CLEVELAND, Ohio – Closing Burke Lakefront Airport and redeveloping it into housing, retail and parks would be an economic win for Cleveland and the region – but it would also require a large upfront investment and would likely encounter plenty of time delays and bureaucratic red tape.
That’s the takeaway from two long-awaited studies released to the public Monday by Mayor Justin Bibb, who has long argued Burke ought to be closed and redeveloped.
The studies lay out the costs and benefits of closing Burke, and how Cleveland might go about it – but they do not take a position on whether the airport should close.
That’s a decision left to Bibb, and perhaps other future city leaders. In rolling out the studies on Monday, Bibb did not specify which of the options he might prefer or pursue, though he did issue the following statement:
“These studies are crucial in helping us understand the feasibility and potential benefits of transforming Burke Lakefront Airport into a space that better serves our community,” Bibb said in a news release. “The findings have reinforced my long-held belief that closing Burke is both possible and economically advantageous for Cleveland.”
All told, the studies conclude that closing Burke and building mixed-use development in its place would be the most economically productive option for Cleveland and Cuyahoga County. Much of the airport’s current flight-related business could relocate to other nearby airports, the studies found.
The actual process of closing Burke – if Cleveland indeed chooses to close it – would come with numerous hurdles, including legal challenges that could last years, the studies found.
And if local leaders want to close it quickly – say, sometime in the next decade – Cleveland would have to pay back upwards of $10 million to the state and federal government, among other costs, and win what could be a difficult approval process from the Federal Aviation Administration or Congress.
Here’s a look at the options and conclusions laid out in both studies. One sought to evaluate the economic impacts of closing Burke, and the second study sought to determine how city leaders could pursue a closure.
Three ways to close Burke
The airport layout plan, conducted by Albany-based CHA Consulting, identified the costs and hurdles of closing Burke to air traffic.
It laid out three closure options, but each comes with challenges or time restrictions:
1. Long-term scenario: Federal and state grants that Burke has received over the years carry time restrictions that stand in the way of a quick closure. Federal grant-related obligations expire in 2036, and state-related obligations expire in 2039. If Cleveland were to close Burke before then, it would have to repay the federal and state governments $9.4 million.
To avoid this payment, Cleveland could wait out its grant obligations. In that scenario, neither the FAA nor Congress would have to approve the closure. The challenge with this route is that Cleveland would have to sustain airport operations from its own budget, without federal assistance, between now and 2036.
2. Shorter-term solution: The FAA has the power to waive Cleveland’s grant-related restrictions through 2036, which would allow for a quicker closure. Cleveland would have to repay the $9.4 million in outstanding grants.
FAA approval isn’t guaranteed. The agency evaluates such requests on a case-by-case basis, and it has complete discretion on the outcome. To have a shot at approval, Cleveland would have to prove that the Burke closure would result in a “net benefit to aviation.” In this scenario, airport operators and others would likely sue the city, which would cost money and likely lead to other delays.
3. Congress route: Congress could pass a law that would shut down Burke and provide an end-run around the FAA approval process. While this “may seem like the quickest route,” the study warns that an act of Congress would require much lobbying, and additional time and work to secure passage.
In all three scenarios, Cleveland would could be sued by airport stakeholders, leading to delays and higher costs to the city, the study found.
Advantages and disadvantages to closing
According to CHA Consulting, there are both advantages and disadvantages to closing Burke Lakefront Airport.
One of the advantages would be cost savings for operating Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. Hopkins’ budget is currently tied to Burke’s, and since Burke operates at an annual loss of about $900,000, closing it would relieve Hopkins from covering those losses.
Another potential benefit is the redevelopment opportunities that could arise from repurposing the airport land into recreational or mixed-use spaces. However, redevelopment would be expensive because Burke sits on material dredged from the Cuyahoga River and harbor. And any new development would be adjacent to the existing confined disposal facilities for dredged materials, used by the Port of Cleveland and Army Corps of Engineers, and located on the north side of the property.
On the upside, those confined disposal facilities could be expanded with an airport closure, as the FAA would no longer limit their size.
On the downside, closing Burke could lead to several challenges.
If closed in the next decade or so – before federal and state grant restrictions lift in 2036 and 2039 – the city would have to repay $9.4 million. It wouldn’t be able to accept new grants in the meantime, meaning Cleveland would have to sustain Burke operations without federal assistance for several years.
The closure would also result in the displacement of aeronautical businesses, including major tenants like Signature and Aitheras, as well as other operations such as TV station helicopters, organ transplant services, and emergency helicopter services for Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals.
The city would need to buy out Signature’s lease. Signature recently made $16.5 million in capital improvements.
Demolition costs for the airport are estimated at $15.3 million, the study said.
Additionally, Cleveland would likely face legal challenges from tenants and other stakeholders. That could be similar to an ongoing airport closure attempt in East Hampton, New York, where legal fees have already cost that city $2.5 million.
Economic effects on Cleveland, Cuyahoga County
A study by Econsult Solutions, based in Philadelphia, looked at the economic impact of closing Burke Lakefront Airport. It found that closing Burke would result in only “relatively low true loss of economic activity” for Cleveland and Cuyahoga County.
In large part, that’s because many of Burke’s flight-related operations — which includes private passenger service, medical transport, and flight training that makes up more than 50% of its current business — could be absorbed by Cleveland Hopkins International Airport or the Cuyahoga County Airport.
Another 40% of Burke’s current business is non-airport related, the study found. One example of this dynamic, based on prior city records, could be the city’s recurring annual lease with a podcasting company for office space at Burke. Such non-flight-related businesses could relocate nearby, and therefore wouldn’t represent a “true” economic loss to the region.
Burke, today, generates about $77 million in “direct economic activity,” the study found. If closed, about $67 million of that could remain in Cuyahoga County, and $45 million of it could remain in Cleveland. With a closure, it’s estimated that $9.6 million would leave the county, and about $32 million would leave the city.
Included in the losses would be the Cleveland National Air Show, which the study described as one of the major “true economic loss[es]” associated with Burke’s closure. The air show would need to cease operations at Burke and could not “transfer to any [other] airport in the county in its current form,” the study says.
The air show represents about one-third of what the study describes as the “true economic loss” to the region due to a Burke closure.
Economic impacts of using Burke land for something else
Econsult’s study considered four economic scenarios for Burke:
-Keeping it as-is
-Retaining flight operations, but adding a 100-room hotel on the southwest corner
-Closing it altogether, and using it as 170 acres of parkspace, which would include playing fields, tennis courts, waterfront activities, and an indoor athletic complex
-Closing it altogether to construct a mixed-use development in its place. This would include 1,200 housing units, 100,000 square feet of retail space, a 100-room hotel, and 170 acres of greenspace
The most economically productive use of Burke’s land, as contemplated by the study, would be to close the airport and use the land for mixed-use development. That scenario could generate $92 million in economic impact per year, which includes current Burke business that could relocate elsewhere in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, the study found.
Keeping part of Burke open to flights, while adding a hotel, would generate the second-highest economic impact considered by the study. That would yield $83 million annually, but the city would still have to pay to operate the airport, which it does today at an annual cost of $1.2 million.
Leaving the airport as-is would continue to generate about $77 million a year, the study found.
And the least economically productive scenario would be turning the land into parkspace, which would total about $48 million. That figure includes $45 million in current business at Burke that’s expected to relocate elsewhere in Cleveland or Cuyahoga County.
These economic impact figures only reflect annual economic output, and do not include the upfront costs of remediation, redevelopment or regulatory compliance.
