uh Councilwoman Gray's arrival.

So um, welcome, welcome.

Uh, we held our first hearing about expenses and obstacles to development of Burke on January 21st, and I think it was a productive way to kick off a long-term conversation about Burke's future.

I'd like to think that my council colleagues, the BIB administration, and other participants share my perspective, and I thank you all for engaging us.

Today's hearing will focus on Burke's place in the budget now and in the future, should the airport cease operations.

On April 1st, our third hearing will address the regulatory path to closure, and at our final meeting on April 15th, we will tackle market absorption and appeal.

On April 15th, that the Bib administration will present its vision for the site's future as they have requested.

With a few notable exceptions, the feedback I've received on the first hearing was generally positive.

We received a lot of praise for initiating this conversation, which we greatly appreciate.

Most people understood that closing and redeveloping Burke is enormously complex and that not everyone's questions can be answered in a single meeting.

However, some, including the leadership of a significant local news outlet, saw things differently and stooped to name calling.

Council won't return the favor, and we intend to keep this process civil, even if others won't.

We will, however, attempt to address any criticism arising from misunderstandings of our process or misapprehensions of our objectives.

To avoid these issues in the future, I'd like to spend a few minutes clarifying what we are and what we aren't doing today and at the other hearings.

Across our region, individual city councils answer to their voters.

Local government is not a pay-to-play endeavor.

If it were, which it shouldn't be, an argument could be made that Cleveland residents could micromanage suburban municipalities, since Cleveland residents constitute a larger percentage of community workforces in 48 of 58 suburban Cuyahoga County communities per 2023 census data.

In fact, Cleveland has the second largest resident percentage of workforce in Cuyahoga County and is number one among communities with the highest number of jobs.

It's as simple as that.

If neighbors are interested in exploring regionalism, I invite them to consider voting to join the City of Cleveland as the village of West Park did in 1923.

Beyond this, I'd like to emphasize that this is a hearing.

Asking questions, even pointed ones, isn't an attempt to obstruct the mayor's vision for the project.

A question is a question.

It isn't a decision, and it isn't a vote.

Presuming otherwise is a mistake.

Many of the questions you'll hear from us are driven by context and history.

While redeveloping Burke may be a once-in-a-generation opportunity, it is a proposal that has come up repeatedly for decades.

Each time it has been rejected, usually due to concerns about possible toxins below ground or the viability of constructing buildings on the site.

In our last meeting, the Bib administration presented evidence that these concerns have been overblown.

If so, this is exciting news.

Given past reports, however, asking questions about what may have changed and why, and about other potential effects of redeveloping BERC is simply prudent.

Pausing to check the depth of the water doesn't mean you're afraid to dive.

Similarly, asking questions about the potential consequences of redeveloping BERC, such as its impact on leaf pickup, street repair, and snow removal is reasonable and necessary.

While the city's annual budget is significant, it is not unlimited, and large projects have often diverted resources from other programs, including those critical to the quality of life of Cleveland residents.

I hope these statements clarify our process and help prevent further intentional or inadvertent misunderstandings as we work toward a better understanding of the possible closure and redevelopment of Burke Lake Front Airport.

And with that, I would ask I believe Deputy Chief Trivisano and others to come forward for ordinance number 1447 2025.

Good morning, everybody.

1447 2025 was heard at MSP earlier this week and then referred to this committee.

This is a piece of cleanup legislation to establish uh subfunds related to the North Coast Waterfront New Community Authority.

Um those of you who were here last year uh will remember that we uh this council passed two pieces of legislation establishing the North Coast Waterfront New Community Authority, uh setting the parking rates and agreeing that the city could enter into parking agreements related to the new North Coast Waterfront New Community Authority.

Uh that legislation set the ceiling for fees uh and establish that those fees will be used to contribute to the construction of public space infrastructure and for operations to ensure uh to enable lakefront development.

As a reminder, a new community authority is a creative financing mechanism uh separate from any small enterprise fund or the city's general fund.

Uh, due to an administrative error, the city uh is collecting the fees on behalf of the new community authority, but because we don't have subfunds set up, we aren't able to then send those fees to the new community authority.

So uh finance is collecting those fees.

They're currently kind of commingled uh administratively with our parking fees.

We know kind of what the separate fees are.

We need to have a subfund for each port control and the parking division in order to be able to then send those fees to the new community authority.

That's what this legislation corrects.

Uh while we're here talking about the NCA, the NCA fees uh that are consistent with the NCA ordinance are a dollar for weekdays for city-owned parking lots, but except Willard, uh $3 for weekends, and $5 for special events.

These fees are not applicable to monthly parkers.

Uh, the fees only apply when somebody pays for parking.

So if a parking lot is free, there's no NCA fee attached.

And fees do not apply to any special events where the rate is $10 or less.

So if you know there's a special event uh at City Hall and there's a nominal parking fee for the evening event, uh, if it's $10 or under, there's no community authority fees attached.

Uh the city has been collecting these fees since August of 2025 and has collected just over 200,000 uh in new community authority fees for the North Coast Waterfront NCA that again we have not been able to send the North Coast Waterfront NCA because we need this enabling legislation.

That I'm happy to answer questions.

Are there questions from my colleagues?

Councilman Casey.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Chairman to the Chief.

Has the NCA raised any other money aside from the parking rates?

Uh the new community authority is really set up to uh its main kind of goal is to bring in fees when new development occurs on the site.

They're inactive conversations with other users like the Great Lake Science Center to add that to the new community authority.

Um, but right now it their only uh agreements are around parking fees.

Okay, so as it stands today, Mr.

Chairman of the Chief, the NCA doesn't it has no other money aside from this roughly 200,000 waiting to be moved over.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there other questions from the committee?

Okay, hearing no other questions, uh, we will sign it up and refer it over to finance.

Councilman Harsh, Te Absolvo.

That's Latin for you don't have to sign it anymore.

So there you go.

And with that, uh, we will move into uh the meat of the hearing, which is uh the presentation on the financial impacts of closing Burke.

Within this presentation, we also thought it was appropriate to use this as an opportunity to talk about Burke and its current operations and kind of its role within the existing city budget so that we can get a baseline to compare um uh a future scenario against.

Uh so with that, I will turn it back over to the deputy chief.

I think we have a lot of familiar faces.

Uh, but why don't uh uh you all uh introduce yourselves for the benefit of the audience, and then we'll probably go down the line one more because I think this might be the first time all of port controls at the table, so there's some new faces for some port control staff.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I'm lost without Innes.

We do have a presentation that I'm hoping she'll be able to bring up onto the screen.

But we can start with with introductions.

Um again, Jessica Trevisano, Deputy Chief of Staff and Chief Strategy Officer for the City.

Uh Paul Barrett, Director of Finance.

Good morning, Council Brian Francis, Director of Port Control for the City.

Morning, Christine Gilmartin, Assistant Director of Finance and Procurement for Port Control.

Morning.

John House, uh, senior manager of commercial revenue for port control.

Thank you.

Councilman Palencick, would you like to begin introducing yourself to these new faces?

Councilman Polensick Ward 10.

Chris Sarge.

Uh new ward for same old Brooklyn.

Awesome Davis, Ward 7.

Councilman McGray, Ward 3.

Brian Casey, Ward 13.

Nikki Hudson, Ward 11.

I will maybe just uh give you an overview of what we plan to talk about today.

Um as Chairman Slife said, uh today's focus is really on Burke and the budget.

Uh we are gonna talk through uh, we'll kind of start with an overview of what we're presenting today.

Uh from there, we'll present a couple different downtown airports as comparison.

Umstar.

We can't we can't do it without her.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Uh we'll talk about other downtown airports that came up in our last meeting, uh, a request to uh think about Burke in context of other airports.

Uh we'll also talk about Burke's operations to give you a sense of how it's been operating.

We'll talk about Burke's budget as a small enterprise fund and the relationship between Burke and Hopkins uh and our signatory airlines, which are the airlines that sign our master lease for Hopkins.

Um, and then we'll gonna talk high level about economic impact of redevelopment of Burke, and from there we'll be happy to answer questions.

Uh so just an overview of what you're gonna hear today.

Uh aircraft operations at Burke have been declining.

There are around 40,000 operations on average per year uh that peaked in the late 90s.

And when we say aircraft operations, we don't that includes all aircraft operations.

So a helicopter doing an organ transplant or a military operation, including, you know, and then any like private charter passengers, all of that is encompassed when we say airport operations.

Uh the FAA forecasts that there's going to be continued decline in operations at Burke through 2050.

The annual operating loss at Burke uh over the last 20 years has been 900,000.

That's like the true number, not adjusted for inflation.

Of course, 900,000 in 2026 is a different number, thinking about uh what it is today.

Last year, the operating loss was 1.7 million dollars on Burke's budget.

Um that loss is subsidized by Cleveland Hopkins Airport, uh, and that subsidy has increased over time.

Nearly all of Burke's economic activity can be redirected to Hopkins, the county airport, or in uh commercial leases elsewhere in the city.

Uh Burke offers minimal benefit to the city's general revenue fund, and we'll kind of talk through the way that it impacts the city's general revenue fund.

Uh and based on our initial studies, there's a greater opportunity for direct economic impact to the city if Burke is redeveloped.

I'll pause here for a moment just to say there are lots of ways to talk about economic impact.

We have chosen for the purpose of this presentation to really focus on direct impact to the city.

So admissions tax, income tax, parking tax, property tax, like the money that the city receives, because as Chairman Slaith has said, we really want to think about the ways that Burke can or does not impact resident services, and the way that we do that is by bringing in tax to the city government.

We can have a separate conversation around indirect impact to the entire region.

But I think the better, the better focus for this conversation is direct impact to the city.

As Chairman Slife said, last time we were here on January 21st, we talked about the historical legal, sort of operational regulatory considerations as it relates to Burke.

In the future, we'll be back talking about how to close an airport.

So if you have questions around, you know, what happens to flight schools there, that's where we would talk more about you know where that would go and what the regulatory requirements are for closing BERC.

And then as Councilman Slife said, uh on our April 15th meeting, we'll talk about redevelopment opportunities in more specificity than what we're gonna get into today.

Uh with that, I'm gonna hand it over to our director of port control, Bryant Francis, to talk about uh downtown airports and Burke's operations.

Thank you, Jessica.

So uh good morning, council members.

Thank you for the opportunity to present operational and financial information regarding Burke Lakefront Airport today.

We were asked to identify other airports, uh specifically those located on a lake or river that had some similarities to Burke.

And uh the criteria used consisted of the following.

Again, a lakefront or a river setting, proximity to the central business district.

Uh, that the airport is a general aviation airport, uh, same type of flight activity as we see at uh Burke, and uh that the airport is located in a metropolitan area with a similar population to Greater Cleveland.

So there are uh many factors, uh, some of which were not taken into consideration that could be a direct contributor to the level of activity and or success at these airports.

Among those are the strength of corporate representation in the region and its impact on activity uh at the airport, additionally the overall health and growth of the local economy and how that may drive corporate and general aviation activity, and also how many other airports exist within the region that can accommodate the type of flight activity as Burke does.

So here are three airports that we uh did select in addition to Burke, uh, reflected on the screen.

They are located in St.

Paul, Minnesota.

St.

Paul is part of the Twin Cities, Minneapolis, St.

Paul, also uh Kansas City, Missouri, with the Wheeler Airport, which is located directly across from downtown.

I should have mentioned St.

Paul downtown airport is located directly across from downtown St.

Paul.

And then there is uh the St.

Louis downtown airport, which is not immediately adjacent to downtown, but it is very close to downtown St.

Louis, all have a similar length of their longest runway, indicating that they can accommodate similar types of aircraft operations to what again we see primarily at Burke.

The layouts of these airports differ uh and all of them have more total acreage than Burke does.

We also recorded the governance for each.

Kansas City, like Burke is operated by the city, whereas St.

Paul is part of a regional airport authority, and St.

Louis is operated by an agency charged with operating facilities in the region located in both Missouri and Illinois in and around the city of St.

Louis.

So uh Burke has the lowest level of based aircraft of the four, and we believe that is largely because there's limited availability within the aircraft hangars that are available at Burke.

There's little opportunity for new construction due to the proximity of the full length taxiway on the south side of the airfield.

In terms of tenants, St.

Louis has the most with 19, followed by Burke at 15, Kansas City with nine, and St.

Paul with four.

Further, there's several limitations on how much can be developed at Burke as most of the airport's 450 acres is comprised of the actual airfield.

The limited opportunities on the south side below the parallel taxiway and the frontage road along Route 2 are not very deep and may not be viewed as desirable areas in which to invest in the creation of aviation-related facilities.

Um there's real consideration of additional development costs for aircraft, uh hangar, and similar type structures at Burke as well, due to the the soil, uh, the fill that the airport is built on, and that could be a strong deterrent to investment also at Burke.

There's of course is other information that you would be available uh related to these three airports, but we thought that they were three that were worth putting next to Burke, uh, again, because they're in metro areas that are of similar size to ours, um, because they are general.

Aviation airports uh and they are very close to the central business district within the area that they serve.

So, as I just mentioned, uh there are 15 tenants currently housed at Burke with more than half not being aviation related, meaning they could be housed elsewhere.

They don't have to actually be located at the airport.

Um to two year terms with options exercisable by the city.

Uh we routinely have third-party appraisals conducted to ensure our rates are proper and further we monitor rates at other airports in the area in order to know how we fare in comparison.

Uh, signature flight support and I theorists are our two largest employers, as you see on the screen, signature with 18 employees and a theorist with 35 employees.

Uh we are uh the city is uh having uh high-level preliminary discussions just around what the future may look like if uh Burke were to close and how those uh services may be accommodated at other facilities in the region.

And also there have been preliminary discussions with our uh healthcare operators in the area uh about how their operations specifically can be redirected to other facilities in the region as well, uh, and those conversations will continue.

Lastly, there's um there's been of course uh thought about the Cleveland Air Show and how that currently functions.

We do know that there are other air shows in the country uh where the aircraft that are actually participating in the in-flight portion of the show uh may actually depart from other airports.

In fact, uh even the Cleveland Air Show, uh, a handful of those aircraft that participate are actually housed at Hopkins.

They take off from Hopkins, they fly over the lake to perform their maneuvers, and they return to Hopkins at the end.

So that is something that there have been uh preliminary discussions with the operators of the Cleveland Air Show, just talking about the logistics of that and and whether that may be possible, and those discussions will continue as well.

And now I'll turn it over to Christine Gilmartin, who is the assistant director of uh finance and procurement for the Department of Port Control.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Um, I'm gonna take a moment to walk you through some of the uh the BERC, how the Birch Burke budget works and some of the trends.

Um since 2006, the average operating deficit has been approximately 900,000.

Burke has maintained an operating deficit every single year, going back 20 plus years.

I I did go back 26 years and they were each a deficit.

Um the highest deficit in the last 20 years was in 2025, where we had a deficit last year of 1.7 million dollars.

Um they did come in of our budget last year due to there was a substantial underground leak uh that took about six months to find on the property.

Uh that was an unforeseen expense, as well as they needed a new HVAC control system that increased the cost by 320,000 dollars.

Both of those were unexpected last year.

Um we also noticed a slight decrease in parking revenue in 2025, which is one of the main revenue streams down at Burke.

That lent into the the uh deficit.

Um the lowest deficit we've had it we discovered was in 2018.

So we looked into that.

Um, the only thing we could see that the only trend was in for whatever reason in 2018, they did make um about 298,000 more in special event parking in that particular year.

Um expenses have been relatively stable, but we'll increase as the building ages and deferred maintenance, deferred maintenance catches up to Burke.

Um port control is an enterprise fund.

And I wanted to take a minute to kind of explain that and how it works financially.

So port control as the airport system, Burke as well as CLE does not include harbors.

We do have harbors, but that's not included in this.

Um common misconception is that people believe because we're an enterprise that we're profit-making, we are not profit making.

We are what they refer to as a fully residual airport, which means the risk takers for the airport system are the airlines themselves, the signatory airlines.

So basically, when I put together a budget, I I bake in all the costs for both Burke and CLE, and then we offset that with all the non-airline revenue that we generate ourselves.

That would be things like parking, Uber, Lyft, ride share.

The remaining amount of the expense is what I charge back to the signatory airlines in the form of rates and charges.

Rates and charges basically comprised of landing fees and the space rentals that occur within the airport.

So there are financial backers.

The signatory airlines are the ones who sign our master lease.

It's just like any other lease.

Once you sign it, you're part of the lease.

Signatory airlines determine the budget and investment for both Cleveland Hopkins and Burke.

So I basically bring the budget to the airlines.

It includes both airports.

They are not broken out specifically.

It would basically show all the operating costs.

And then I give what I call an airline packet, and that airline packet basically shows them how we landed upon a landing fee as well as their space rental fee.

So it's it's a financial packet.

We call it the airline packet.

The primary revenues for Burke leases were 87% occupied and parking.

Parking is by far Burke's typically their their main revenue stream.

And there is no debt directly attached to Burke at this time.

We haven't had debt on Burke for quite a while.

So our debt service payment does not include Burke.

The next slide actually, which I thought you would be interested in seeing.

This is the actual budget for 2025 for Burke.

I and I this is the actuals.

So this is I thought just as a refresh to show you the lines that we budget for Burke and the areas of expense as well as revenue.

So clearly salaries and benefits, that's self-explanatory.

The utilities that includes all the utilities down at Burke.

That would include water, electric, as well as gas.

And I I did put together a list for you know to get into that's like airfield painting, pavement repairs, um, a gener a new generator, um, materials and supplies.

Um that is the maintenance piece of it, um, miscellaneous supplies, uh, electrical supplies, airfield lighting supplies, um the maintenance.

Uh there was maintenance on the both vehicles that they have, as well as um they have an ARF team down there, so that included some maintenance there, um, an EMAS inspection.

I don't know if you're familiar with the EMAS.

The EMS is out on the airfield.

It is um an uh I forget what the acronym is, but it stops an airplane that is out of control.

So they we have to do ongoing repair to the EMAS.

It's it's an expensive system to keep in play.

Um, and then the interdepartmental charges.

The interdepartmental charges for Burke are exclusively fuel that they purchase through MVM.

Um, and then the the concession side of the house, um, that is basically their parking that includes both um monthly parkers that use the Burke lot, one-offs that they park on a daily basis versus getting a monthly pass, as well as uh special events parking.

Um the ride share, that's your Uber, that's your Lyft, and that's the fees we get back from them for people taking Uber and Lyft, the landing fees, um, the space rentals, that's all the tenants that um are renting space at Burke, uh, ground rental leases, um, fuel flowage fees that we receive, utilities that we recoup for.

Um, what that means basically is if you're a tenant and we're paying the utilities up front, there are some that we bill back, so we get that revenue back, and it offsets the the expense that we paid.

And you can see the revenues total 1,610,469 dollars, and the expenses totaled one million, I'm sorry, three million three three three.

So the deficit for 2025 was 1,722598.

And that is my last slide.

Morning, everybody.

I'll tack this uh attack this slide here.

Um so we wanted to take uh an approach to look at Burke's impact on the general revenue fund and get some estimates for that to provide the council.

Uh we did take a two-pronged approach to this.

So the first approach was to do an economic impact study by the third party.

Um, and the second one was for finance to do their own sort of analysis.

So the result of the economic impact study um was that you know there's an estimated about $500,000 in revenues that come in from income property and parking taxes to Burke every year.

Um out of that amount, about 250,000 dollars is estimated, it would be recouped or retained either by you know the businesses that are surrounding continuing to operate, and obviously employees um being relocated in that opportunity there.

Um also uh parking taxes.

So some of that would be recaptured by future reuse of the site, as well as you know, a lot of the the folks that park here are um either federal employees or work somewhere other than the airport.

So um not all of that parking tax would be lost.

Um so when finance went and looked at this and then did the round analysis, they found that the um economic impact study was a little bit conservative to to what we found in our numbers.

And part of that is that the um, you know, the group was looking at comparables, uh, other airports that are similar to Burke.

And um, you know, we looked at the pure pure money as it applies to Cleveland.

So we feel that the economic impact study was somewhat conservative.

Um, you know, uh compared to the 500,000 impact that the economic impact study was uh estimating, uh finance looked and and think it's closer to about 200,000.

Um and explaining that a little bit further.

So admissions tax, there is uh the air show is the big event there, uh, and that's tax exempt, so we don't estimate any admissions tax revenue being lost.

Uh parking tax, I do want to clarify this point.

Um, that 15 to 30,000 annually, that is actually for the air show specifically.

Uh there is an additional 40 to 45,000 that we believe um is tied up at BERC just in annual parking cost.

So that brings that number up to somewhere between 50 and 75,000.

Uh income tax, uh about 100,000 annually, uh, with most of these opportunities staying in Cleveland again, other opportunities for employees uh and um you know the surrounding businesses are included in those estimates.

Uh I'll also add it's not on this slide, but we looked at property taxes, and there's only a small portion of the airport that actually pays property taxes.

Um, and I think it's related to a few hangars that the airport can could you know expand on.

Um, but the impact is is minimal in terms of property taxes.

So all said and done, uh finance came with an estimate.

Um, taking all of this into account that you know the permanent um sort of impact would be somewhere between 50 and 100,000 annually.

I'm gonna round this out talking about economic impact more broadly.

Um so that same study that that Paul shared and that we've shared with City Council, um, you know, there were really kind of two pieces of homework that the administration undertook before really starting these conversations around Burke.

One was this economic impact study to get a better sense of if Burke was to close sort of broadly, what could the economic impact be of that closure and of alternatives?

Um the other study that we undertook was this regulatory kind of what is the process for closing in an airport that we'll talk about at our next meeting.

Um that economic impact study uh looked at kind of two two scenarios, three scenarios.

Uh the the lowest development scenario, so included really parks and green space, uh estimated that there would be about a 400,000 direct tax impact to the city between income, parking, and property tax, uh a mixed-use development, so uh mix of park, residential units, square foot of retail, hotel would have a higher direct economic impact to the city at 3.3 million.

Frankly, I think what we uh in our sort of conceptual planning where we're gonna land is somewhere between these two.

I don't think we're gonna land at either the exact lowest development or the mixed-use development uh site for reasons that we talked about last meeting.

Uh generally though, I think the big takeaway here is that Burke's use as an airport is a major constraint on the site because it's being used as an airport.

There isn't a lot of other things that we can do with that land.

Uh and really it comes down to opportunity costs.

You know, if if it's an airport and it's an underperforming airport that is has a 1.7 million dollar deficit uh that is being borne by the users of Cleveland Hopkins.

Are there other ways that we could use the site that would be more productive to the city?

I think that's one of our key questions here.

Uh we are continuing to do uh additional economic impact studies as well as cost estimates for the site.

We don't have those to share today, but when we do, we'll bring them to City Council to give a better sense of you know, if we look at more specific uses beyond these high level, you know, what could we expect that economic impact to be uh before we close?

I really just want to uh make sure that we talk a little bit about you know, if there's to be a Burke transformation, which the administration believes that there should be, uh, what are we really trying to get at there?

Um, one is the improvement of public access.

You know, at the end of the day, there's a moral reason for us to have two miles of lakefront space be accessible to the public and the residents of Cleveland.

We have about six miles of lakefront uh in the city of Cleveland right now, less than 25% of that is accessible to the public.

BERC represents two miles of that sex.

And so if this becomes publicly accessible, suddenly two more miles of our six-mile uh lakefront becomes accessible to the public.

Uh our goals are to drive economic impact.

So we want to make sure that whatever's happening on this site would do more than what BERC is now economically for the city.

We're also really laser focused on uh a financially viable model for the site.

Thinking about what can be financed privately on BERC, uh combined with public space with public access, so that the city is not bearing uh a bunch of development costs that you know we we don't think that we need to.

Um the other thing I want to talk about just very briefly is uh Burke as it relates to our new community authority and our TIFF.

Um so Burke is included in the new community authority.

So when we pass that legislation, we included BERC.

So far, there are no new community authority fees being assessed at Burke.

Uh we don't we don't use the we don't have an agreement for parking or any other fees uh at BERC.

If there was to be redevelopment on the site though, the new community authority is an important tool to then generate user-based income that could be used to finance roads or park space or you know, name a thing, and those user-generated fees could be a way for us to develop that site.

Uh this site is also part of the shorter quarter shore TIFF.

Uh so right now there's very little property tax uh that is assessed on the site, as Paul mentioned.

I think it's about two acres of the 450, uh very little uh that is has property tax assessed against it.

If this became a different use, uh then suddenly that would be property tax that could go into the shorter quarter shore TIF and be used throughout the city uh for any public improvements that we wanted to make throughout the city.

Uh and then last, I want to just mention that we really one of the benefits of thinking about a closure of BERC and the redevelopment opportunities here is being able to think about what would be complementary to the stadium site.

You know, we have 50 acres of lakefront land uh once the stadium comes down to redevelop.

When we can think about that redevelopment and context with a possible redevelopment of Burke, you know, it is better to plan for 500 acres if that's where we're going to land and think about how to use all 500 acres to the benefit of the public, as opposed to planning for 50 acres here and then you know, later saying, well, wait, why did we why did we not take into account Burke?

Uh so that's one of the benefits of thinking about the transformation of Burke.

With that, we are happy to answer questions.

Thank you.

Um I have a couple comments and questions, and then I'll turn it over to Councilman Casey and Palency so far.

I've on the list.

Davis, Hudson.

You guys flag me down if you need me.

Right down though, because I have a goldfish brain.

Um thank you again.

And I think that this is really helpful.

And there's the the the to me, this is a really the the meat of the discussion here.

And it's uh I know municipal budgets are large and abstract.

Uh so I think it's important to walk ourselves and the public through this as we kind of ascertain where we want to go moving forward.

And in a preparation meeting for today, um, I I think I coined or I used the term uh highest and worst use.

Um and you sort of got to my direct ask uh deputy chief, but the I I'm appreciative of all of the analysis that's happened on potential financial impact to the general fund based on different uses.

Uh what I would like to see more get a better understanding of is uh the potential costs of all of those uses.

So if it's if it's development, what level of subsidy would be required to cause that to occur and analyzing that against the revenue it would generate, when is the the break-even point, you know, or and and I think specific to parklands and um pulled out of the 2026 mayor's estimate.

Great formatting, by the way.

Thank you.

Yeah, we'll applause.

Um, you know, a lot of services we provide are not designed to make money, and we acknowledge that, but we can't be providing services that don't make money uh exclusively.

Uh it would be to our detriment, we would no longer be able to do so.

So in the park's budget, it's 20 million dollars for the division of recreation for the year exp proposed expenditures with 9,000 of revenues.

So that underscores my concern what what I've heard people say just turn the entire thing into a park is that that's adds to a 20 million dollar number on one end and is probably going to add above 9,000, but maybe not to the level where it would be a breakeven point.

So to me a critical linchpin in all this will be understanding expected costs and anticipated revenues and being able to compare and contrast those things so that we can try to find that right formula if this is the route we want to go.

And when I say highest and worst use I guess my null hypothesis is there's a universe and I'm not begging for it.

I'm just acknowledging that it's the case where if redeveloping the airport becomes too expensive for us to bear that break-even point either doesn't exist or is so far in the future that it is not prudent for us to pursue that having an airport with spillover economic value albeit very minor benefits directly to the general fund and uh not doing great things for the larger airport system could become a in uh kind of an option that is understandably come to so I'm I'm I'm holding out a universe where that is a case not because I'm asking for it but because I think we need to acknowledge that it theoretically could exist.

To uh Ms Gil Martin thank you and it's always helpful I think for people to understand how our airport system works especially because there are people who will say if we were to say regionalize the airport we'd suddenly have new resources available that would only be true if we were to move away from the residual model that you explained which is that our financial model relies on the air the signatory airlines covering all the the delta between the revenues we can raise and the cost of managing an airport system that's the correct way to say it correct to the chair yes that's correct the the they are basically approving all the funds we spend we can't issue debt without the signatory airlines approval and so every item within the budget is at their discretion so we're very mindful of their sensitivities both at Burke as well as CLCLE but especially Burke since they all operate out of CLE but yes they have final approval none of the funds are airport funds.

I want to be clear none of the funds are city funds and and I I think that's an important thing for everybody to realize that there is no such thing it is airline funds because we are fully residual.

So to the layperson uh you get to Hopkins you pay your parking you walk inside you grab a coffee you eat your cinnabon you like you go to uh the the Great Lakes which is I think the largest airport bar in America and and all of the revenues that we derive from those concessions and parking and everything uh whatever we can raise and I think let's say let's say we can raise 50% of the total cost of operating the airport because there was I remember years ago where that we broke we we surpassed 50% in non-airlock aeronautical uh revenues we basically take whatever money we don't have and we charge it back to the airlines based on their amounts of the number of leases they have the number of gates they're using the number of seats that they're landing and and that cost that they incur gets passed on to us the consumer as when we pay our ticket chair that's correct I'm and you are you are spot on um all those revenues that you listed the coffee the bar the parking all of that is absolutely non-airline revenue so the more non-airline revenue we generate that brings down what we have to charge the airlines we are currently at 69%.

Thank you for remembering that we were very pleased to announce when we hit over 50% so we're currently at about on a budget basis we're projecting 69% will be funds we raise ourselves and then we take what's left if you will and then I allocate what we call the rates and charges in the form of landing fees and for the number of gates they hold the ticket counters the things that you utilize and that the passengers use when they fly a particular airline and and shameless plug that 19% increase in non-aeronautical revenues is why we've seen ticket prices go down generally over the years that that that there's a there's a one to one relationship if we're unable to maintain a high level of re if we were all if we were 19% the other direction then we would be charging more to the airlines they'd be passing that on to us.

Is that fair to say that that certainly can be a factor I would also say that competition helps to to drive fares because when you have airlines that come in and increase service offer uh service on a route that's already served you you have a more competitive environment so both of those things are true.

Sure.

And and I think could kind of to link the two points together.

You know, I wouldn't none of us, I think there's universal agreement on within this building that none of us want to have to extract from other aspects of the city budget ever for any sort of development project, whether it be at Burke or elsewhere.

What we have right now, I would say is not ideal that the airport is losing Burke is losing 1.7 million dollars last year.

It sounds like some of that was not anticipated.

That's not due to bad management, that's due to acts of God and acts of HVAC.

But the process essentially right now is that that cost is passed on to signatory airlines.

If they're passing it on to us and there's 10 million passengers a year, really we're talking about the impact for the average person of Burke financially is in the sense on an airline ticket if you're flying versus versus the opportunity cost of other city services.

Yeah, to the chair, I think that makes sense as uh I I don't have anything to add.

I think that I mean, to the chair, frankly, even if we covered 100% of the cost, there's gonna be a cost for an airline ticket.

I mean, to take it to the other direction.

If we were, I always make the joke as CFO that hey, we're gonna raise 100% non-airline revenue, that means it's there's no cost to the airlines.

Do I believe that there would be no cost to the passenger for your ticket?

I do not believe that, sir.

So I'm saying there is a part of it that plays into that to Brian's point that um competition, how many how many airlines are flying that market?

But yes, I'm sure there is some truth to how that bakes into their cost for their airline tickets, which we have no say so in that.

So go ahead.

Oh, I was gonna say, and share just just so for awareness, because this wasn't in our presentation, we've spoken to all of the signatory airlines about BERC, just kind of giving them a high-level overview of what we're up to and have consensus from all of them that if Burke was to close, they would not be opposed.

Okay.

Um and and to sort of build on that, uh, I'm curious if the signatory airlines uh is it is it would you characterize it as strongly in favor, strongly opposed, or I could imagine it's a matter of indifference as because they're able to pass the cost on to consumers and to the consumer spending 200 to fly to Myrtle Beach, spending an extra 17 cents on the ticket probably isn't precluding you from going on vacation.

So the chair, and I I would ask our director to add this is my first time that I've interacted with signatory airlines, uh, and I was really floored by how much they would care about closing, like how how much every penny seems to matter to them.

And so um when we gave them an overview of how Burke is operating, um, I would say that they were they were excited about the opportunity for Burke to close.

Um I don't I don't know if you have anything to add.

Uh yeah, I I would say that we had very positive conversations with them.

Uh we've spoken to to most of our signatory carriers, and uh none of them were opposed to the idea of um the property that is currently used as Burke Airport uh being converted to some other use that would then take that burden uh off of their books, if you will.

Uh and and also keeping in mind that we are in ongoing discussions with those same airline partners about the future of CLE and a very large investment that they will be taking the risk on.

So I think it it sort of goes hand in hand.

Uh uh lastly, I would say that with perhaps in the in the past uh when CLE was a hub and we had much higher levels of aircraft activity at CLE, uh, perhaps there was a greater significance or level of importance put on Burke, but uh that is no longer the case.

Uh our operational capabilities are much greater because the activity levels at Hopkins are much lower than they were when we were a hub.

So we have the airspace and the airfield capacity to accommodate more aircraft.

Uh and so the idea of utilizing Burke as a backup, if you will, is is not something that uh the other airlines um are seeing as as being in an extreme need, as perhaps it would have been in years past.

Okay.

I've I have a couple more questions, but I'll end with one and then I can come back because I want to open up to my colleagues.

Not at the table, and I may maybe absent from the these public conversations for us at least is the county airport.

And and I I appreciate there may be an ability for the county airport to absorb.

Have there been can you characterize the discussions with the county airport, their ability and willingness and what would need to be occur in Richmond Heights for them to be able to absorb additional air traffic, and is it something that they are open to and does it uh is is it as simple as redirecting a flight, or is it more complex when you start talking about hangers and operational increases and and things of that sort?

And does it uh is is it as simple as redirecting a flight, or is it more complex when you start talking about hangars and operational increases and and things of that sort?

Yeah, to to the chair, I will say the plan is my plan is to get more into all of that in our next meeting around how how to close an airport, but I will just characterize broadly, and this is all captured in um the airport layout plan that we shared with city council.

Um the county has been eager to accept additional aircraft operations at their county airport, and so all of our conversations with them have been positive, and they are very much um excited about the opportunity to be a resource for operations at Burke if Burke was to close for them to move to the county airport.

But we can talk more about all those logistics at the next meeting.

I'll thank you.

I'll turn it over to Councilman Casey.

Thank you, Director.

Director to the chief, of course they would, because it's gonna just increase revenue for them somehow, some way.

So of course, as we've seen, other entities in the county are more than willing to take anything they can from the city of Cleveland.

Um Mr.

Chairman to um Director Bryant and or Director Francis, I'm sorry.

Um in your in your conversations with the signatory airlines, was it more than just about closing Burke, or was there any type of discussion on how to invest in Burke to make it a better airport?

So through the chair to the councilperson, thank you for for the question.

Uh there in in the conversations yesterday, there were no specific points made around the idea of further investing in Burke.

Um what I will tell you, and it somewhat alludes to something that Ms.

Gilmartin stated uh previously that an investment at both CLE and Burke is ultimately in the hands of those signatory carriers because they are taking the risk.

If there is um something that is being proposed that is not a sure thing to turn a profit, it would be very difficult for us to uh be able to gain the support from our signatory airline partners for that.

That's that's my personal belief.

Uh I I could point out an example of a project that was proposed years prior to my arrival uh to completely repave the parking lot in front of Burke.

And uh that is something that um ultimately was not supported in support of doing something at Hopkins uh instead.

And so we continue to maintain the lot, make improvements to that lot when and where possible, but but that investment in Burke um was weighed against investment at Hopkins.

And so I would say many times that will be the case.

Uh it's also not uh so simple as to say more investment in Burke is going to lead to a a large turnaround or complete turnaround in the revenue generation exceeding or revenues exceeding expenses.

So uh when we have things that come forward for uh for Burke for the airlines to consider, we would propose those to the airlines.

Uh but that's not something that has really been a part of the conversation since my arrival.

We've we've been focused on obviously maintaining Burke, making sure that uh we are adhering to all of our regulatory requirements.

And I do also want to point out that last year, every year there is an annual inspection that's performed by FAA.

And uh that inspection at Burke in 2025 had no findings.

That's a top-to-bottom look at the operation of Burke.

And so that says that we're doing what we're supposed to be doing to ensure that we're operating that facility, and that is a it is a uh safe environment and to the standards that the FAA expects of us.

So I did want to point that out just to make the point.

But um, but we've not had any any direct conversations around making significant investment into Burke in the time that I've been here.

All the focus really has been about the the very large-scale investment that's uh being planned for CLE for Hopkins.

All right, and then Mr.

Chairman to the director, um, you said you met with them yesterday.

Was that the first time you've met with them regarding a possible closing of Burke?

Uh through the chair uh to the councilperson, yes, they're generally aware of uh of Burke and and the situation at Burke, but uh because we've become this conversation with this body, uh I felt it was important for us to to make those partners aware.

Uh and so we did take that step, and they were all very appreciative of uh of us thinking that way, thinking of them and sharing the information with them, and they're looking forward to hearing more as uh as things progress with our conversation.

Mr.

Chairman to the director, yesterday wasn't the first time that the signatory airlines were briefed or had you had a conversation with them about the closing of Burke.

Through the chair, that is correct.

I mean, we have generally talked about it, but not but because these hearings began at a different level.

Yes, and so I felt it was important for us to have the conversation to explain where we are, what's happening so that they would would have that awareness.

All right, Mr.

Chairman, to to CFO Gil Martin, uh you indicated that there is no debt service at Burke.

Chair that through the chair, that is correct.

Uh Mr.

Chairman to the CFO, when was the last time we had debt service on Burke?

The chair, I would have to look into that.

I don't believe I've been with the city since 2010.

I believe I could be wrong, but I believe it's prior to my coming to CLE, so I can get that information for you.

The last debt payment that was made on Burke.

And then Mr.

Chairman to the CFO, can you just real briefly, because I don't have a lot of time.

Okay.

Can you just basically tell us what it would mean if we had debt services at Burke?

I understand, but for the viewing audience and and the rest and some of council members, tell us what we would use debt services for if we had some on Burke or any any project.

Okay, a couple things.

If there were debt service on Burke, we we probably wouldn't close Burke because it would go against the bondholders on Burke.

But as far as issuing debt, whether it's CLE or Burke, what that requires is just you have to have the projects, you have to have it outlined, you have to take it to bond council.

You have to determine if it's a if it's a tax bearing bond or a non-tax bearing bond if it's used by public, and then the airlines get to vote on it through what we call the MII majority and interest, and they take on the debt.

So they would say, yes, we're gonna issue debt for whatever we outline, say for Burke, and if they approved it, we would do a bond issuance.

Well, right now we have a line of credit and any debt instrument, quite honestly.

Um, and then we would use those funds specifically for what the airlines approved it for.

Okay.

All right.

In other words, we'd be investing into Burke.

We would be investing in a Burke.

That is correct, sir.

All right, Mr.

Chairman, to to the director, the leases that are at Burke currently, when does the next one expire?

Uh through the chair to the council person, I'll ask uh Mr.

Hoos to address that um because there are different terms, different uh expirations.

Um, just one when I don't want to go over each individual one, just when's the next one expiring.

Generally, the leases are one to two years with options that the city holds, the option.

Um the notable exception is the the signature uh lease, which will expire in 2043.

Okay, Mr.

Chairman, to whomever can answer this.

Have we not renewed a lease because it's the hope of the administration that Burke is gonna close?

Uh through the chair, no, that is not incurred.

The leases are generally of a duration that um we've we've not had the need to take.

But we have Mr.

Chairman to the to the director, we have not renewed anybody's lease because we have hopes of closing Burke.

In other words, we're not forcing people out to make it look like correct through the chair, that's correct.

Yes, we we've brought uh many leases in my two and a half years, we brought many leases to to this body for uh support and approval.

I know I yeah, I'm just making sure that the administration is not trying to nonchalantly force people out because it looks better if there's not tenants there.

And if I may add to the councilman through the chair, and John has more information about this, we just did a reappraisal process, I believe in 2024 to make sure that our lease rates were fair market and that we were being aggressive with those lease rates.

I mean, we have every incentive to try to make Burke cash flow if we can.

Okay.

And we did mention that we're we're at a high level of of uh leased space.

We're at about 87% in the terminal building of leaseable space, uh, and then the other facilities outside of the terminal are fully leased as well.

All right.

Um, Mr.

Chairman, to the uh to the CFO just to get things straight, the city of Cleveland's general fund has not been affected because we have Burke Airport, correct?

Our general fund, we are not taking any money from the general fund to supplement Burke Airport at all.

That is correct.

We do not receive any taxpayer dollars, we do not receive any general fund dollars, and we do pay property taxes and we do pay parking times.

Right.

So so our our general fund, so Burke, even though we're saying it's running at a 900,000 dollar deficit, you know, so is the West Side Market, so is Highland Golf Course.

But those are residents' money or people who work in the none of none of our general fund dollars goes to subsidizing Burke Airport at all.

Through the chair, that is absolutely correct.

Okay.

And Mr.

Chairman, to um the chief and the director.

Um Coleman A Young Airport in Detroit.

I'm sure you I'm sure you've heard of it.

Um did you look at that at all as the way to revamp a downtown airport?

I know you gave us St.

Paul, you gave us St.

Louis, and but did you look at what they did in Detroit with Coleman A.

Young?

Uh through the chair, no, I I was specifically looking at airports that through the direction and I received.

Um I was looking at airports that are very close to downtown.

I believe Coleman Young is about six miles out uh from the the core uh central business district.

So uh did not look at Coleman Young, Detroit City Airport, just the three that um that we focused on today.

So, Mr.

Chairman, to the director and and to the chief, I would highly su recommend that you look at what the city of Detroit did with Coleman A.

Young as a way that they took uh an airport that was very similar to the situation that Burke was in, right, and invested in it through the FAA, through the state, through the city, uh, and completely turned an airport around and made it a major asset to the city of Detroit.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, man.

Thank you, Councilman Casey.

Uh, next up is Councilman Palentic, followed by Davis.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, my colleagues and to the administration and folks that are here, and I want to follow up and not only your comments, Mr.

Chairman, but those of Mr.

Casey.

Um, first of all, again, I want to thank you for this in-depth uh deep dive into the Burke airport operations.

So I'm just gonna follow up.

Um Councilman Casey's uh comment about um Coleman Young.

Um I'm surprised we did not look at that.

I can remember flying out of Burke to Coleman Young Airport when we had commuter planes operating out of here some time ago.

So again, I think it's important.

Questions.

I want to have some other uh questions, and I would hope the administration would and our own staff would do deep dive.

Um I'd like to know the size of county airport and the longest runway.

Also um with regard to Lost Nation Airport, the size of Lost Nation and their longest longest runway, and also Lorraine, and I don't know what the airport is called in Lorraine County.

Just Lorraine County, the size of Lorraine County and their longest era runway as well.

Um with regard to the issue, ongoing uh comments have been made about uh the subsidizing.

Um, as Mr.

Chairman, as you've alluded to and as Councilman Casey did as well in my time here, we have subsidized virtually every department and division to some extent, um, including enterprise accounts over the years.

So that should be of no shock to anyone that we subsidize again, the convention center, uh public hall, we can we subsidize the west side market traditionally, we subsidize the former east side market as well, and I could go on go on with other areas that we have subsidized.

So to me, that is not even an issue.

The question is for those of us at this table, is Burke meaningful?

Can Burke be operational where it becomes an asset, a real asset to the city of Cleveland versus what the mayor and whoever wants to do with that 400 plus acres.

So my line of questioning is is gonna be this of the existing hangars that we have at Burke, uh, I'd like to know uh the square footage of each of the hangars and who operates or who has leases on the hangers, Mr.

Chairman.

Um at one time, the late Pat Parker, then the CEO of Parker Hanniphon, who I got to know real well uh because their headquarters was located in my ward at that time.

Uh he had wanted to build uh park, he wanted to build additional hangars for general aviation aircraft at Burke Airport, and he was denied the ability to do that.

Um so when I'm I'm looking back historically at some of my notes, uh there were efforts in the past to really try to put Burke Airport on the map, and every time that effort took place, it was thwarted, it was blocked.

There was obstacles put up, and that's why we find ourselves in today questioning should Burke stay or should it go?

Because again, from the administration standpoint, it is running a deficit, and again, according to the administration, that the the traffic is just not there at the at the existing facility.

So with regard to the what I refer to as the terminal building, Mr.

Chairman, um, on the second floor, who occupies second floor space at the terminal.

Through the chair to the council person, uh, thank you for the question.

I will ask John who's to address that, please.

Thank you.

Chair to the councilman on the second floor of Burke, it's uh CHA, they're an aviation consulting firm.

They have the entire space.

Uh they have the space facing the uh lakefront.

The lakefront.

Um I like to know the square footage of that as well.

Uh is the kitchen, is the commercial kitchen still there?

Uh to the chair of the councilman, I believe it the space is still there.

It's like white boxed, and there are some kitchen utilities in there.

Okay.

To some of my colleagues, there used to be a um very nice restaurant there, and then a couple uh two very nice restaurants there, and then they went bye-bye.

Um, and so I've I've often wondered what uh what was uh um done with that space up there where the restaurants were.

You've indicated in your presentation that about 80 some percent of the building is leased at present.

Is that correct?

Chair, the councilman, that's correct.

Okay, so again, I'm gonna ask through the chair if you can provide us um who occupies the various base and how much space they occupy, um, and if they are aviation-related um uses there or Burke to the councilman through the chair, there are seven aviation uses of the 15 tenants for Burke, but we can provide the details.

I also just to um address one of your earlier questions, uh and we can get you this chart, but page 15 of the airport layout report or airport layout plan that we provided has that list of all of the regional airports, uh including Lost Nation, even Kent State and Akron and all of their various family sizes.

Are there any city um departments or division utilizing anything at Burke?

Uh Chair to the Councilman, um there is uh several public safety uh units at Burke.

So the aviation unit, correct?

Is there I believe the helicopter unit is there?

Okay.

So um if you could provide that as well, what city operations?

So the because the question's been posed to the safety committee, um that is the aviation unit uh headquarters location.

So if Burke was to uh disappear, where would the aviation unit be relocated to?

And I believe those are very valid concerns and questions.

Those are obviously the helicopters that we operate at present.

Um what I also um, Mr.

Chairman of Honorable Colleagues, what I find um interesting about this whole discussion, whether it be Burke Airport, whether it be the lakefront.

Um at the whole time there's been this obsession with what how do we redevelop the lake uh lakefront from the um east ninth to the west, and then what happens to um Burke Airport again uh rec uh mayor and the administration are recommending that it disappear.

Um we don't have a plan um that I'm aware of that anyone has been able to present to us collectively to the body, even uh uh of um a rough rendering of what could possibly be at Burke Airport.

But while this has all been going on, the administration totally missed the ball on the 170 acres next to Hopkins International Airport that the Cleveland Browns bought.

And that this just continually weighs on me, how people could have been so blind to what was taking place here.

Landlocked airport Hopkins and 170 acres right next door, and we did not and the city did not move on it.

But this obsession with the lakefront, an obsession with PERC somehow did that cloud um the rational thinking, I don't know.

I'm just it it it it's so it's so bothersome to me and so troubling to me, and I think and more and more residents and individuals keep saying, how in the heck could the city have let that get away from us without moving on that property?

And now we know what's happened as a result of it.

The Cleveland Browns are locating, relocating to that 170 acres in Brook Bar.

So, Mr.

Chairman, I want to just say this again to you and the members of your committee.

I appreciate, on behalf of my own constituents, what you're doing to deep dive on Burke.

This is a this is a big issue.

This is a critical issue, because I think you you really touched on it.

Um if if the airport is not there, what goes there to generate revenue?

What goes there to really enhance the quality of life for our citizens and our community?

That's what I'm concerned about going into the upcoming budget, addressing quality of life issues, enhancing opportunities for our citizens and our residents for jobs, um, and again, uh for their future.

And so we um it's I think it's easy to get caught up in the euphoria, a green space as I'm trying to develop 150 acre park now along the lake and having one hell of a time doing it.

I can tell you that right now, um because of uh the the cost of doing that with match working with metro parks.

But but I think you've taken the right approach.

So whatever action, and I want to say this to the viewing public, the council has to vote on this.

At some point we're gonna be called upon to vote whether Burke Airport should remain or not.

And so we have to make sure that we have all the information possible, all the data possible, and that final decision that we make, what's in the best interest of our citizens and the taxpayers of the city of Cleveland.

That's all I'm looking at.

I'm not here.

Um I know the mayor wants this to be his um this to be his legacy down here uh north of the Brown Stadium along the lakefront and Burke Airport.

But if he doesn't watch out, it could be his Waterloo.

If this is not done right, if it's not done with in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Cleveland, the taxpayers.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I appreciate the work you're doing.

Thank you, Councilman Polentick.

And before I turn it over to Councilman Davis, kind of following up on one of your points of uh li one of your lines of question when excuse me, referring to the interest years ago from Parker Hannifin.

I think one of our constraints, it seems at both Hopkins and Burke, is that they are de facto landlocked like we have had a lot of conversations, Director, about how we are trying to strategically find more air air side land for development within the fence of Hopkins, knowing that we can't move the fence of Hopkins outward because there's highways and a valley.

And and similarly here, on one side, uh we you know we have we could continue to expand into the lake, but that's not a near-term option.

Um really the areas where you could bring more air field uses lies between the runway and the shoreway.

I think in your initial presentations, you uh alluded to kind of the restrictiveness of of being able to put additional hangers on that site.

So just for the sake of of discussion, suppose we were in a world where we wanted to double down on Burke.

Where would we be able to accomplish new airfield uses to increase the number of hangars, to increase the number of of uh FBOs?

And I what I what I really want to understand is uh to what degree is that or isn't it achievable compared to other general aviation airports?

So thank you for for the question.

Um correct that there is a limited uh opportunity for development at uh Burke today because the only land that is available for development is on the south side of the airfield, which very quickly abuts the frontage road uh adjacent to Route 2.

So there's there's not correct yet, thank you, sir.

Uh councilman.

So um but but you can't utilize all of that land because you have to keep some of that space uh object free, except for navigational aids uh for the operation of aircraft.

So it's not even all the green space that you see to the right of that taxiway.

There are there are two parcels uh near the the hangars that have been developed closer to the terminal facility that are uh potentials for development, but uh that would uh certainly take an an interest uh from a third party to make that investment.

Uh so there are opportunities there, but they're very limited uh if um if you are looking at the existing uh footprint of Burke and how it's currently laid out from an airfield perspective.

Okay, thank you.

Without without devoting too much staff time to it, is it possible to get to council staff kind of a graphic showing where that theoretical land would be, but also the development restrictions when you talk to if if uh the the distances and things so that we can understand that whatever the polygon is, it's not you know wall-to-wall building that there would be limitations within that itself.

I think it'd just be useful for us to understand sense of scale.

Yes, sir.

Certainly we'll do.

And uh Councilman Davis.

Thank you, Chairman Slive, and thank you again for this very informative in-depth presentation.

Uh I'm learning a lot.

And I'm grateful for the opportunity to learn.

I learned, for example, that the air show is tax exempt for the most part, so it's not generating any revenue for our city coffers uh directly, it sounds like if it moved to Richmond Heights, we would see the same economic activity, presumably in downtown.

Can we talk a little more about that?

Yeah, to to the councilman through the chair, there's some parking fees that we get and parking taxes.

Um and they also uh they occupy some space at Burke.

Um but I think beyond those, like you know, certainly no admissions tax lost from their operations if they were to move.

That's very interesting.

Through the chair then again, uh just just for the sake of the audience, you're we're again speaking today about kind of direct city impact.

There's obviously a lot of spillover benefits, but I think your point is that if there's spillover benefits in the region, they they could theoretically they they they don't have to exclusively spill over from one spot is it's I that's exactly the right chair.

And and and to the chair, it's if I don't see a lot of folks driving to Richmond Heights to go view the air show if it's going to be above our lake uh ultimately, you know, if they're taking off there and coming here.

Um you mentioned parking.

I am really interested to learn that the parking concessions are the main revenue source for Burke.

Uh I actually wasn't aware of that until now, that Burke's one third of Burke's uh operating revenue.

Let me see if I can phrase this correctly.

Yeah, one third of Burke's revenue last year was generated by parking alone.

Uh what are people parking there for?

To take the flights?

The very limited, limited flights they have?

Uh through the chair, uh I would I would guess probably not.

Um because there's downtown workers, depending on what they're doing, maybe rock and roll hall of fame visitors.

Um they were flying to Cincinnati and stuff, parking was not in an abundance.

That also includes, excuse me.

Uh that also includes uh special event parking.

So if there's special events that's taking place maybe on the weekends or evenings, um and maybe it's uh I don't really know like if it's the price point's a little better than some other downtown lots, but that's those are the parkers.

There are some monthly parkers who buy for the month.

And so I'm the I'm absolutely sure they must be downtown workers who find it to be a deal to park at Burke.

Through the chair to the councilman.

So in addition to that, when finance did their independent analysis on this, uh we found that there's a lot of federal workers that park there um as well as some of the Coast Guard um employees.

So um that's why you know we look at the overall impact, but then we expect that a lot of that um revenue won't be lost because they'll just park somewhere else essentially.

And then one more uh item to note to the councilman through the chair.

Uh we have noted that some of the parking trends, uh the years where we have higher parking revenues also happen to be the years that the Browns are performing better at the stadium.

And so uh I think as we think about the parking revenue here and the Browns in imminent leave to Brooke Park, uh, we very well could see a shift there as well.

It's uh through the chair to the chief, thank you.

That's exactly where I was going as well.

So the we're expecting this.

Well, first of all, uh the federal workers, the federal building downtown across the street from us here, that's closing, right?

Or has already closed.

What it's being sold.

To the councilman through the chair, the the federal government is looking for other places uh to move all of their federal tenants uh in downtown Cleveland.

So through the chair, I would expect all of the federal workers who are parking at Burke would probably not park there if they're moving the Fed building.

I think that's possible.

Okay.

And then the Browns are also leaving, so all those parkers are also leaving.

Uh what I'm really struck by is like, I don't know, if we just paved over the lots or uh the runways at Burke and made it just one giant parking lot, would it be more revenue beneficial?

We're laughing, but that's what this math seems to indicate that if we just turn into one giant parking lot, this would be an asset for the city instead of a 1.7 million dollar albatross from the flyers next.

And just to be clear, so when I fly out of CLE, am I subsidizing Burke?

To the councilman, presumably, yes.

Yeah, so my seven-year-old mother's taking like the trip of her lifetime to the Pacific Northwest on that direct flight to Seattle, she's really excited.

Uh but she's paying to subsidize Burke when she flies.

Is that right?

The airlines that are signatories at the CLE are subsidizing Burke, and so to the extent that they're passing on those costs to their customers, which we assume that they are.

Sure.

It's in their there's no, there's a hundred percent expectation they're passing on these costs.

They're not correct.

Keeping Burke open out of the goodness of their hearts.

So my mom's paying for it.

Thank you, Mrs.

Davis.

Yep.

She kept her maiden name, Mrs.

Hotka, but we're very modern, my family.

The uh more I why?

I guess why why are we keeping Burke open then?

Like what who is flying out of Burke and why can't they pay for it?

Is it just wealthy downtowners?

Is it just um hobbyists?

Who where does the rest of the uh if we subtract the parking revenue, where's the 1.1 million coming from?

So through the chair to the council person, the the activity uh is is mixed.

It certainly could be general aviation, just your recreational flyer.

Uh could be someone that's flying in for uh attendance at an event in the city.

Uh certainly could uh also be uh flight school activity.

There's quite a bit of that there uh that that occurs at Burke.

Uh there is still some corporate activity with uh with corporate jets that come into and out of Burke.

Uh there are military operations, not many of them, but there are some.

Uh there are the um the operations that are uh built around um our healthcare partners and their needs.

Uh so it's a a variety of of users.

Um, but currently, as there has been on a limited basis, there has been some scheduled commercial service at Burke in the past that ended with COVID and and there is currently no commercial service today.

There are also a handful of charters, uh sports teams um primarily that uh will fly into and out of Burke uh when they come in to play some of uh some of our local teams.

Okay.

That's that's all we're go ahead.

I would just say to the councilman through the chair, and that airport layout report, it does include kind of a breakdown of of operations.

Um I wish I had the exact stat in our in our um presentation, but I think it comes down to something like seven paid passengers a day on average.

Oh my goodness.

It's I I do recall uh through the chair when Ultimate Air was there, uh the shuttle to Cincinnati.

I used to be a lawyer and then I got to fly to Cincinnati once or twice.

It was a nice time.

Um it's gone.

And I think the company's out of business, and there's no expectation that some sort of shuttle service is gonna that this is a profits, like that there's no business coming back.

It sounds like the FAA indic believes that we're gonna continue to see a uh fewer flights year after year through 2050.

So that that is um uh one of many analyses studies that they conduct is around uh airspace capacity, airport activity, uh and and through their efforts, uh that is their general belief that the um level of activity will not uh generally increase over the next 15 years.

So unlike 20 years.

Thank you.

Unlike other through the chair, like uh other assets owned by the city of Cleveland, we're we have no path to profitability for Burke.

There's no expectation.

Not at this time.

There would have to be um many different contributions to um to turning around the uh the current financial situation at Burke, and again uh many of those we have to be very careful about the type of rates that we set because if there are better rates at an airport 15 or 20 miles away, uh these aircraft they're in the air.

It it's no different in terms of the time it would take to get to one of those other facilities.

So um so there's there's no reasonable expectation um that any one thing could turn Burke around in terms of uh its annual performance.

I I might just add to the director's comments to the councilman through the chair.

Um over the 26 years that we have you know easily accessible data for, it has been operating at a loss all of those 26 years.

So even when there was a direct charter from Cleveland to Cincinnati, still operating at a deficit.

Uh there are a lot of factors that would need to go into uh as Director Francis said, into Burke becoming a profitable enterprise, uh or even just even even just a more active enterprise.

And some of that is market conditions that is really outside of our direct control uh for that that airport.

That that makes sense.

And so I just I keep hearing that uh folks like my mom, the middle class are subsidizing this downtown Lakefront airport for people who play in the MBA to have a five-minute faster drive.

And I am like flabbergasted why we're asking the residents of Cleveland or this region to do that.

Uh 1.7 million dollars is a lot of money.

And it has never made money.

I I did some quick math, you said 900,000 um is the average deficit over the last 20 years, I think.

That's about 1.5 million uh 20 years ago, inflation adjusted is about 1.5 million today.

So this is just a this is wild.

The moral case for Clevelanders to reach their own lake and um ways to make money.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And and a follow-up question, because I think in in fairness, um one could also say Hopkins isn't profitable, as as it was stated.

We charge back to the airlines about 31% of uh the cost of operating Hopkins.

And here it looks like we're basically charging back to the airlines 49% of the cost of operating Burke.

So I guess my question is in the model that we operate our airport system off of, which is a residual model, is there an industry standard or goal for what percentage of the total revenues come from non-aeronauticals resources?

Is is is 69% where we're at currently for the entire system.

And since Burke's like less than two percent of the total airport budget, it would probably be let's just say 69% with or without Burke.

Is that is that kind of industry standard gold?

Is that uh high, low, uh or is it sort of a tough thing to answer on the spot?

Uh to the chair.

Um the first question you asked, it it's the 69% represents both Burke and Saley.

I they are combined.

I don't differentiate.

So I'm just looking at overall cost versus overall rather than sure.

I think looking at the budget book, it's a 200 million dollar total line item, and here we're looking at less than two million.

So it's it's it's so it's it's basic.

The the budget really overwhelmingly is Hopkins, and that's why so much of our legislation coming through is about Hopkins.

Yeah.

That that's correct.

Um, as far as an industry standard, um a fully residual airport is the one of three financial models, which is probably the least common among airports in the United States.

I don't know that there's an industry standard, but as a fully residual airport because you're not profit making because you're not profit making because you're not profit making, it's very important because my goal is not to profit.

My goal, the airport's goal, is to reduce the cost to the airlines so that they will bring more planes here and they will fly more markets out of here, knowing that they will be profitable.

Uh a compensatory airport is a money-making airport, and of course they probably still enjoy a great level of non-airline revenue.

So I don't believe there's an industry standard, but clearly anything above 50% at a residual is fantastic, because we're covering more than half.

Nearly over two-thirds.

Uh so I think that's very positive.

And um we are always uh engaging with our partners within the industry and and you know, I'm hearing ranges, but as Christine stated for the residual, we're not really looking to make a profit.

Um but one point that I would make is that uh the other category of airports, they're taking on all the risk.

And so in this model, the airlines are the ones who are taking on the risk, right?

That is correct.

So they have all the control over the finances as well as development, anything, because they're the ones taking the risk.

Thank you.

Uh I will turn it over to Councilwoman Hudson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um just have a couple questions.

Um you mentioned during the presentation that it that the fill on the site was a deterrent to um you know building more hangars.

Um is that the deterrent to building a more hangers, or is it this the limited space that you mentioned um during one of my colleagues' questioning?

Uh through the chair to the council person, I'll I'll answer a portion of that and then let uh Mr.

Who speak to uh to it more extensively.

But uh typically the the development costs at Burke because of the the soil and needing to get deeper into the ground to find a solid footing, that costs extra money.

And so from a development standpoint, um those costs are likely to be more significant at Burke, and through that could certainly become a deterrent to whether uh a company builds at Burke or at another airport.

Uh and then the the other mention around having limited opportunity for development is also real.

So the two together could make it that much more difficult for us to see uh real meaningful development on what little uh acreage we have available for that to occur.

I'll just yeah, I'll just add chair to the councilwoman.

Um yeah, last development we did there added, I think the fact that we were developing on Phil added like 15 to 20 percent more.

And I think the director alluded to it when you're like in development, we're competing uh with other airports who don't have to build on fill like CGF, County Airport, Lost Nation.

So we're at a at a cost disadvantage because an airport type development.

Um thank you.

And I might just add I might add one more thing, which uh I I learned this talking to Director Francis recently.

You know, often when we talk about lakefront development, we're thinking about it as being on the lakefront is like enticing for folks.

Lakefront development for like the lakefront location for an uh an aircraft is kind of a challenge because of wind, because of ice, because of the elements that aren't um you know broken by the land mass.

And so I think one more time when our airport folks are talking about development on the lakefront, they're comp they are thinking about Burke, you know, and then against the county or against lost lost nation and thinking about the comparative development costs and cost of operations uh for people who have aircraft there.

Um so I think I had to switch my thinking a little bit to think about like, oh, right, uh a lakefront airport might not be as appealing for airport operations as it as I tend to think about lakefront development.

Thank you.

Um so hangars would need to be uh sorry, through the chair.

Um airport hangers would need to be um you know less expensive to build than say the type of development that the city would be looking to attract for um the the Berkeley front site because they would also be building on Phil.

Yeah, to the councilwoman through the chair.

I I think what I'm trying to communicate is um for an airport hangar, if it's more expensive if it's more expensive to build on Burke than it is for the county, there isn't enough benefit to being at Burke to kind of offset that cost, versus if you were to build um, you know, kind of anything else, it would be worth it to be on the lake front uh in a way that it just frankly isn't for some aircraft uses.

Thank you.

Um and then I have another question.

I have to follow up on um my colleague uh councilman Davis' question on on parking.

Um so it was also striking to me that 2018 had you know high revenue parking, and then this past year low revenue.

Um and um is it the Browns that you know explains that difference?

I don't believe 2018 was a year that they made it to the playoffs.

Um sorry.

I threw the chair to the council person.

My team did quite a bit of looking into that bump in 2018, and it was special event, which tells us it's not the monthly parkers and it's not the person who's parking there for the day.

It was something on weekends or evenings, and we were actually Googling to see what was going on in 2018.

I do not have an answer for you.

It could be concerts, it could be any various events that took place.

Typically it's over the summer months.

I don't know that it was specific to the Browns, but because they would all get classified as special event because special event has special event pricing, which is a higher price point.

So it may have been something at the rock hall.

We had the rock and the induction.

Oh, and we did have the inductions in 2018.

And Kenny Chesney.

Okay.

There's a lot going on in 2018.

So thank you, Chairman.

There were several big events.

Okay.

And so if we could get more of those types of things in the city, our parking would be bumped.

That's the moral of this story.

Is there a reason for you know, such a 2025, um, 2025 was you know, the it was mentioned that it was a decrease in revenue.

Is there a reason for the significant decrease in 2025?

So the deficit in 2025 was not necessarily it was only a hundred thousand less in parking.

The the deficit was caused by um expenses, unexpected expenses versus reduced revenue.

They had um a water leak that they couldn't identify.

It was quite expensive that increased the water bill and the work that needed to be done, as well as the HVAC system.

So, in that in 2025, the anomaly was not so much reduced revenue as increased expenses.

So parking was relatively stable.

It was relatively stable.

It was just shy of about 100,000, which which isn't that significant, but but still it was a little bit less.

And that's a different and that's a different travel.

Where will it be?

And it it and it will and it you know, and will it stay in Cleveland due to the shift to Burt Airport through the through the chair to the councilperson, thank you for for the question.

Um we just had high-level preliminary conversations at this point with the organizers of the air show.

Um what was mentioned is that there are airshows around the country.

Another one is in Daytona Beach where I I went to college.

Um called Wings and Waves, and so the air show, the air portion is on the beach over the ocean.

Um, and then there's what's because there's two components to the air show, and you you alluded to both.

It's the static display, so the planes that that are on the ground, and you can walk around tour, um, talk to the pilots of things of that nature, and then there's the actual air portion where um you the two typically combine for the full show.

So don't have a full answer for that, but um it could be that there's a static display uh available at Hopkins, but the air portion continues to occur over the lake uh downtown.

So there are examples such as that uh in the San Francisco Bay Area where I I moved here from um nearly three years ago, there is an event called Fleet Week.

And for Fleet Week, there really is no static display.

Um Oakland Airport where I was director housed some of the aircraft, and there would be some special opportunities for uh people to come and and tour and meet with the pilots with the the the blue angels and the Thunderbirds, but uh but it was specifically a show in the air.

And so that's the approach um that has been taken in the Bay Area.

So there's there's no definitive answer on that.

That's something that we would continue to have conversations with the Cleveland Airshow organizers around what the future might look like.

Thank you for that answer.

But also, if we're talking about revenue, that will take away from the revenue that the residents bring to the city of Cleveland.

Because we're talking about budget, right?

Budget and revenue today, correct?

So if you're going to either shift it or take it away, that's a huge amount of revenue that the city of Cleveland has been bringing in for years.

So you got an open-end topic of not knowing where that's gonna be, but the residents are part of this decision making or or uh at least have a voice on you know the activity they have been embracing all these years.

So I get the shift of um of you want to uh um close Burke Lake front, but you like you say it's open in conversation.

So if the residents don't have the entertainment that they have been used to receiving, you know, and that's revenue that's coming to the city of Cleveland, you know what happens to that.

Um Chief?

Yes, thank you.

Yeah, Chair to the Chief.

So to the councilwoman through the chair, a couple things.

Um, although people pay ticket prices to go to the air show, that doesn't come to the city, that goes to the air show.

So there's no admissions taxes uh because they're a tax exempt organization, so those ticket prices that people pay go directly to the air show, which is a nonprofit organization that kind of just operates to operate the air show.

So that's not there wouldn't be a loss of ticket prices.

The only real sort of economic loss to the city if the air show was to leave, and we hope that they don't, uh, would be around some maybe 15 to 30,000 in parking tax.

Uh so pretty minimal uh uh drop.

That said, it's really important to us to continue working with the air show.

We know it's a really important part of Cleveland's culture, and we want to maintain uh the air show in the city in whatever capacity we can, which is why we've been having ongoing conversations uh with the air show folks about that.

Um your question about the TIF right now.

This 450 acres generates pretty minimal property tax.

If we were to convert to another use that was a taxable use, uh that would then contribute into the the TIFF, which could then be used to pay for public improvement projects, not only at the lakefront, the river front, downtown core, but really throughout the entire city.

Thank you.

Well explained, but also the point of this meeting is to also to engage with the residents.

So not so not being facetious.

You just basically kind of said that it doesn't matter what the residents' entertainment because now the air show receives that benefit and not the city, but that's entertainment that the residents come downtown for, not only for the city of Cleveland, that's a citywide.

And also in the suburban areas.

So you're taking away the benefit of enjoyment that uh residents got accustomed to, and we're not sure where that's going to shift to at the end of the day.

Sorry, just to the councilman to the chair.

If that was the impression I gave, that's not what I intended.

I was really focusing on the budget implications.

Um but this is part of the knowing how important the air show is to Clevelanders is part of why we're having ongoing conversations with them about what the future would look like for them if BERC was to close.

Right.

Thank you.

I appreciate that, but we also have to consider the um the um residents citywide who also put money in the city for various reasons for their entertainment too.

And we want to keep that uh activity going.

And my final question is I'm still waiting to chair to the committee.

I'm still waiting for that tour.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

That's a good one.

Thank you for the reminder.

And I will say, just for clarification to the listening audience, and as a human that doesn't want to get banned from the harp, uh I the conversation today is very narrowly tailored on direct money coming into the city of Cleveland as a revenue item in our budget.

Uh when we talk about something like the air show and knowing that people come uh they stay in hotels downtown, uh there are restaurants that benefit from it.

We we there are many secondary, tertiary benefits from the air show uh that uh become increasingly difficult to quantify as they get further and further from the direct city budget.

Uh so I think today's conversation is not to minimize that.

And if if anything, I think the conversation down the road is understanding uh if the airport were to close, what is a new air show format that is allowing the communities and businesses that have for so many years benefited from this attraction to be able to do so here rather than us like shifting it somewhere beyond the city of Cleveland or beyond the county, and and we are now we are talking about the loss of of direct dollars, it's just harder for us to quantify in a moment, right?

Um so with that, uh Councilman Harsh and then Councilman Hudson act uh asked to jump back on.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um appreciate the opportunity to sit in on your committee here today, and uh uh when you're Christopher K being misgendered as a daily part of life.

So I've already gotten my first councilwoman harsh email out of the way for the year.

Most most other Charlies are uh female Labradors, so I gotta find there's nothing wrong with being mistaken for a woman.

Um I've got the song uh you don't know what you got until it's gone.

Cinderella hair metal.

Remember that that band?

Uh playing in the back of my head because I'm really trying to look at this from perspective of what happens if we never get to go back.

Um I've had a number of people over the years tell me that uh having a downtown airport is an asset, and uh city is in many ways a collection of assets.

Um and it would be foolish to get rid of it.

And some of these folks I've considered fairly intelligent people.

Um I'm just trying to wrap my head around the full impact of what this is, and I I do appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation.

So uh I didn't know anything about airport operations four years ago, and today I know barely a little bit more than nothing.

Um but I did learn that airlines are our customer.

Uh that's who we generate most of the revenue that operated that runs airports.

Um, and um, and I believe through the chair, I mean uh director of Francis, you are an expert in airport operations.

This is your whole field, and you work in a field of people around the world that that also operate airports.

Um with that.

Um I believe the airlines themselves are also subsidized.

Through the chair to the director.

Could you talk a little bit about how airline subsidy works on a federal level?

Because I've heard this my whole life.

I don't quite understand how it works.

Or I mean whoever wants to.

Well, thro through the chair.

If you're you're talking about federally, that's that's something I I can't really greatly elaborate on.

What I can tell you is that uh certainly there are federal contracts that certain airlines enter into to um to carry federal workers uh on prescribed routes uh that are agreed upon.

Um but the the airlines are uh are generating revenue through their passenger activity through the air cargo that they're carrying uh and those are their primary sources of revenue that that fund their operations.

I I've heard it said that without federal subsidy, nobody in America would be able to fly anywhere because the cost of a ticket would be too expensive if the cost of the ticket was actually covering the entire operation of it of an airline.

Is is that just misinformation that's been floating around for decades that I keep hearing or there may be some uh contributions, but by and large the the revenues that are generated at an airline are coming from uh those that are paid through tickets.

Um there there are ticket taxes uh that are assessed that go to the federal government.

Um there are also PFCs or well, PFCs come to the airport, that is a fee that is on a ticket that benefits the airport where the the passenger is departing from, but the the uh the lion's share of the operations for an airline are covered through the revenues that they're generating uh from their their actual business of flying aircraft.

So it's not some massive federally subsidized industry that we're just sort of benefiting from.

People pay their tickets, their tickets pay for the airlines, the airlines buy rentals, they they buy space at airports.

We benefit from having those airline partners operating at Cleveland and providing services that uh there's great demand for for the benefit of our local economy.

Okay.

Um through the chair, when we have conversations with the airlines and discuss landing fees and and uh renting space at air at the airports, do we package Burke and Hopkins as one uh entity when we say, hey, Cleveland has these options, and you've got this one over here and this one over here.

Is that part of our offerings, or is it they just only care about one?

Through the chair, if if you're speaking of our air service development strategy and those efforts to uh to grow commercial service uh in in the Cleveland Greater Cleveland area through Hopkins, it is really about Hopkins.

There are, because we have all of the services and facilities that are necessary for a commercial flight to operate.

Um there have been, as was discussed at the table, uh small scale uh commercial activity that is operated at Burke in the past, uh, but those uh did not require TSA, those did not require other types of services that would need to be in place.

Our primary objective when we're speaking to airlines and and and what they are largely interested in is hearing about uh the opportunity for them to be successful in the market.

And that is really more built around the data um the demand, the the population uh and the reasons for them to consider bringing uh another flight, another aircraft, which is a very expensive asset into Cleveland to support uh air traffic.

So through the chair, do any of the airlines consider the existence of Burke to be a benefit?

Do any of them like Burke?

Do we know?

Through the chair, I can't directly answer that.

Um, but but what I can say is in the conversations that we have had, uh there was no indication that uh any airline felt that uh Burke's ongoing existence was critical to their future success in the Cleveland market.

Okay.

Um and then uh we uh I I thank you for putting the uh four other airports here.

I'm looking at you know page five and thirteen.

Um and uh I mentioned the other week that I was in Toronto and they have an airport downtown.

Um Billy something or Billy Bishop.

Billy Bishop, yeah.

Uh Billy Bishop uh seems to be doing very well, and I actually looked at its Wikipedia page um and it started turning a profit about 10 years ago.

They they were concerned about it being a drag on their it's obviously not Toronto International, they've got a much larger airport away from the city.

Um but I aside from these four, I'm wondering, um, could we talk a little bit about successful downtown airports, what they look like, what how how they I mean Toronto's three million people.

I understand that.

Um but how they differ from Burke and and what the sort of uh you know if there's key differences between a successful downtown airport and ours, which is clearly lagging.

Through the chair, I think uh uh that's a multi-layered uh undertaking, and and much of that I would say has to do with the the region and and the draw for aircraft activity within that region to really get a sense of and also how many other airports there are in a particular region because that may naturally drive more traffic to a specific airport if there are few airports that can accommodate the type of aircraft um that needs to access uh that area.

So there are many factors to consider.

Uh you know, we certainly can take a bit of a deeper dive and see uh but these three that I pulled out.

Um you know, we certainly can take a bit of a deeper dive and see uh, but these three that I pulled out, I mean, I I literally in my mind, I'm looking at the at the map uh visually, right?

And uh these were the three that came to mind that I I knew were very close to a downtown that are not commercial service airports because that's not what Burke is today.

And so those were the three that um that rose to the surface, so to speak.

And uh, but you know, we can take a further look into uh what other factors may be of greatest importance to determine the success of other downtown area airports.

One last comment, one last question.

Uh the comment is this um given that airports are enterprise funds that they're primarily funded by the airlines themselves, um, I don't consider it a big uh subsidy for the people of Cleveland.

Um we actually directly subsidize the West Side Market.

We directly subsidize Highland Golf course, like we actually use general fund money to keep those things afloat.

And we do it because we consider them cultural assets and the benefit to the community, and that's fine.

Um, but we don't actually spend general fund money on the airport.

There's that we've we've cleared that up.

There's no money from the Cleveland taxpayer that goes into subsidizing the airport, right?

In that you buy a ticket from an airline, yes, you pay for the services that airlines offer throughout the world.

I'm sure these these are global companies.

You're not just like paying for one airport, one place, you're paying for their services everywhere on Earth.

Um in that respect and in that light, I'm trying to think if there ever would be a time when having the airport could be a tremendous asset to the future of Cleveland.

And I look at a lot of cities that are bigger than us um that benefit from having a downtown airport.

Um and and I know that we have growth on our mind and we want to be be a bigger city.

Um so I I just I wonder about you know, once you do away with it, it never comes back.

It's a once-in-a-lifetime, not once in a lifetime, it's a once in existence decision.

There will no future generation will be able to undo this if we do this.

Um my last question is uh if we decided that Burke was not viable as an airport, but we really like the idea of a helipad or having some kind of much smaller airline operation uh to serve the needs of law enforcement in the news and uh, you know, if if somebody wants to come in on a very fancy helicopter from far away, uh would would it be possible to cut it off and and keep some kind of of air traffic usage?

Yeah, to the councilman through the chair, uh to keep general aviation, so that would be like a big private commercial jet able to fly onto Burke.

We have to keep this this runway as long as it is.

The kind of limit is where we're at.

Um so that's not something, you know, that's a major constraint for the site.

Something like a verte port, like just a place for a helicopter to land and take off.

We are having active conversations about the opportunity to keep that at Burke, and it seems like that's viable if it's commercially you know necessary.

So I'm sorry, there's no legal prohibition to have just helicopters and not airplanes.

You're you're allowed to serve just helicopters.

That's correct, and just serving helicopters uh I think is a nice middle ground in that it still allows for medical operations, it still allows for that kind of private transport as necessary, but doesn't have the same constraints that Burke does today.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Chair, those are all my questions.

It seems like we're actually not losing a lot of money on this at all.

Actually, we're losing no money.

Uh it's actually paid for.

Enterprise funds are magical that way.

Um so uh uh, you know, measure twice cut once, right?

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

And um separate from all of this, I'm working on a presentation or some information for all of you on the uh destinations and flight patterns, uh passenger patterns compared now compared to during the hub period.

Uh and it's actually some pretty interesting information.

But I bring it up because there is a federal program called Essential Air Service, and that is DOT dollars that make sure that otherwise unprofitable airports in more rural regional places have uh a lifeline and and a percentage of the a decent percentage of the flights that we lost during the hub era were to places like that, like this does not uh uh not being cynical by any nature, but places like Parkersburg, West Virginia that are smaller markets that were relying on Cleveland for connectivity beyond Cleveland.

Um so that program does exist.

Uh it just it might if maybe if that's what you were thinking of, it's different than what we are because we are a larger market.

So um so stay tuned on that.

I will turn it over to Councilwoman Hudson.

We had one person sign up for public comment, but he stepped out.

So while I run out into the hallway to see if he's still here, you're in charge, Councilwoman Gray.

Thank you, Councilman.

Um I just have uh one additional question.

Um I know that in several neighborhoods in Cleveland, where there are uh their destination neighborhoods like Ohio City, downtown, camps corners, um, special improvement districts have been created to help with um you know things like safety, neighborhood beautification.

And so my question is due to the um ownership structure that we learned about um of Berkeley Front at the last uh committee meeting, would the city or would we be precluded from creating a special improvement district for Berkeley Front?

Um, because that's normally something that's added to people's property taxes.

Yeah, just maybe a point of clarification.

Are you asking about a special improvement district for Burke operating as an airport the way it is today, or are you asking about like redevelopment in the future?

Redevelopment in the future.

You know, assuming that it is, you know, somewhere that it's not, you know, exclusively a park, that it is some sort of mixed use development, and that there would be um, you know, um businesses and other attractions that would draw people to it.

Yeah, to the council uh member through the chair, no, there would be nothing that would preclude us from putting a special improvement district on this site to then assess property taxes and then use that for uh the benefit of the property.

I will also add we already have a new community.

This is already included in our new community authority, which is very similar to a special improvement district, but with a little bit more oomph to it in that a special improvement district is limited to just property tax assessments.

New community authorities uh can do both property, but can also do things like an additional food and beverage fee or an additional admissions fee or a bed tax unique to the new commun the new community authority area.

So um not only could we do a special improvement district, they're not mutually exclusive, we already have a tool in place on BERC that could assess user-based fees, and then those fees could be used to redevelop the site if that was so desired.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman.

And with that and hearing no other questions, uh that'll be the conclusion of today's meeting.

We will reconvene this series of meetings in April once we're beyond budget and a budget reconciliation.

Uh however, uh director, if I could work with you and your team, perhaps an appropriate time to arrange some tours uh would be in March when we're post-budget, but prior to reconvening in April.

Uh so we will we will be in touch.

And with that, thank you for your time.

Uh thank you to my colleagues, and this meeting is adjourned.