The latest resolution proposed by Burlington City Council Progressives setting noise and safety standards for the Burlington International Airport is reckless, risky and unnecessary, says Frank Cioffi, president of the Greater Burlington Industrial Corp.
During a news conference Thursday at the Burlington Harbor Hotel, proponents of basing the fighter jets with the Vermont Air National Guard said setting airport noise and safety standards would prevent commercial aircraft from using Burlington International Airport, cleaving Vermont from the global economy.
“The airport provides Vermonters and Vermont employers and businesses the gateway to the world,” Cioffi said, adding that the proposed resolutions “could have potentially economically devastating consequences if they are not thought through.”
This comes a day after Progressive councilors announced their latest “compromise” resolution opposing any aircraft that performs below the safety record of the F-16 fighter jet, which is currently used by the Guard, or exceeds baseline noise levels at the airport.
Councilor Vince Brennan, P-Ward 3, said the compromise resolution, which includes language recommended by the City Attorney Eileen Blackwood, is designed to maintain the status quo at the airport.
Councilors will vote on two resolutions, one outright opposing the aircraft and another setting noise and safety standards at the city-owned airport, during a special meeting on the issue Monday. The resolution opposing the F-35 will not pass the council but sends a symbolic message, Brennan said.
The compromise resolution would carry the “unintentional consequence” of barring up to 50 percent of the commercial aircraft now operating at the airport, said Dale Rocheleau, senior counsel at Downs Rachlin Martin, a Burlington law firm consulting with GBIC on the F-35 basing.
Because safety parameters in the resolution are tied to the safety record of the F-16s, which have a better safety record than commercial aircraft, according to the Guard, the resolution will significantly scale back the airport’s operational capacity, Rocheleau said.
He said the city does not have the authority to interfere with military operations. He said the compromise resolution implicitly opposes the F-35, which could force taxpayers to bear the cost of possible litigation.
Brennan will consider amending the resolution ahead of the vote in order to set the proposed safety parameters equal to the safety record of all aircraft at the airport, rather than the F-16.
“I’m definitely going to explore this a little bit,” he said.
Brennan said the compromise resolution has the support from councillors outside the four-member Progressive caucus. He did not name the possible supporters.
Even if the council amended the resolution to set safety parameters consistent with the airport’s current operations, Rocheleau said such a resolution would still be too risky.
Speakers during the news conference Thursday restated the F-35’s importance for the future of the Vermont Air National Guard and the state economy.
The F-35 will ensure that the state retains the 1,100 jobs at the Vermont Air National Guard, Cioffi said.
Also, the services provided by the Guard under their current mission are worth $2.8 million, Cioffi said. He estimated that the cost to replace the Guard’s equipment would be $12 million. Both these benefits would need to be paid for by Burlington taxpayers if the F-35 were prohibited from basing in Burlington, he said.
Lt. Col. Chris Caputo of the Vermont Air National Guard said the block 30 variety of the F-16s, which are currently used by the 158th Fighter Wing in Vermont, are not scheduled to be upgraded. These jets, he said, will be unsuitable for use in about seven to eight years.
Ann Stefanek, a spokeswoman for the Air Force, confirmed that the block 30 F-16s are not scheduled to be upgraded. However, she said this could change after the Air Force drafts its next five-year budget plan.
If the F-16s were to be retired, she said it is too early to say when.
“That decision has not yet been made,” she wrote in an email Tuesday afternoon.
Even if the F-16s were upgraded, Caputo said the jets would not be suited to meet the Guard’s long-term strategic fighter jet objective.
Without an upgrade or a replacement fighter jet, which would end the Guard’s current fighter jet mission, Caputo said there could be a significant job loss.
Caputo said that when the 174th Fighter Wing Air National Guard Station in Syracuse, N.Y., replaced its fighter jet fleet with unmanned aerial aircraft, it reduced the station’s employee count from about 1,100 to 300.
The Air Force has said the F-35s would arrive in Burlington in the year 2020 if selected by the Secretary of the Air Force, a decision that could be as soon as Nov. 4.
