Council Cites Fears Over Terminal : Expansion: Burbank Airport commissioners to meet Friday to respond to list of demands and concerns.

The Burbank City Council has come up with a list of demands and other concerns that it says need to be addressed before it would approve a proposal to borrow $109.8 million to finance a new, larger Burbank Airport terminal.

The list, presented to commissioners of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority on Wednesday, suggests limiting the use of the $109.8 million to land acquisition only, imposing a mandatory curfew on flights, and compensating the city of Burbank for lost property taxes that would result from building the new terminal.

“The Airport Authority has not formed a response to it,” said Brian Bowman, the board’s president. “I, individually, don’t have too much difficulty with these (demands). But I am astounded that the city, at the last minute, would bring this forward.”

Airport officials will hold a special meeting at 9 a.m. Friday in the airport’s Skyroom to respond to the list--a move similar to the action taken by the Burbank City Council over the weekend.

Members of the council, saying they were stunned to hear about the $109.8-million proposal, held a special meeting on Sunday and ordered three Burbank airport commissioners to vote against it.

Monday’s vote by the airport’s board of commissioners was delayed for two weeks to give Burbank city officials more time to review all the documents related to the proposal.

Two days later, Burbank city officials returned to the Airport Authority with a list of items they identified as particular concerns to the council, such as the loss of about $2 million a year in property taxes from the Lockheed Corp. The airport, as a governmental entity, would not be required to pay the property taxes.

Though the Burbank City Council does not have direct power over the Airport Authority’s actions, it may dismiss Burbank’s airport commissioners at any time and appoint new representatives in their places.

Vice Mayor Dave Golonski and Councilwoman Susan Spanos, who oppose airport expansion, say they would not rule out trying to do just that before the Airport Authority votes on the proposal April 17.

“To me, there’s no question that if they had come forward with an entire package for the new terminal, with the same number of (aircraft) gates, they would have gotten approval and no opposition whatsoever,” Golonski said of airport officials.