Cities React to Idea of Ending Pact to Share Burbank Airprot : Transportation: Officials see hurdles to surprise proposal, though some say it is worth considering.

The big meeting on the future of Burbank Airport came up with more questions than answers.

Next step: another big meeting.

The city councils of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena, in their first joint meeting, gathered with the airport’s governing board Monday night to consider some big questions, chiefly whether they should refuse to expand the airport’s terminal unless the Federal Aviation Administration approves a mandatory curfew on late-night takeoffs, a rare step.

They came away considering a bigger question: Should Glendale and Pasadena simply butt out and leave the airport to Burbank alone?

They agreed to meet again in Burbank in about 90 days to resume the discussion.

An informal poll of council members from Glendale and Pasadena at Monday’s meeting found mixed feelings about Burbank’s demand that no larger airport terminal be constructed until a mandatory curfew is imposed. City council members said they support the idea of a curfew, but not enough to interfere with the independence of their city representatives on the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority.

The new issue that arose came from Burbank Councilman Ted McConkey, elected as a critic of airport noise, who suggested that the three cities dissolve the Joint Powers Agreement under which they operate the airport and leave it to Burbank alone.

“I would think that they would jump at the chance of getting out,” McConkey said. “It has been nothing but one big headache for them.”

The suggestion was opposed Tuesday by Carl Raggio, Jr., president of the Airport Authority, who was named to the authority by Glendale. Each of the three cities names three airport commissioners.

Raggio called McConkey’s proposal inflammatory, saying, “Burbank was the one who initially wanted to bring in the other cities.”

Others, however, thought the idea should be considered.

Philip Berlin, an airport commissioner named by Burbank, said the cities “should look at the JPA and see if there is a way to get out of it.”

“In fairness, it needs to be addressed,” said Sheldon Baker, a Glendale councilman. “I think I have more questions than I do answers at this point.”

Pasadena Councilman Chris Holden described the suggestion as worth exploring but added that he thought it was probably unrealistic because of the presumed expense.

“The city of Burbank couldn’t afford to buy out the other cities,” said Holden.

McConkey disagrees. He said Burbank could take over the operations of the airport by simply assuming the airport’s $21,675,000 debt while paying nothing to Glendale and Pasadena.

His fellow Burbank council members--saying the idea was McConkey’s, not an expression of the Burbank council’s goals--expressed skepticism Tuesday that the other cities would give up their share of the airport for free.

*

All three cities would have to vote to dissolve the Joint Powers Agreement they established to take over the airport from Lockheed Corp. in 1977 to keep it from closing.

“We would probably have to buy out the other partners,” said Burbank City Councilman Bill Wiggins. “We would not only have to assume the debt but also pay off the assets, which could amount to a whole hell of a lot of money.

“I would like to do it, but there is no way we can afford it,” he added.

Burbank Councilman Bob Kramer agreed that the issue is worth exploring, “but we have to see if we have enough funds to do it.” He suspects that the other cities would require some kind of payment.

“There is a tremendous advantage to partnerships, especially when we are all so strapped for resources,” cautioned Glendale Councilwoman Eileen Givens.

Burbank Councilwoman Susan Spanos said she wants to do more work on airport issues “before contemplating such a drastic measure” as taking it over.

William Paparian, mayor of Pasadena and an airport commissioner, said he doesn’t “know if it is something that is workable, but we will talk about it at the next joint meeting.”

The 20 city officials at Monday night’s meeting were polled on their support for Burbank’s proposed mandatory curfew, which would forbid takeoffs between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Fourteen officials said they favor it, but most said they still had questions about the feasibility of Burbank’s demand that the curfew be in place before construction begins on a new terminal.

“That means that nothing will get done until the curfew is in place,” said Raggio. “And that is a long shot.” It is uncertain whether the FAA, which resists such curfews, would approve, and the process is expected to take years.

*

Airport Commissioner Robert Garcin, of Glendale, complained that Burbank’s conditions--each city must approve the expansion plan--were holding up the airport’s legitimate business.

“It’s not reasonable,” he said. “The carriers are not going to agree to caps on their flights or a curfew on their flights, so they’re not going to be helping the process.

“If you want to really talk solutions, you’ve got to get demands for unrealistic results off the table, and they’re not coming off,” Garcin said. “So we’re going to stay like we are and keep operating like we have been. There is no room to move.”