Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 06/13/2016 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 13 JUNE 2016 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 13 June 2016, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; P. Nowak, T. Chittenden, T. Barritt, M. Emery ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; J. Barlow, City Attorney; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Louisos, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo, S. Quest, T. Harrington, Planning Commission; J. Kochman, J. S. Chalot, S. Dooley, J. Simson, J. Kiernan, N. Andrews, L. Black-Plumeau, K. Epstein, A. Griffin, J. Grossman, T. Bailey, M. Nygaard-Otsby, S. Baker, J. Cole, R. Kenney, J. Smith, D. Leban, K. Kain, G. Koslowski, K. Williams, J. Owen, J. Pasackow, K. McKenney, G. Taylor, K. Smart, K. Murphy, J. Dinklage, B. Goldberg, J. Lees, B. Nowak. J. Zeitz, B. Devine, J. Dumont, T. Cosgrove, C. Sargent, K. Robison, A. Johnston, C. Roy, L. Leavens, M. Mittag, J. Chalot, other members of the public. 1. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the agenda: Members of the Youth Advisory Board of the Child Center reviewed their mission and their proposed location at University Mall for young people to “hang out” in a safe and inviting location. They asked the Council for any possible financial support. Ms. Riehle explained the finding process for non- profits and said the Council might be willing to look at the 2017 budget if there are resources at the end of the 2016 budget. Mr. Kiernan cited problems at the Lime Kiln/Airport Drive intersection. He suggested a possible pilot program that would double the fined for speeding in the school bus zone in that are. 3. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Council members reported on events and meetings they had attended in recent weeks. Mr. Dorn: Staff reviews of senior managers have been taking place. The Public Safety Antenna is now erected. Tomorrow staff will participate in Emergency Procedures Training led by Fire Chief Brent. Staff members met with representatives of the Village at Dorset Park regarding the stormwater issues and are moving toward a resolution. Proposed language will come to the City Council for approval. The tax bill insert is on its way. 4. Consent Agenda: a. Approve Minutes for 27 May 2016 Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Ms. Nowak seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Interview Applicants for seats on South Burlington Committees, Boards, Commissions and Tasks Forces: The Council interviewed the following applicants for appointment to city boards, committees, commissions and tasks forces: a. Nicholas Andrews Development Review Board b. Leslie Black-Plumeau Affordable Housing Committee c. Jean-Sebastien Chalot Design Review Committee d. Sandra Dooley Affordable Housing Committee e. Keith Epstein Energy Committee f. Aimee Griffin Affordable Housing Committee (or Design Review Committee or Recreation and Parks Committee) g. James Grossman Bike/Ped Committee h. Tracy Harrington Planning Commission i. Jennifer Kochman Parks and Recreation Committee and Design Review Committee (the one-year appointment) j. Monica Nygaard-Otsby Planning Commission k. Sophie Quest Planning Commission l. John Simson Affordable Housing Committee m. Spencer Baker Pension Advisory Committee n. John Cole Pension Advisory Committee o. Richard Kenney Bike/Ped Committee p. Jennifer Smith Development Review Board q. Donna Leban Bike/Ped Committee r. Katie Kain Natural Resources Committee s. Gwen Koslowski Natural Resources Committee t. Kristin Williams Natural Resources Committee or Parks & Recreation Committee u. John Own Parks & Recreation Committee or Natural Resources Committee v. Karen McKenny Energy Committee w. Grant Taylor Energy Committee x. Kane Smart Development Review Board y. Barbara Devine Library Board of Trustees Ms. Riehle noted that interviews will be completed at next Monday’s City Council meeting. Applicants will then be notified of the Council’s appointments. 6. Discussion of Spotlight Conversation (postponed from the previous agenda): Mr. Dorn explained that the City was approached by Tim and Jennifer Bardin who run a small private performing arts facility in South Burlington. They questioned whether there is a place in City Center for a “black box” or larger proscenium theatre. Staff and the City Council met with them to see if there is the possibility of an addition to the TIF plan. The city would have to move quickly if they feel this is appropriate. If the City views this favorable, a feasibility study would be done. Ms. Riehle said she originally thought this would not be something used every day, but the Bardins convinced her that there are groups who are always looking for a place to practice and to perform, and the theatre would be used a lot. The Bardins noted that in other communities such theaters have brought a different group of people into the City Center. They also stressed that this would not be in competition with the Flynn as it would have different kinds of programming. There could also be programming in conjunction with the Flynn. Mr. Dorn said this would be a public space, professionally managed and could be run on the same basis as the Cairns arenas. Ms. Emery noted there was also discussion of a possible performing space/Library combinations. Ms. Kochman said that the current Library is not big enough to accommodate all the people who come to the concerts that are held there. Mr. Pasackow added that there is a tremendous need for program space for the Library, and he felt this could be an excellent complement. Ms. Murphy said the city’s schools also have a need for performing space when they have and “Artist in Residence,” and this would be a real plus for the schools. Mr. Chittenden asked the process to get this into the TIF. Mr. Dorn said the city would present a finance plan to VEPC. They could then agree that this would bring business and financial growth to the area and grant an approval. Mr. Dorn said this will be an agenda action item, and Tim Bardin will be invited to that meeting. 7. Public Response to alleged Open Meeting Law Violation Asserted by Nicole Citro on 9 June 2016: Ms. Riehle said she did not believe there was a violation of the Open Meeting Law. She said she spoke individually with Mr. Barritt and Ms. Emery and never were all three of them together in the conversation. Ms. Emery and Mr. Barritt confirmed that at no time was there a 3-way conversation. Mr. Chittenden asked that the whole City Council and the public be made aware before the last minute of things that have a regional impact. Ms. Nowak added that the Chair had spoken about “taking our time” to consider issues as the Legislature does, and the issue in question was “rushed through.” 8. Consideration and possible adoption of a resolution to intervene as a plaintiff in the federal F-35 NEPA litigation, Zbitnoff et al v. Deborah Lee James, 5:14cv-132: Ms. Riehle asked that the discussion be kept “civil” and that people deal with the issues, not the people involved. Mr. Chittenden raised the question of whether Ms. Emery can serve on the Council for this issue if she is a party to the lawsuit in question. He read from emails which he felt indicated that Ms. Emery was coordinating the funding for the lawsuit. He also read from the conflict of interest policy. Ms. Emery stated that she attended meetings of the Stop the F-35s group when she was not a Council member. She also stated she was not privy to this lawsuit, and that the lawsuit referred to in the e-mail was related to an Act 250 suit. Mr. Chittenden moved that the Council receive a third party opinion from a lawyer as to whether Ms. Emery can serve on the Council for this matter. Mr. Barlow said his obligation is to provide legal opinion to the Council, and he said he can render an unbiased opinion in this matter as it is the City’s Conflict of Interest Policy that is being cited. He then said that Ms. Emery is subject to the City’s Conflict of Interest Policy, and if she is a member of the Stop the F-35s group her first obligation is to disclose that interest and to recuse herself. Mr. Barlow said he did not see a way for others to force her to recuse herself. In the vote that followed, the motion was defeated by a vote of 2-3. Ms. Riehle then asked Mr. Barlow the difference between being a “party” to the lawsuit and being an amicus. Mr. Barlow said that in a lawsuit there are plaintiffs and defendants who have full rights to participate, ask for motions, ask for relief, etc. They can also appeal the decision of the Court. An “intervenor,” asks permission to participate fully in a lawsuit, and if that permission is granted, has all the rights of a plaintiff. An amicus is not a party to the lawsuit but has an issue that may not be represented by a party to the suit. This is usually done at the appellate level, but can be done at this level as well. The amicus cannot ask for relief or damages, cannot ask the Court to do anything in particular, and cannot appeal the decision of the Court. The “amicus” cannot raise any new issues but can present new angles on the issues that have been raised. The request to be an amicus is not guaranteed to be granted. Mr. Chittenden asked if there is a down side to waiting to be an amicus at the appeal. Mr. Barlow said the down side is that there may not be an appeal. Ms. Nowak asked about the timing of a possible entry into the lawsuit. Mr. Barlow said the city would be under a serious time constraint to file as an intervenor or as an amicus without asking the Court for an extension. Ms. Emery asked the scope of the complaint. Mr. Barlow said the second amended complaint had 10 counts including: a. Noise mitigation b. Compliance with local zoning and standards c. Socio-economic impacts d. Health of historic properties e. Alternatives to the F16s f. Low probability of exposure to toxic fumes g. Adoption of mitigation report without public notice h. Violation of the National Historic Preservation Act i. Risk of severe harm not in the EIS and requiring an update to the EIS j. Decision relied upon consideration not disclosed in the EIS Mr. Barlow noted that each count has a prayer for relief. Ms. Emery asked if the Judge could stop the F-35s from coming. Mr. Barlow said he thought not. Mr. Dumont, the attorney who filed the lawsuit, then explained further. He said that under this lawsuit, it is impossible to award anyone any damages. The suit requires disclosure of impacts, disclosure of alternatives, and disclosure of mitigation. He added that in this case, the issue is a revised EIS. Mr. Chittenden asked if there is any other way to challenge the coming of the F-35s other than this lawsuit. Mr. Dumont said if the Judge rules that disclosure hasn’t happened, the basing stops. Ms. Nowak asked if it is true that the Judge cannot force the Air Force to provide the information the city wants. Mr. Dumont said that is true. Ms. Nowak asked if Mr. Dumont thought that South Burlington joining the lawsuit would add weight to the Judge’s decision. Mr. Dumont said it could prompt the Court to take it more seriously. He also noted that the second count refers to non‐compliance with South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, and the EIS never mentioned the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Riehle asked if they were required to mention the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Dumont said yes, they were. He added that NEPA is all about process, and the final EIS is supposed to respond to comments raised by the public. Ms. Nowak asked if the city joins as a full party, how much say would there be as to whether there is an appeal. Mr. Dumont said each party has the right to appeal. Ms. Nowak then asked Todd Cosgrove, Chief of the State hazmat Program to speak to clarify safety issues raised at the last meeting. Mr. Cosgrove reviewed his credentials and the function of the Hazmat Program. He said it is their role to assist when an event goes beyond the local scope. Ms. Nowak asked what the process would be if any plane goes down at the Airport, specifically whether there is adequate training/equipment and what, if anything, is lacking. Mr. Cosgrove said there is very adequate equipment with foam capability than can cover a whole aircraft. The State would come in as a second resource and can have people on the scene within 15 minutes. There are decontamination trailers located throughout the state including one at the South Burlington Fire Station. There is also air monitoring equipment. Ms. Emery asked if personnel have gloves, breathing devices, etc. Mr. Cosgrove said “absolutely, you can’t fight first without it.” Ms. Nowak asked if there was a crash, how long it would take to put out a fire. Mr. Cosgrove said in most situations, 5-10 minutes with the foam. Ms. Riehle said a document talked about military planes comprised of composites which burn layer after layer and that what goes into the atmosphere is there longer than a 3-4 hour burn. Mr. Cosgrove said there is no more risk that you have in a burning home today where you have only about 2-1/2 minutes to get out. Mr. Chittenden asked Mr. Dorn about the Air Guard’s willingness to work with the city on emergency plans. Mr. Dorn said there is a “composite” issue today with commercial aircraft. If there is an incident, Chief Brent is in charge, and his people have spent an enormous amount of time training with the Air Guard, including a 1-1/2 day training session starting tomorrow. Ms. Nowak said she asked Col. Patrick Giney if the City/Guard could respond to a composite material event. He responded “without a doubt.” When asked if VTANG firefighters would be allowed to work with South Burlington firefighters, the Colonel responded “absolutely.” He also noted they already work together for any type of aircraft incident, which automatically includes a 15 mile radius and beyond that, if requested. The Colonel also said he would be happy to discuss anything to protect the lives of South Burlington citizens. Mr. Cosgrove added that they work very closely with every community in the County. Ms. Riehle said that General Clark felt the city should have an evacuation plan. Mr. Cosgrove said Homeland Management would be able to assist with that. The Council then heard from attorney Chris Roy, representing GBIC, which has entered the lawsuit as an amicus. Mr. Roy said he agrees on a procedural level with everything Mr. Dumont said. He also noted that Mr. Dumont’s lawsuit was filed in 2014. Both the City of Winooski and GBIC got involved by the April 2014 deadline. The date for final oral arguments is July 5, 2016. Mr. Roy felt it was problematic if South Burlington would be allowed to enter the lawsuit at this late date, even as an amicus. He added that he felt that regardless of who wins, there will be an appeal. He suggested the city wait, then enter when there has been time for due process. Mr. Roy said he felt that people opposed to the coming of the F-35s feels they can delay or stop the planes from coming. He cited the events surrounding the proposed, then cancelled Circ Highway which he felt were similar to this situation. Mr. Roy said he believed the city can work with the government to get all that it wants without litigation and that the government “doesn’t respond to litigation the way an individual might.” Mr. Chittenden then moved that the City Council hold a public hearing so the public can be heard on this topic. Ms. Nowak seconded. Mr. Barritt said he agreed due to the late hour. In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously. Members agreed to hold a public hearing on this issue on Wednesday, 22 June, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. A location will be determined. 9. Other Business: A. Items Held from Consent Agenda No items were held. There were no other issues raised. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Ms. Emery moved to adjourn. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. Dear Mr. Sorrell, I would like to request an investigation into what may or may not be an open meeting law violations by 3 members of the South Burlington City Council, Helen Riehle, Meghan Emery and Tim Barrett regarding a South Burlington Resolution. [Resolution to intervene as a party plaintiff in the F-35 national environmental act litigation, Zbinoff et al v.Deborah Lee James, 5-14cv132…] I sent an email to Ms. Riehle on Monday (06/06/2016) stating I believed there may be a violation leading up to the announcement of the SBCC meeting. Her reply was that she did not agree. I then read statements she made in a Burlington Free Press article that same day and believe her statement to me and in this article are contradictory. She sees this as business as usual. In the BFP article she states: “Individually I talked to Meghan (Emery) and Tim (Barritt),” she said. “They said we really want to do this. So we had at least three, so that would be a majority. I didn’t want to bring it up if it was going to be defeated. That would be a waste of everyone’s time. That’s the way these big issues work.” Her statement implies at least a violation of the spirit of the law and maybe more. I also question exactly what she was afraid of as to not have public discussion on this issue from the start. And to include only 3 City Councilors not all 5, besides excluding the public at large. I would hope that all emails, social media contacts, meetings and phone calls will be examined on this issue. I also would ask that email or other correspondence with Rosanne Greco and Maida Townsend by any of the 3 Council members should be included in this investigation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Nicole Citro South Burlington business owner 802-999-4116 nicolecitro@comcast.net   June 10, 2016    MEMO    TO:  City Council  FROM:  Kevin Dorn  RE:  F‐35 Resolution Follow‐up    Below are the comments and resolutions related to the F‐35 that have been submitted by Council Members in response  to the request the Chair made to get this information to me.      COMMENTS FROM COUNCILOR RIEHLE      1.  Eliminate the first therefore about continuing to support the operation of the F‐35 since the lawsuit puts that  on hold until the information to update the EIS is forth coming.  2. Zbitnoff is the correct spelling of one of the original plaintiffs,    I support the $15k choice of becoming a party to the suit since it allows for appealing or not, and greater  flexibility.  I believe it is a stronger position and adds more meaning to our effort to budge the Air Force.    PROPOSED RESOLUTION FROM COUNCILOR RIEHLE     WHEREAS, the United States Air Force has selected Burlington International Airport in South Burlington for the basing and operation of the F-35 aircraft; and WHEREAS, on September 13, 2013 Deborah Lee James, Secretary of the Air Force, issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and WHEREAS, the FEIS indicates that as a result of operation of the F-35 at Burlington International Airport some 2,963 households, many of which are located within South Burlington, will be subject to noise levels that the Air Force acknowledges are incompatible with residential use of homes; and WHEREAS, new evidence has come to light that shows that the Air Force did not fully consider the dangers posed by the crash consequences of the F35 on civilians and emergency first responders, nor did the Air force consider the dangers to the health and cognitive development of the children due to the F-35 noise, nor did the Air Force consider the costs of mitigating the noise of the F-35; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 1. The City of South Burlington wants to work in a cooperative manner with the Air Force to come up with a solution; 2. The City of South Burlington and its residents have important interests and concerns arising from the noise impacts and public safety risks presented by the operation of the F35 at Burlington International Airport and; 3. The City of South Burlington is concerned that the FEIS did not disclose or analyze the severity of the risks to the public, including (a) the risks to South Burlington residents and emergency response personnel that would arise in the event of a crash from the release of thousands of pounds of toxic chemicals and particulates from the flammable composite body and flammable stealth coating of the F-35 when they burn in the fire produced when the jet fuel aboard bursts into flame upon impact of the plane with the ground, (b) the FEIS made no comparison of the consequences of an F-35 crash with an F-16 crash in a heavily populated area including the size of the exclusion zone and how many people may be required to evacuate and for how long and; 4. The City of South Burlington requests that our federal representatives Sen. Patrick Leahy, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Peter Welch require the Air Force to delay basing the F35 at Burlington International Airport until all of the information has been disclosed; and 5. The City of South Burlington further requests that our senior Sen. Patrick Leahy obtain federal funds for noise mitigation for the residents of South Burlington, and the schools in the effected zones, and federal funding for safety equipment and training for first responders. Approved this 13th day of June 2016. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL _____________________________ _____________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair Tim Barritt, Clerk _____________________________ _____________________________ Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair Pat Nowak _____________________________ Thomas Chittenden     COMMENTS FROM COUNCILOR EMERY    Please find attached my suggestions and recommendations for edits to be made on the resolution to intervene  as a Party Plaintiff on the federal litigation on NEPA requirements for the basing of the F35.    Also, I would like to recommend that the Council pursue joining the lawsuit at the $15,000 level as described by  Jim last evening.      PROPOSED RESOLUTION FROM COUNCILOR EMERY    Please transmit to Helen my suggestions and recommendations for the resolution to intervene as a plaintiff in  the federal F‐35 NEPA litigation, Zbitnoff et al v. Deborah Lee James, 5:14‐cv‐132.  In short, I suggest that we mention that a public elementary school will be subject to noise levels and safety  hazards. I further suggest that we remove any mention of pro‐ or anti‐basing in our resolution since this is not  germane to the case. What is germane is that we are requesting information on noise mitigation and safety prior  to the basing through a revised EIS.  Perhaps it could read as follows:    RESOLUTION    A RESOLUTION TO INTERVENE AS A PARTY PLAINTIFF IN THE F‐35 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT  LITIGATION, Zbitnoff et al v. Deborah Lee James, 5:14‐cv‐132    WHEREAS, the United States Air Force has selected Burlington International Airport in South Burlington for the  basing and operation of the F‐35 aircraft; and  WHEREAS, on September 13, 2013 Deborah Lee James, Secretary of the Air Force, issued a Final Environmental  Impact Statement (FEIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and  WHEREAS, the FEIS indicates that as a result of operation of the F‐35 at Burlington International Airport some  2,963 households, many of which are located within South Burlington, will be subject to noise levels that the Air  Force acknowledges are incompatible with residential use of homes; and  WHEREAS, while the FEIS evaluated the likelihood that an F‐35 would crash upon takeoff or landing, the FEIS did  not disclose or analyze the severity of the risks to the public, including the risks to South Burlington residents  and emergency response personnel, that would arise in the event of a crash.  WHEREAS, the maps contained in the FEIS indicate that a public elementary school located within South  Burlington will also be subject to the same noise levels and risks were an F‐35 to crash upon takeoff or landing;  NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:  1. The City of South Burlington and its residents have important interests and concerns arising from the noise  impacts and public safety risks presented by operation of the F‐35 at Burlington International Airport; and  2. The aforementioned interests and concerns have not been adequately addressed and considered by the  Secretary of the Air Force through the FEIS as required under NEPA; and  3. The City of South Burlington should take necessary steps to intervene and be joined as a plaintiff in the matter  of Zbitnoff et al v. Deborah Lee James, 5:14‐cv‐132, so that the interests and concerns of the City of South  Burlington and its residents will be heard and considered; and  4. The City of South Burlington shall request that the court issue a declaratory judgment declaring that the  Secretary of the Air Force violated NEPA by failing to adequately disclose and evaluate noise mitigation  measures in the FEIS; and  5. The City of South Burlington shall request that the court issue a declaratory judgment further declaring that  the Secretary violated NEPA by failing to adequately disclose and evaluate the public safety risks that may arise  from a crash of the F‐35.    COMMENTS FROM COUNCILOR CHITTENDEN      Attached is a resolution I would like to introduce for consideration on Monday night on the topic of the F‐35, first  responder readiness and noise mitigation considerations.      Remarks I’d offer on this topic are below.      I am opposed to joining the City of South Burlington and all of its residents to a private lawsuit with the ‘Stop the F‐35  Coalition’ as plaintiff against the US Air Force.  I support putting this question to the voters of South Burlington as a  ballot measure and believe this is absolutely necessary based on the wide spread public input and outcry from this  unexpected resurrection of this previously considered settled matter.  This is a very important issue to this community  and moving forward with this resolution would not be honoring the Chair’s declared policy on March 3rd 2016:    “Too often the council is faced with making a policy decision without prior knowledge of the work and recommendations  of the committee of jurisdiction, what all the questions, concerns, pros and cons might be.  Our passionate and interested  community members are in the same boat..”   “It is my believe that restructuring our meetings will allow for the council to gain the knowledge and expertise of our  citizens and stakeholders we will be better able to fulfill our obligation to approve policies that are fair, well thought out  and best serve our community.  In addition, the process will be more open and inclusive.”  “I envision that we can plan agendas out 60 days, provide timely direction to committees of jurisdiction to do the  research and inform us, allow the public to contribute their thoughts in a  planned way, identify experts and/or  stakeholders that need to be part of dialog.“  ‐Helen Riehle, Remarks from Helen Riehle on being elected Chair of the City Council 3/3/2016     And it was not included in the exhaustive City Council Major Issues Work Plan discussed over multiple meetings this past  March.  The introduction of this very important issue with known widespread public interest in this manner runs in  direct contradiction to the statements made by our Chair on how this council would operate.    Further, I am against joining this private lawsuit for the following reasons:  1. It is unclear to me who belongs to the ‘Stop the F‐35 Coalition’ plaintiff group and I am unfamiliar with 5 of the  other 6 listed plaintiffs.  2. The City of Winooski, after 18 months of exhaustive public input and a ballot measure, joined only one count of  the lawsuit.  We require the same deliberations to fully understand the long term implications of being a  plaintiff in this lawsuit against the government.   3. The Vermont Air National Guard will be constricted in their permitted interactions with us on the important  matters of first responder readiness & noise mitigation if we are in a lawsuit suing them on these two issues.  4. We have, at any time in the future under our terms and after careful consideration, the opportunity to take legal  action if our city is aggrieved.  We have no imperative to join the good name of our city and our city dollars to  this private lawsuit which stands very likely to have directly measurable negative financial, reputational and  community consequences.    5. This resolution will reignite a controversy in our community that Councilor Emery characterized as a ‘settled  matter’ in the most recent campaign.   6. The community has spoken in previous elections when the F‐35 was a heavily discussed item during the town  meeting day elections; the community overwhelmingly supported candidates in support of the basing.  7. Lawsuits are a last resort, not a first resort.  We need to continue exhausting dialog options with leaders of our  state, leaders of the air force, our CNAP Committee, our community and ourselves.  We simply cannot justifiably  act in this way on this very important issue with this private lawsuit.          PROPOSED RESOLUTION FROM COUNCILOR CHITTENDEN      RESOLUTION  Basing of the F‐35 at Burlington International Airport  South Burlington City Council    WHEREAS, the United States Air Force has selected Burlington International Airport in South Burlington for the basing  and operation of the F‐35 aircraft; and      WHEREAS, this basing represents a valuable economic basis to support Vermont’s gateway to the world into the coming  decades; and      WHEREAS, the United States Air Force and the Vermont Air National Guard have been forthcoming in requests for  information in a systematic, timely and thorough manner; and    WHEREAS, the City of South Burlington and its residents have interests and concerns arising from the noise impacts and  public safety risks presented by operation of all aircraft at Burlington International Airport; and    WHEREAS, the Vermont Air National Guard serve and protect our city, region, state and country with honor and without  pause which demands our gratitude.    NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:  1. The City of South Burlington continues to support operation of the F‐35 at Burlington International Airport; and    2. The City of South Burlington requests attention from our congressional delegation on federal programs to continue to  support our efforts and planning around noise mitigation for buildings in close proximity to the Burlington International  Airport; and    3. The City of South Burlington requests attention from our congressional delegation to direct resources and Air Force  training support to ready our first responders with training and information; and    4.  Until deemed otherwise by the City Council, the Fire and Police chiefs for the City of South Burlington shall report to  the City Council and/or the City Manager on a monthly basis on first responder readiness for all airport related  contingencies both current and prospective; and    5.  The City of South Burlington supports the Vermont Air National Guard, their Guardsmen and the families of their  guardsmen.     APPROVED this _______  day of ____________, 2016.    SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL    ______________________________________  Helen Riehle, Chair    ______________________________________  Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair    ______________________________________  Thomas Chittenden  ______________________________________  Tim Barritt, Clerk     ______________________________________  Pat Nowak            COMMENTS FROM COUNCILOR NOWAK      I am opposed to enjoining our residents in a lawsuit against the USAF for a number of reasons which I  will enumerate below.     Councilor Riehle has presented a process to the City Council that requires expedient action without  adequate opportunity to make a truly informed decision.  While the community at large has been aware  of this lawsuit for some time, awareness of the lawsuit and the intimate knowledge required to  determine if participation by the City is appropriate, are entirely different matters.    Therefore I  recommend the council should have detailed information regarding the following outstanding issues  and be fully informed in order to take thoughtful action on this matter:   What are the financial obligations for the City in the short‐term?  Can this be capped?  How will  requests for additional funds be handled?   Would the City be financially obligated should an appeal be proposed?   What say if any, does the City have in participating in such an extension of the lawsuit should an  appeal occur?     How are the differing budgets of the plaintiffs handled?   Is there a specific accounting available regarding anticipated budgetary amounts as well funds  spent to date?   A detailed response from the advisers to the City’s legal counsel as to the likelihood that the  City will in fact receive answers to questions currently being raised if in fact the plaintiff’s  prevail in the lawsuit?   What is the range of potential findings of law that the court can impose on this matter? Are  there gradations of requirements the judge could impose?   What is the effect of participation on projects in motion that will require partnership with other  communities, institutions, government officials and residents?   What relationship is established, assumed or implied with the beliefs and objectives of any  fellow plaintiff upon joining this suit?   Will this action have the unintended consequences of harming the City’s good name and  reputation?    If the City Council does in fact deem that joining the lawsuit is appropriate, due to the significance and  importance of the issue, it is imperative that the measure be sent to a city‐wide ballot vote.    As part of this evaluation process, I believe that serious consideration be given to pursuing non‐litigious  avenues to pursue issues regarding noise and safety that are so important to this entire community. We  must also recognize that the deadline for new parties for this lawsuit was April 29, 2015 and our  participation is not guaranteed.    Regarding noise, I propose the following non‐litigious next steps:   Continue supporting the pursuit of mitigation grants from the FAA  by the Burlington  International Airport.   Work with the Director of Aviation at BTV as he assembles a committee to keep open lines of  communication and collaboratively work on issues related to noise.    Regarding safety, I have been a resident of the airport area for 35 years and have a commitment to the  safety of the airport, the airport community and its residents.  Additionally I have knowledge of the  extensive training of our first responders and am confident in their ability to respond.  They are some of  the best trained safety professionals in the state of Vermont. BTV has an impeccable safety record  commercially as well as militarily.     History: During my time as a City Councilor (since 3/13) on any occasion that I have met with the Guard’s  fire and rescue personnel, or any member of the Guard management team has attended a City Council  meeting,  questions have always been  answered satisfactorily without hesitation or lack of clarity.     Proposed Next Steps:   Support our City Manager’s continues outreach  to the VTANG fire and rescue, Vermont  Emergency Management, local area fire and rescue chiefs and update on safety procedures now  or in the future.  Including those updates related to any change in aircraft.    Ask the VTANG fire and rescue, Vermont Emergency Management and SB fire chief to make  presentation to the Council on our safety concerns as appropriate under the city manager’s  behest.    Inquire from VTANG at what point in the standard process of introducing new aircrafts is a local  community informed and first responders trained on changes to relevant safety protocols and  procedures.      This document provides a reasonable approach to evaluating the appropriateness of joining the lawsuit  as well as offering a non litigious approach to our shared concerns.