The city of Burlington obtained public officials liability insurance on Friday, clearing the way for Progressive councilors to introduce two newly drafted resolutions opposing the basing of the F-35 fighter jet at the city-owned Burlington International Airport.
Progressives on the council were poised to introduce two similar resolutions last week. These resolutions were later pulled from the agenda when the city attorney, Eileen Blackwood, discovered that the city did not have the proper insurance policy that would cover city officials in the event of a lawsuit resulting from their position on the F-35.
As of Friday evening, city officials were covered, Blackwood said. Though she had not read the policy as of Monday morning, airport officials told her that the policy does cover city officials when making decisions related to the airport.
She said her legal opinion advising the council on the city’s potential liability if the F-35 were based at the airport will be released to the public this week. The opinion is still being written, she said.
Councilor Vince Brennan, P-Ward 3, drafted two resolutions opposing the F-35 basing this week that will be introduced to the council.
Brennan said the first resolution permanently bans the F-35 from arriving at the airport. The second resolution, which temporarily bans the jet’s bed-down in Burlington until the second round of basing, is a compromise intended to garner broader support from other councilors.
He said the premise behind the resolutions is that Burlington is the property owner of the airport and has the authority to decide whether to allow the Air Force to base the F-35 at its airport.
Brennan said he will be introducing the first resolution that outright opposes the resolution. If it does not pass the council, Councilor Rachel Siegel, P-Ward 3, will introduce the compromise resolution, he said.
Referenced in the two resolutions is a 15-page memorandum detailing concerns of the F-35 basing in Burlington, such as the the city’s possible legal liability, health and safety issues raised by the Air Force, the possible loss to property values as a result of an increase in noise and many other worries raised by critics of the F-35 basing.
Council President Joan Shannon, D-Ward-5, said the tentative plan as of Monday morning is that the council will vote on the issue during a special meeting on Oct. 28.
Shannon said is not aware of any other obstacles preventing a vote on the issue. However, she did not anticipate the insurance issue earlier this month just days ahead of the expected vote, she said.
The discovery that the city did not have the insurance came one day before the Air Force submitted the final Environmental Impact Statement to the Federal Register, marking the beginning of a mandatory minimum 30-day waiting period before the Air Force could make a decision where to base the fighter jets.
The Secretary of the Air Force could make a decision as soon as Nov. 4. Last week, the council assured residents that the city will state its position on the topic before the end of the 30-day waiting period.
The Burlington Air National Guard station is still the preferred Guard alternative in line to receive 18 to 25 F-35 fighter jets to replace the current F-16s, as stated in the final EIS, which is the last assessment of the possible environmental and health consequences of basing a fleet of F-35 fighter jets at two of six proposed locations in the U.S.
