RESIDENTS WOULD GET A SAY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER PUTTING ANY AIRPORT PACT TO VOTE OF RESIDENTS.

Byline: Sylvia L. Oliande Staff Writer

BURBANK - Burbank voters would be able to force the city to seek their approval of any plan to expand or move the Burbank Airport terminal under a ballot measure the council on Tuesday is expected to schedule for an election.

The council has three options: The city can hold a special election this summer, wait until the presidential election in November or hold off until an already scheduled municipal election in February 2001.

Whatever the council decides to do, city leaders said giving voters the chance to have final say in any plan was the proper way to move ahead after they rejected a bid to put a disqualified citizens' initiative on the ballot.

``It's the best of all worlds,'' Councilman David Laurell said of the council's alternative. ``It gives the city a legitimate way to negotiate a deal and then go to voters to say, this is what we can do; it's a real-life, tangible thing. Do you like it, or do you not?''

Victor Gill, spokesman for the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, said the agency has not had time to consider the ramifications of the city asking its residents to approve any negotiated solution.

``We're obviously very interested in what they do, but we don't have any judgment about it,'' Gill said. ``It's a question of us wanting to respect their own internal deliberation procedure and work from there.''

The citizens initiative proposed by the group Restore Our Airport Rights would have required a curfew and other limits as a condition of any terminal expansion plan. The city rejected petitions qualifying the measure, saying ROAR failed to properly identify proponents' petitions, and for other technicalities.

Council members declined this week to overlook the technicalities and put the measure on the February 2001 ballot anyway. Instead, the council backed a measure that, if passed, would require any deal to go before the voters before it can be implemented.

The council's proposal does not propose any specific plan for voter approval.

According to a staff report, the first alternative is to hold a special precinct or mail-in election after July 4 and before the November general election.

The advantage to that option, which would cost between $48,000 and $70,000, would be that the issue would not get lost among the dozens of other state and local measures that are expected to be on the November ballot. A disadvantage would be that voters might be confused because it would be close to the presidential general election.

The second option is to put the measure on the November ballot at a cost of about $47,000. That would allow the city to put the issue on the ballot soon, and it might result in a higher voter turnout. But the city would run the risk of the measure getting lost in the shuffle of other measures.

Finally, the city can wait until the Feb. 27, 2001, primary election, a regularly scheduled municipal election, so the costs would be incidental.

City Manager Robert ``Bud'' Ovrom said the price tag is of minor importance to a city that has spent more than $9 million on lawsuits over the airport.

The concern is that during municipal elections, cities traditionally are happy to get even a 20 percent voter turnout. Officials want a higher number than that to vote on this issue.

``We may be able to do that by going in November, when everyone comes out to elect the president,'' Ovrom said. ``But the question there is, Will they get down to the bottom of the ballot?''