Transportation Committee Meeting: Burke Airport Financial Impact Hearing (2026-02-04)
Transportation Committee Meeting: Burke Airport Financial Impact Hearing (2026-02-04)
The Transportation and Mobility Committee convened to examine the financial operations, economic impact, and future viability of the Burke Lake Front Airport (BERC). The meeting focused on a presentation by city administration detailing BERC's persistent operating deficits, its role within the city's residual airport funding model, and the potential direct economic consequences of closing the airport. While Councilman Slife emphasized the need for civil discourse and clarified that the meeting was for information gathering rather than decision-making, committee members pressed for data on development costs, lease strategies, and the feasibility of alternative uses for the site.
Consent Calendar
- Ordinance 1447-2025: Unanimously approved to establish subfunds for the North Coast Waterfront New Community Authority, correcting an administrative error that prevented the transfer of over $200,000 in collected parking fees to the authority since August 2025.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No members of the public provided testimony during this session; the scheduled commenter exited before speaking.
Discussion Items
Burke Operations and Financial Deficits
- Directors of Port Control and Finance presented data showing BERC has operated at an annual deficit for 26 consecutive years, with the average deficit over the last 20 years being $900,000. The 2025 deficit was $1.7 million, attributed primarily to a significant underground water leak and a new HVAC control system ($320,000 cost), rather than mismanagement.
- Financial Model Clarification: CFO Gilmartin clarified that BERC is a "fully residual" enterprise fund where the airline signatories bear all operating risks. The City's General Fund provides no direct subsidies to the airport. Currently, the airport system covers approximately 69% of costs through non-airline revenue (parking, concessions); the remaining 31% is charged to airlines as landing fees and space rentals, costs eventually passed to ticket purchasers.
- Revenue Sources: Parking generates roughly one-third of BERC's revenue, including daily, monthly, and special event parking. The administration noted that a portion of this revenue is recaptured by the city even if operations shift, as current parkers include federal workers and downtown commuters who may park elsewhere.
Economic Impact Analysis
- Administration Position: The administration presented two estimates for the direct annual fiscal impact on the City of Cleveland if BERC ceases operations: an independent economic study estimated a loss of roughly $500,000, while the City's internal Finance analysis estimated a net loss of between $200,000 and $100,000 annually, depending on the level of economic retention.
- Development Scenarios: The presentation outlined that a "lowest development" scenario (parks/green space) could result in a direct tax impact of $400,000, whereas a "mixed-use" scenario (retail, residential, hotels) could generate $3.3 million in direct tax impact.
- Councilman Davis's Position: Councilman Davis expressed strong opposition to the current trajectory, stating, "We are asking the residents of Cleveland... to subsidize this downtown Lakefront airport for people who play in the MBA to have a five-minute faster drive." She noted that $1.7 million is a significant loss that has never been justified by a path to profitability.
- Councilman Harsh's Position: Councilman Harsh expressed support for preserving the airport as a potential asset, stating, "Having a downtown airport is an asset... and it would be foolish to get rid of it." However, he acknowledged the need for a deep dive into the financials and asked if a reduced operation (e.g., helicopters only) could be viable to maintain medical and law enforcement access.
- Councilman Polentic's Position: Councilman Polentic argued against the obsession with redevelopment by stating, "Burke meaningful? Can Burke be operational where it becomes an asset... versus what the mayor... wants to do." He cautioned that the administration missed the opportunity to acquire 170 acres near Hopkins for the Browns and warned that the Burke closure could be the Mayor's "Waterloo" if not done in the best interest of citizens.
- Councilman Casey's Position: Councilman Casey expressed skepticism about the administration's approach, noting, "Of course they [counties] would [absorb traffic], because it's gonna just increase revenue for them somehow, some way." He also questioned why the city looked at specific downtown airports but not the revitalized Coleman A. Young Airport in Detroit.
Future Use and Regulatory Path
- Airline Sentiment: Deputy Chief Trivisano reported that all signatory airlines have been informed of the potential closure and expressed excitement or indifference rather than opposition, as the airport no longer serves as a critical backup for commercial operations.
- Comparative Analysis: The administration compared BERC to St. Paul, Kansas City, and St. Louis downtown airports. They noted that while those airports have more acreage and fewer soil development constraints, BERC's location on fill and limited development space (only 2 acres of taxable land out of 450) makes it a high-cost location for aviation infrastructure.
- Councilman Polentic's Concerns: He requested a detailed list of hangar square footage, leaseholders, and city department operations (e.g., Aviation Unit) to determine the impact of closure.
- Councilwoman Hudson's Inquiry: She questioned the feasibility of a heliport, to which the administration confirmed that a helicopter-only operation is legally and operationally viable without the need for a full runway.
Key Outcomes
- Next Steps: The committee agreed to schedule a tour of the BERC site for Council members in March 2026.
- Schedule Confirmation: The next hearing in this series will be held on April 1, 2026, to address the regulatory path to closure, followed by a final meeting on April 15, 2026, to discuss market absorption and redevelopment vision.
- Directives: Council members directed administration to provide detailed data on hangar specifications, lease terms, and city department relocation logistics. Councilman Davis requested a graphic illustrating the theoretical development restrictions on the site.
- Consensus: While the administration maintains that redeveloping the site offers a greater opportunity for direct economic impact to the city than current operations, Council members emphasized the need for a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis and requested further study on comparable airports (e.g., Billy Bishop in Toronto, Coleman A. Young in Detroit) before any final vote is taken.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com