Taxes Finance Legal Battle Over Airport

City officials Tuesday defended the high cost of Burbank’s lengthy legal battle to curtail expansion of Burbank Airport, saying the city makes enough money from the airport and other tax sources to pay the costs of litigation.

In a memo to the mayor and City Council, City Atty. Dennis Barlow revealed that the city has spent a total of $6.2 million on litigation since the court battle over the airport began in late 1995.

Barlow, however, said much of the cost has been offset by revenues the city is gaining as a result of its legal victories. “Fortunately, because of a strong economy, all of the airport litigation expenses have, in fact, been paid out of year-end surpluses,” Barlow wrote.

He said part of the city’s legal bill in the airport battle went to defending the city’s transient parking tax, much of which comes from airport users. Burbank has taken in $5 million from that tax as of the end of 1998, and the money is coming in at a rate of $1.8 million a year, he said.

As a result, according to the memo, no departmental budget cuts have been required to finance the legal battle.

“These legal expenses are admittedly very high, but not legally protecting ourselves could be even more expensive, in terms of money and quality of life,” Barlow added.

In a related action, the Los Angeles City Council directed its attorneys Tuesday to pursue a lawsuit to force Burbank Airport to draft a detailed master plan, with additional environmental studies, on the proposed expansion of its terminal.

Los Angeles and Burbank have for years been locked in a legal dispute with the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority over plans to build a new 19-gate terminal. The two cities have charged that the expansion was moving forward without sufficient consideration of the noise and traffic impacts on surrounding residents.

An appeals court last month upheld the Airport Authority’s environmental study clearing the airport’s plan for a new terminal, but also allowed the city of Los Angeles to go back to Superior Court to raise new issues involving the expansion.

Councilman Joel Wachs said the council directed its attorneys to review the appeals court decision and report on possible options.

“Simultaneously, [the city attorney’s office] will go back to Superior Court and build a case for requiring the [airport authority] to do a master plan on their expansion program,” said Wachs. “They have yet to do a master plan and look at all the impacts including traffic and noise.”

Wachs said that if the authority prepares a master plan, it might more closely consider alternatives to reduce negative effects on the surrounding area, including imposing a nighttime curfew on takeoffs and landings.

Airport officials have done a study to identify ways to reduce the impact of noise on neighboring residents.

Times staff writer Martha Willman contributed to this story.