Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/21/2012CITY COUNCIL 21 MAY 2012 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 21 May 2012, at 6:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: R. Greco, Chair; S. Dooley, P. Engels, P. Mackenzie, H. Riehle Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Deputy City Manager; D. Kinville, City Clerk; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; J. Ladd, City Manager's Staff; Col. Joel Clark, Lt. Col. C. Cudo, Lt. Col D. Finnegan, A Wright, G. Richards, R. McEwing, B. Stuono J. Buck, D. Deslauriers, G. Maille, P. & R. Nowak, J. Schwartz, J. Randazzso, L. Leavens, E. Mench, J. Floyd, L. Ventris, P. Taylor, S. Howe, R. Reno J. Nicholson, S. Trono, M. Young, M. Emery, S. Quest, W. Finard, S. McIntyre 1. Agenda Review: No changes or additions were made. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience not related to agenda items: Mr. Maille: Noted that on 20 April 2009, the City Council passed a motion to allow 20 more homes to be purchased by the Airport (vote of 3-1) along with a sound monitoring plan which would require research to be done to find an appropriate sound monitoring company. He asked the Council to identify when that will be done. Mr. Deslauriers: Regarding a letter from the FAA regarding questions of the guidelines for addressing - the Airport's response for reducing noise can include design, noise abatement, and airport use. 3. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Mr. Miller: The City has hired Kimberly Murray as Planning Coordinator. The Legislature has removed the requirement for local governments to deal with animals that attack other animals, etc. Legislation has also removed the requirement for the state to bury those who die indigent. Ms. Dooley: Attended the Regional Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday. The RPC's plan for the year was approved. One citizen was opposed to the Regional Plan's promotion of bicycle usage. 4. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of 23 April 2012 B. Sign Disbursements C. Consider adopting agreed upon procedures for Councilors D. Consider approval of Council priorities from Council workshop E. Consider approval of an entertainment permit for: Go America Go Beverages at Sheraton Hotel, 23 May, 5-7 p.m. Ms. Dooley asked that the City Council procedures be removed from the Consent Agenda. Ms. Dooley then moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented with the removal of item #C. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Council Discussion Regarding Possible Position on the F-35 Draft EIS Report and Proposed Beddown Program: Ms. Greco thanked members of the Air National Guard the Airport officials fro accepting an invitation to attend this meeting. She noted this meeting is the Council's opportunity to discuss this issue and is not a public hearing. There will be an opportunity for public input for any new information. Ms. Dooley asked for confirmation of the deadline for filing comments on the EIS. Mr. Wright said comments must be postmarked by 20 June 2012. Ms. Dooley questioned why comments would not be received via e-mail. Mr. Wright said the act says "written comment," and he felt this is only because the Air Force hasn't caught up with technology as yet. Ms. Dooley commented that in terms of developing the EIS, it doesn't seem that what has been learned from other parts of the country regarding noise in relation to residential areas and schools has been taken into account. An Air Guard member said this is not something they have taken a lot of time to look at. They could possibly do some research or work with representatives of communities regarding what they can control (e.g., number of days they fly, times they fly, etc.). Ms. Dooley asked how long that might take. The response was they could possibly have something in a week. Mr. Miller noted that at the previous meeting there was a question about posting a map of the affected areas. He said he asked the EIS consultant, Nick Germanos, for data maps and this request was refused, so the city can't provide it to the public. Ms. Greco asked if the Guard could help the city get that map. Mr. Wright said he would talk to Mr. Germanos. Ms. Greco noted she had talked to Mr. Germanos regarding the scoring matrix by which South Burlington was chosen. Mr. Germanos said he didn't have it and said the city should ask the State's Senators for this. A Guard officer said there is a way to ask for that through the Public Affairs Office. He noted that in 2009 the Department of Defense looked at all military installations in terms of: A. Mission (air space, training space, weather, etc.) B. Costs (to improve facilities, etc.) C. capacity D. Military considerations E. Environmental issues He then showed a map of the country with air space boundaries for military aircraft. He noted that air space in the Burlington area does not have much commercial traffic to impede military training. He also indicated other areas that fall into this category. Burlington facilities are also very well maintained and do not require high costs. The proximity of the base to the air space is also a positive factor for this area. Ms. Dooley noted that on page 70 of the executive summary the indication is that the affected residential area would increase by 62% to 80%. Locations such as Hill, Jacksonville, McIntyre, Mountain Home, and Shaw would all show a decrease in affected residential areas. Ms. Dooley said that in terms of human impact, more information is needed since the impact is so much greater here than elsewhere. Guard officers responded that the 7 "noise receptors" (Chamberlin School, Community Lutheran Church and residences on Shunpike Rd., Patchen Road, Airport area, Valley Ridge and Shamrock Rd.) would all show a decrease under both scenarios 1 and 2, with the exception of Valley Ridge which would increase by 1 dbl under scenario one and 2 dbl under scenario 2 and Shamrock Road which would increase by 1 dbl under scenario 2. Ms. Dooley noted that the baseline was entirely new and was not the same as the FAA system for determining a baseline. Guard officers explained the change of engine to a more powerful engine which was used in the 2005 study. He added that the forecast noise based on take-offs. Ms. Greco noted that the Air Force provided the FAA an estimate of what the noise level would be based on the configuration of the F-16 with one outside fuel tank. That estimate was used to draw the 65 db line. What happened in reality is that there had to be 2 external fuel tanks. That is the difference between the 2006 noise estimate and what is actually happening today. Ms. Greco added that the FAA has to do its own study based on what the Air Force has told them regarding noise. Mr. McEwing said they are updating the noise exposure maps using the FAA methodology. There will be noise exposure maps for that in about 6-9 months. Ms. Dooley then read from the School Board letter of response to the EIS. Mr. McEwing responded that the Airport has no intention of changing the noise compatibility program and will not change the boundary. Ms. Greco noted that in an appendix to the EIS report where they talk about the impact on homes, it says that property within a noise zone (65 dbl) may be affected by the availability of federal loans. According to HUD, the FHA, etc., these sites will not be acceptable for insurance, subsidies, etc. The recommendation is for sound attenuation and written disclosure of the 65 dbl locations. Mr. McEwing said the contours haven't changes and people have been selling their homes. Ms. Greco responded that the rules have changed. Ms. Riehle noted that Winooski and Williston are also affected by this, and there is an issue in Maine and New York state where these planes will fly for training. She asked how this is all "packaged" together. Mr. Wright said this is all taken into account and combined with public comment. He stressed that getting written comment in is important. Ms. Riehle asked what plans there are for mitigation of noise beyond what is done now. A Guard officer responded that they have noise abatement procedures but also have to take into consideration safety concerns. With the F-16's they have to use the afterburner for take-offs. They have adjusted landings and recovery options (6-7 miles off the runways; keeping power back as long as possible, etc.). They don't fly on Mondays, and they land before 10 p.m. and don't take off before 7 a.m. They also don't fly on Sundays, or if they have to, it is after noon. Ms. Riehle asked about new noise mitigation by the Airport. They say they won't change the lines, but in fact, the lines would change. Mr. McEwing said they would like to see a 25-30 food mound planed with evergreens, etc., for noise mitigation. He felt that would take care of ground noise from generators, planes that taxi, etc. Mr. Richards, Chair of the Airport Commission, said they are very committed to opening a dialogue. They need to get back to practical things to give people relief. He noted a meeting that occurred last week with Mr. Miller and Ms. Greco, and the hope is to improve relations with South Burlington and "do what we have to do." He felt what is needed is a "compromise we can all live with." He stressed that the Commission is committed to listening to South Burlington concerns. Mr. Engels asked to be "walked through" the affected neighborhoods. Ms. Buck said the neighborhoods include all of the Chamberlin School neighborhood, 20% of Mayfair Park, and a corner of Williston. She noted this involves 1000 to 1300 more homes than what the airport had previously indicated. Mr. Engels asked if the Guard does "touch and go" exercises here. The response was no. The can do low approaches but don't plan to do this with F-35's. Mr. Engels asked if South Burlington, Winooski, Williston and Burlington were all to vote against the F-35s would this have more impact. Mr. Wright said comments need to be in writing to the decision makers. Mr. Wright commented on the need for better communication. He said there are things the Guard can do with regard to how they fly and noise mitigation. He also noted that because this is a "civilian airport," Congress doesn't provide money to do anything, but there may be other ways to get funding off the base. He stressed that comments should stress the need for noise mitigation. Council members asked if it really makes a difference what the communities say. Guard members said they couldn't answer that as it was beyond their control. They recommended asking Mr. Germanos and those at the Secretary of the Air Force level. Ms. Greco noted the EIS contains a statement that homes within the 65 dbl zone a "not compatible with living." Ms. Riehle asked if Guard members wear hearing protection. The response was that anyone on the flight lines does, and pilots wear double protection. Those in the offices do not. Mr. Engels then raised the issue of F-22 pilots who are refusing to fly those planes because of safety concerns. The Guard acknowledged that is a concern and procedures are being tried to determine what is wrong with the aircraft. They don't know if there would be a similar concern with the F-35s. Ms. Mackenzie said it is unfortunate that there have been underlying concerns regarding airport operation and the "line has gotten blurred." She felt this shouldn't be as they are co-located. Ms. Greco urged people to read the EIS document. She said it raised more issues than she had ever thought about, including both the objective and subjective affects of noise (inability to sell or rent homes, sleep disruption for those who sleep during the day, effects on climate, etc.). According to the EIS, safety standards are not based on F35s because that aircraft is not yet deployed. They are based on the F22s, and these are the planes pilots are refusing to fly because of safety issues. Ms. Greco noted that new aircraft has a higher accident level than other planes. She asked how long the F-16s had been deployed before getting to the Vermont Guard. A Guard member said this is the first time he knew of that a new aircraft was being based at a National Guard base. He said they are proud to be on that list and noted he has 2600 flight hours experience. Ms. Greco said she is not concerned with the ability of the pilots; she is concerned with the aircraft. Planes crash more when they are new, and when you put a new aircraft in an area such as this, it scares her almost to the point of "trumping" the noise issue. She didn't want "trouble at the end of the runway in South Burlington." She also noted that the F35s will carry 18,500 pounds of fuel. The F16s carry 7000. She asked where fuel would be jettisoned. A Guard member said they jettison fuel over Four Brothers Island in Lake Champlain. Ms. Greco said that has a potential for getting into the area's water supply. Mr. Wright said that would be rare, but he acknowledged the potential is there. He felt it wouldn't be detected in drinking water, but could impact wildlife. Ms. Greco also raised other ecological issues such as the potential to run out of fossil fuels and water. She also noted the potential for a change in the mission once the aircraft is located here. This could change the impact on the environment. She cited a statement in the EIS that the Air Force will be making changes to the aircraft, and that troubles her as well since the impact of those changes is not known. The Council then accepted public opinion restricted to new information. The following comments were solicited: Ms. Mench: Mayfair Park resident who noted their area is eligible for historic designation and questioned the devaluation of property. She said she spoke with an attorney who felt the city's comments won't have an impact on the decision to deploy the aircraft here. She felt the city should hire an attorney. Mr. Leavens: Chamberlin District resident was concerned because at the EIS hearing may people didn't get a chance to speak because the Air Force "front-loaded" all the speaking opportunity. He read from the rule as to how those hearings should be held, and said this hearing violated the rules. He also noted that Table 6.7 indicates that the F35s would be 3 to 4 times louder than the F16s and also cited the effect of low-frequency noise. Mr. Randazzo: Said he has seen the F16s doing "touch and go" operations. He said asking the Air Force to "study itself is like asking Ford to say whether it is better than Chevy." Ms. Schwartz: Asked the Council not to "yield to the hype." Felt the people are just lines on a map to them, not faces. Questioned whether people will continue to maintain their homes if they can't sell them. Mr. Nicholson: Read the EIS and thought it is a good idea. Felt the airport is part of why this is a desirable place to live. Felt there should be follow-up with noise mitigation strategies. Mr. Taylor: Felt the airport will grow, and it is the city's job to help mitigate the noise. Ms. Howe: Cited the economic impact and the potential effect on the Grand List and less revenue for the city. She asked if homeowners would be compensated for reduced home values. Ms. Reno: Noted this would impact Burlington and areas of Williston, overall an impact on a large part of Chittenden County. There are over 100,000 people here during a working day. Felt it was shameful and a stupid lack of foresight to approve something that has never been demonstrated. There are too many unknowns. Ms. Ventriss: Existing noise patterns haven't affected their lives. Was concerned with "fear mongering". Ms. Nowak: Has an office in the flight path in Williston with no issues. Asked if commercial planes would be subject to the same testing standards. Mr. Floyd: Mayfair Park resident. Cited the number of jobs that could be lost if the F35s come since people won't want to open businesses here. Asked if the city would welcome a private business with so much noise and air pollution. Mr. Trono: Said Mr. Germanos told him he can't figure out why Vermont was chosen. Also said Air Force lawyers told them not to consider loss of property values, etc., because they could be sued. Couldn't understand why Congressional leaders, the Governor, etc., don't consider measures to unite communities, not divide them. Ms. Quest: Noted that the EIS said the fewer flights of the F35s would be offset because they are much louder. Also noted that residents of Country Club Estates feel they are in a 'cancer belt' which they think is from air pollution out there. Ms. Emery: Noted that nothing in the way of noise mitigation other than buying out homes has been done. Was concerned for the City Center which will be dependent on people getting there. Was also concerned with the effect on schoolchildren: learning is affected by noise, and when several planes take off at once or consecutively, stress hormones go up. Felt the Air Force has options, and this is not the only choice. Mr. Young: The cost of aircraft is mindboggling. Felt they should build more F16s. Also noted that the airport can find the money to build parking garages but not sound barriers. In a show of hands the following audience survey results emerged: Mr. Engels asked if it is possible to state the city's concerns without taking a position. Ms. Riehle said there should be an agreement to work with the airport on issues and a statement to the Air Force regarding the unmet need for noise mitigation. Ms. Mackenzie agreed with both Mr. Engels and Ms. Riehle. Ms. Dooley: Felt the F35s were not compatible without commitments to address noise and environmental issues. Felt the laws are not well matched to our times (I.e., the aircraft using so much fuel). Ms. Greco: The Environmental Impact Study says it is a bad idea. Ms. Dooley then moved that the City Council take a position in opposition to the basing of F35s in South Burlington, such position to include a partial list of mitigating commitments should the decision be to base the F35s here and also strong support for our Green Mountain Boys. Ms. Riehle seconded. The motion passed 4-1 with Ms. Mackenzie opposing. 6. Continue Hearings on Interim Zoning Applications: a. Interim Zoning Application #IZ-12-01 of New England Federal Credit Union for a planned unit development to: 1) raze an existing office building, and 2) construct a 3,920 sq. ft. drive-in bank facility, 1000 Shelburne Road: Mr. Miller noted that a continuation is recommended. Ms. Riehle moved to continue IZ-12-01 of New England Federal Credit Union until 4 June 2012, to include possible entry into deliberative session. Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously. b. Interim Zoning Application #IZ-12-02 of University Mall, LLC, to 1) raze an existing commercial building, and 2) construct a 6,000 sq. ft. building to be used for shopping center use, 205 Dorset Street: Ms. McIntyre reviewed the previous presentation and noted that they found out on Friday that there was a new process which requires them to meet a presumptive test regarding sustainable agriculture, affordable housing, open space, and form based codes. She then addressed these issues as follows: Sustainable agriculture: There is no agriculture on the Umall site. 89% is covered with impervious surface. There is no adverse impact to agriculture in the area. Open Space: There is no open space on the site and none planned for the site. This is a redevelopment of a commercial site with a commercial building. Affordable housing: There is no affordable housing on the site or on this lot. There will be no impact on housing of any sort. Form Based Codes: Retail is a permitted use under form based codes; form based codes call for 4 parking spaces per 1000 sq. ft., and this application asks for a waiver closer to that than the 5.1 existing spaces per 1000 sq. ft; 127 ft. wide lot - this lot is pre-existing; lot coverage under form based codes is a maximum of 70%, this is 74.9% and is being reduced under this application; form based codes call for a front setback between 6-18 feet, and this is 15 feet; form based codes call for 0 side setback and a minimum of 3 foot rear setback, and this is 5 feet on the side and 24 feet in the rear. Form based codes call for 2-story buildings, and this proposal is for a one-story building, closer to the sidewalk with landscaping to give it more of a presence and a dominant entry-way. The building will be accessible from all sides. Ms. McIntyre noted that tenants in the Mall have 50-year leases which include a prohibition against 2-story buildings in front of the Mall. Mr. Engels noted that City Center will be across the street, and this is an important corner. He felt it was incumbent on applicants to show how this will be compatible. He also appreciated the limitation of the 50-year leases. Ms. Riehle felt the renderings show a building that is much more attractive than what is there now. Ms. Greco stressed that the plan presented to the DRB must be identical to the one the City Council approves. Ms. McIntrye said it is important to know if they meet the first part of the test as it doesn't make sense to proceed if they don't. Ms. Mackenzie then moved to continue IZ-12-02 until 4 June 2012, with a deliberative session possible. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continue Discussion on the NGA Permit Request for Catered Event August 22, 2012, from 5-9 p.m., on City Property, for ticketed fundraiser for up to 175 people. Beer and wine are expected to be served: Mr. Fargo said the ten will hold 175 people, but he didn't think it would necessarily be full. Mr. Miller said they could have 175 people if they got that many requests. He noted the city has never issued a permit such as this for alcohol/beer, and he would say "no." The applicant does not have sufficient parking, according to the DRB, to handle 175 people, and noted the NGA has requested to use 38 city parking spaces. Mr. Fargo said the NGA has 32 spaces on their site. Mr. Miller noted this is a permit request under the Parks Ordinance, not a regular entertainment permit. Ms. Riehle noted the tent will be up all summer and asked how many events there would be. Mr. Fargo said 2 to 4 from 11 August through October. They hoped all events would need extra parking and all would require alcohol/beer. Ms. Riehle asked what else the tent might be used for. Mr. Fargo said it could be used for programming. Mr. Miller noted that the City Attorney has said this would not be a precedent setting situation. The City Attorney also suggests the city be named as additional insured on the NGA liability policy. Mr. Fargo said there is no problem with this. Ms. Dooley said she is comfortable with 2 to 4 events. Mr. Riehle moved to approve the NGA request with correction on the permit (name and number of people for each event). Further, that there be a modest fee of $50.00 per event. Certificates of insurance with the city names as additional insured shall be provided to the city, and the NGA will be responsible for any damage to the grounds. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Consider and Approve a Resolution Establishing Fiscal Year 2013 Water and Sewer Rates and Sewer Connection Fee: Mr. Miller said this is consistent with the adopted budget. Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Resolution Establishing Fiscal Year 2013 Water and Sewer Rates and Sewer Connection Fee as presented. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Consider and Approve a Resolution to Create A Fueling Station Reserve Fund: Mr. Miller noted that a 10 cent per gallon surcharge has been collected in the past, but the money was going into the general fund. Money has been budgeted in FY12 and 12 to catch up. This will not be an additional fee; it will just segregate this money. Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Resolution to Create a Fueling Station Reserve Fund as presented. Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Consider and Approve a Resolution to Create an Emergency Management Training-Paramedic Reserve Fund: Mr. Rusten noted that if someone who has been trained at South Burlington expense leaves his/her position, the cost of training must be repaid to the city's reserve fund. That fund presently doesn't exist, and this resolution will create that fund. Money could only be removed from that fund by the Council. Ms. Riehle moved to approve the Resolution Creating an Emergency Management Training-Paramedic Reserve Fund as presented. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Consider Approval of a Resolution to Document Fringe Benefits for Certain Employees: Mr. Miller explained that the documentation of the Council approving these benefits cannot be found. The suggestion is that all of these employees get $300 a year in lieu of these benefits. In Public Works, field people would get an additional $300 for clothing at the discretion of the Director. The total cost would be the same as it has been, about $6000 a year. The City Manager, Deputy City Manager, and Public Works Director are excluded from this benefit. Ms. Dooley felt it was important to show appreciation for non-represented staff. Ms. Dooley moved to approve the fringe benefits for certain employees as presented. Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Discussion and possible appointment of City Treasurer: Ms. Kinville said she recognizes the authority of the Council over the appointment of a Treasurer. She asked to have the Treasurer be able to speak out if there is something he or she disagrees with without fear of repercussion. She noted this had been a problem in the past. Ms. Greco asked if Ms. Kinville will continue to collect taxes. Ms. Kinville said she has no authority to do so but can do it and has no problem continuing to do it. She said she would be acceptable to a memorandum of agreement to do that. She noted that most people think the City Clerk collects taxes, but it is actually the City Treasurer. Ms. Kinville also said they still need to maintain a separation of the two positions so there is no influence over the elected position. Ms. Riehle then moved to appoint Bob Rusten as Treasurer, effective 1 July 2012. There will be no change in Mr. Rusten of Ms. Kinville's salaries in FY'13. Mr. Engels seconded. Ms. Kinville said there should be a deputy or assistant Treasurer who can sign checks, transfer funds, etc. Mr. Miller said that will be the responsibility of the Treasurer, and the plan is to have 4 to 6 people involved (e.g., investments, transfers, etc.). He added that if Mr. Rusten saw something of concern, it would be his obligation to come to the Council. In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously. 13. Discuss CCTV Recording of Meetings & Priorities: Ms. Mackenzie said she will be talking with Lauren-Glen and will report back. 14. Discussion and Possible Approval of the Pension Advisory Committee Investment Policy Statement: Mr. Engels said the committee has done a great job on this and on resolving prior pension problems. The statement focuses on the fund manager, which is now Prudential. The will be an RFP for fund manager in the future; however, Mr. Engels felt it would be good to approve this plan with Prudential at this time. Mr. Rusten said the City Attorney's concerns have been satisfied. Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Pension Advisory Committee Investment Policy Statement dated 21 May 2012 as presented. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 15. Review and Confirm Calendar Dates for Upcoming Meetings: No issues were raised. 16. Liquor Control Board: Ms. Riehle moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Miller presented Liquor License requests from Chipotle Mexican Grill and Cupola Golf, Inc. Ms. Dooley recused herself as an abutter to Cupola Golf. Ms. Mackenzie moved to approve the Liquor License requests from Chipotle Mexican Grill and Cupola Golf, Inc., as presented. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Ms. Riehle moved to exit Liquor Control Board and resume regular session. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 17. Other Business: Corrections were made to the Procedures for Councilors including the addition of "forwarding constituent correspondence to the City Manager." Also, during "other business," Councilors may request agenda items for subsequent agendas. Ms. Riehle moved to approve Procedures for Councilors as amended. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Council, by motion made and duly seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY COUNCIL 21 MAY 2012 PAGE 8 Ms. Emery: Noted that nothing the way ofnoise mitigation other than buying out homes has been done. Was concenled for the City Center which will be dependent on people getting there. Was also concerned with the effect on schoolchildren: leanling is affected by noise, and when several planes take off at once or consecutively, stress honnones go up. Felt the Air Force has options, and this is not the only choice. Mr. Young: The cost of aircraft is nlindboggling. Felt they should build more F16s. Also noted that the airport can find the money to build parking garages but not sound barriers. In a show of hands the following audience survey results emerged: Those who support the coming ofF35s: Total: 11 Live in the city: 8 Live in an affected area: 2 Those who oppose the coming ofF35s: Total: 28 Live in the city: 28 Live in an affected area: 24 There were no "undecided" votes. Mr. Engels asked if it is possible to state the city's concerns without taking a position. Ms. Riehle said there should be an agreement to work with the airport on issues and a statement to the Air Force regarding the unmet need for noise mitigation. Ms. Mackenzie agreed with both Mr. Engels and Ms. Riehle. Ms. Dooley: Felt the F35s were not compatible without commitments to address noise and environmental issues. Felt the laws are not well matched to our times (I.e., the aircraft using so much fuel). Ms. Greco: The Environmental Impact Study says it is a bad idea. Ms. Dooley then moved that the City Council take a position in opposition to the basing ofF35s in South Burlington, such position to include a partial list ofnlitigating commitments should the decision be to base the F35s here and also strong support for our Green Mountain Boys. Ms. Riehle seconded. The motion passed 4-1 with Ms. Mackenzie opposing.