Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 06/22/2016 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 22 JUNE 2016 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Wednesday, 22 June 2016, at 6:30 p.m., in the Gymnasium, Tuttle Middle School, Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; P. Nowak (by phone) T. Chittenden, T. Barritt, M. Emery ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; J. Ladd, HR Director; C. Ingalls, City Manager’s Office; J. Barlow, City Attorney; E. Diner, B. Boozan, V. Compania, E. Goldberg, J. Zeitz, S. Marriott, M. Simoneau, G. Maille, M. Keller, C. Sargent, D. Ruppel, M. Provencher, J. Leas, L. Parish, J. Pasackow, C. Murphy, K. Boyd, M. Mahoney, T. Fraga, E. Andreoli, F. Cioffi, N. Kandel, N. Citro, J. Bluto, L. Leavens, R. Hubbard, C. Dunwoody, R. O’Neil Cleary, J. Kearnan, H. Weisberg, E. Fisher, J. Dalstrom, P. Benner, L. Brown, J. Richards, D. Lawes, R. Kelin, V. Companion, M. Keller, J. Richards, M. Lamoreau, D. Ruppel, A. Klugo, Maj. Gen. S. Cray and other members of the Vermont Air National Guard; 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: No issues were raised. 3. Council discussion, public comment period and possible action on a resolution related to the federal F-35 NEPA litigation, Zbitnoff et al v. Deborah Lee James, 5:14-cv-132: Ms. Riehle said the purpose of this meeting is to determine the best approach for South Burlington to take to fully understand noise, health and safety impacts of the F-35 bedding in the city and to determine the best way to pay for it. Each Council member was allotted 10 minutes to present his/her proposal and the reasoning behind it. Members of the audience were allotted 2 minutes each to speak and were asked to identify special interest groups they may be affiliated with. Ms. Riehle noted that democracy is a “messy process,” and doesn’t respond to every point of view. She added that diversity is one of the country’s great strengths. Council members then presented their proposals as follows: Mr. Chittenden: Fully supports noise mitigation and addressing health and safety concerns. Does not support the lawsuit or taking action on any of the resolutions. He felt the city missed its window to join the lawsuit except in the instance of an appeal of the Judge’s decision. He felt the issue should go to a public vote as it involves long-term spending/debt. He also felt the city has the option in the future to sue if all other options fail. Mr. Chittenden then moved to table all resolutions. There was no second to this motion. Mr. Barritt: Proposed that South Burlington participate in the lawsuit as an amicus curiae because the increase in noise will be an issue for many in the city, including students and teachers at Chamberlin School. He cited his deep respect for the Air National Guard, but also cited the need to keep in mind the daily life of those who live in the neighborhood beside the Guard. He felt that neighborhood was threatened because of the higher probability of a plane crash occurring. Ms. Riehle: Felt there were impacts of noise that were not fully addressed since the arrival of the F16s. She also felt that health and safety risks need to be addressed, and none of these concerns has been fully funded in the past. She believed the city should direct the State’s federal delegation to secure the needed funding in order to protect lives and homes. She would support that as an option or entering as an amicus. Ms. Emery: Withdrew her resolution and supported entering the lawsuit as an amicus. She said it is the Council’s duty to protect the health and safety of the citizens. She felt the City has an interest in the lawsuit and as an amicus would state its position. She also said the city has been trying to get issues addressed for 6 years. She noted that the City only got information on 6 June 2016 that was released by the Air Force in 2015. She added that South Burlington’s Fire Department does not have all the firefighting training needed to address a possible crash, and the F35s have a takeoff and landing crash ratio higher than other aircraft. She felt the mitigating cost should be borne by the entire country. Ms. Riehle read from Ms. Nowak’s written comments which included the following steps: 1) continued support for getting mitigation grants; 2) continued work to form a noise committee; 3) City Manager’s outreach to VTANG and other first responders regarding safety procedures; 4) asking VTANG and the Fire Chief to address the City Council regarding safety; 5) asking VTANG at what point local first responders would be trained regarding new aircraft. Ms. Riehle then introduced Major General Cray and invited him to speak: Gen. Cray said he was speaking on behalf of 4000 Vermont Air National Guardsmen and Guardswomen. He said it is his responsibility to be sure VTANG carries out its missions and that they have the right people, with the right skills, and with the right equipment. He added that VTANG’s work is the reason they were chosen as the first Air National Guard to receive the newest equipment. He cited the need for all parties to work collaboratively. Gen. Cray said that handling composite equipment requires new and special equipment. They have that equipment, and firefighters from South Burlington and Burlington train together on the use of that equipment. Regarding noise, Gen. Cray said they will provide the most up-to-date information regarding noise patterns and will do their part to mitigate the impacts. Members of the public then addressed the Council as follows: Mr. Leavens: Chamberlin neighborhood resident with children in Chamberlin School. Cited 2 crashes of military planes in South Burlington in the past. Also noted that the Air Guard and Airport have taken more and more properties. Said “mitigation is not compensation.” Mr. Kearnan: Felt that intervention at this time won’t have the impact the City wants. The hearing is 5 July. The aim of the lawsuit is to get information for the EIS. He felt the city can get that information through it Congressional delegation. Mr. Hubbard: Regardless of what the Council decides, the issues that should be raised have been raised. Decisions on safety should be made based on the best available information. He expected 3 crashes within the first 10 years the F35s are in Vermont. He didn’t want that to happen but felt if it does, he didn’t want first responders to die or risk impairment. He then quoted from a document indicating that “everyone responding needs head to toe breathing gear and protection.” Mr. Benner: Lockheed is not in the business of making planes that fall out of the sky. The planes that crashed were prototypes, and the “bugs” have been worked out. Aircraft fly in and out of Burlington International Airport every day carrying more fuel and have more risk involved and no one complains. Mr. Dunwitty: Supports the lawsuit. Felt that promises of mitigation don’t calm his fears but increase them. The area would not lose the base/jobs/defense planes without the F35s. Mr. Weisberg: Found it inconceivable that the city just found out about the lawsuit. Felt there should be a public referendum to let the people decide the course of action. Mr. Fisher: 45 year Air Guardsman. Tolerates the F16s but has heard that the F35 noise would be a “killer” to the community. Cited a dearth of information to the public. An F35 should have been brought here so people could hear what it sounds like. Also cited tremendous air pollution especially in the Chamberlin neighborhood. Supports the lawsuit. Mr. Dalstrom: Agrees with Mr. Chittenden that joining the lawsuit would be a waste of taxpayer money. Said a “vocal minority” makes the majority come out. Ms. Cleary: Supports the lawsuit. Noted that the information record which came out as a result of the lawsuit indicates that Burlington was not the first choice for the F35s, but Sen. Leahy insisted. Ms. Richards: Supports a relationship with the Air Guard. Said that having an opinion does not make one an expert. Did not want to see taxpayer money go to this lawsuit. Asked the Council to oppose the lawsuit and work with the Air Guard. Mr. Lawes: Felt it would be a detriment to the area if the Air Guard was not here. Mr. Gonda: Is one of the complainants in the lawsuit. Not all composites are the same. Military aircraft have different toxins. Three men have been killed in developing the stealth coatings. Mr. Brown: Against the lawsuit. Was full time Air Guard, firefighter, and full time city staff. Training goes on all the time. Nobody talks about car accidents, and there are far more of those. Ms. Klein: Recently saw a newscast where Sen. John McCain said the Air Force should do away with the F35s. We are paying so much for this aircraft and can’t find money for schools. E. Diner: Feels strongly that the F35s shouldn’t be in Chittenden County which has so many people. Supports the lawsuit but not sure if South Burlington should join. B. Boosan: Any action should be through our Congressional delegation. Is more concerned with the impact of railroads on our environment. Lives near the Airport and noise is not an issue for him. If it is, they will move. More concerned with what the planes do beside make noise. Ms. Companion: Supports the lawsuit. The noise is unbearable, and there are maneuvers that last all day. Ms. Goldberg: Said that what the Air Guard does is why we can have this meeting. Also concerned with safety and noise mitigation. Felt joining the lawsuit or not should be a ballot item. Mr. Zaetz: The litigation should stop and taxpayer money should not be spent on it. Should be a public vote, not decided by the City Council. Mr. Marriott: Was stationed in Alameda, California when a military jet crashed 4 blocks from his apartment. Eleven people, including first responders, died. The F35 has more chance of crashing, and requests for information have not been responded to. Supported the litigation. Mr. Simoneau: Opposed the litigation but respects those who support it. Does not feel the process has been in the best interest of the city and has caused acrimony. Felt this is more important than how we deal with the F35s. Mr. Maille: Didn’t realize the Airport would grow this much or have the type of military activity. Cited the importance of information, and embraced getting new information, especially when it’s asked for and denied. Agrees with at least the amicus curiae. Mr. Keller: Represented the South Burlington Business Association and its 90 members. Felt the Air Guard supports the vision of economic vitality. Felt there should be a city-wide referendum, not a City Council vote. Ms. Sargent: Lives a block from the Airport. Felt the money for the lawsuit is “paltry.” Chairs the CNAPC and one of the things that committee will bring to the Council regards health and safety. Ms. Rupel: Opposes the lawsuit. Felt the Council has already decided to join, and that is wrong. The City should work with VTANG and firefighters to make the city safe. Should be a public vote, and people should support VTANG. Ms. Provencher: This issue wouldn’t have arisen if Plattsburg Air Base had not been closed in 1995. Felt there were “covert plans” to start building in South Burlington. Does not believe military jets belong on top of a residential community. Felt people would be paying to defend themselves from the military that they support. Mr. Leas: Supports the lawsuit. Felt the Air Force omitted information from the EIS regarding noise and safety. Said there are 42 times more composite materials plus a stealth coating on the F35s. Cited the time it would take firefighters to get to a plane crash fire. Mr. Parish: Don’t use taxpayer money to join the lawsuit. Felt ethical conflicts and improprieties have not been fully discussed. The Fed Ex plan has more composites and 4 times the fuel than the F35 and comes into Burlington every night. The DNL is significantly quieter for the F35s. Voting citizens should “see through the sham” and act accordingly. Mr. Pasackow: Cited his confusion. Hears one group for and one group against but not a large cry from the overall community to join the lawsuit. City Council should represent all the city. Felt if there were a large cry to join the lawsuit the city should, but he hasn’t heard that cry. Felt the city has time on this. Ms. Murphy: Lives and teaches in Chamberlin area. People are scared and confused, and it is hard to know what to do. Appalled that the Council is getting hate mail. There is room to disagree on many issues, and trusted the Council to make the best decision for all. Mr. Boyd: Disappointed with the method for this. Opposed to the lawsuit and saw no benefit to the city. There should be a task force to address issues. Mr. Moore: Concerned with economic vitality. Most people he graduated with have moved out because there is nothing here for them. Is a member of the Air Guard but doesn’t represent them. Opposes the lawsuit. Mr. Mahoney: Resident of Winooski and member of Stop the F35s. The aim of the lawsuit is to get information, some of which they have gotten as a result of the suit. He read from Air Force correspondence which included the following statements: “…should delay in reporting data” and “any more controversial information would be detrimental to us…” Mr. Fraga: Served the City as a Police Officer for 35 years and went to many accidents and events. Used Air Guard equipment, and couldn’t have done their job without it. Had training with the Guard. Asked the city to be sure its emergency plans are updated. Noted that having his family grow up in the Chamberlin neighborhood didn’t hurt them. Ms. Andrioli: Respects the Guard and the work they do, especially in emergencies. Some mitigations haven’t worked. Winooski and Williston have no training with VTANG, and they are at the end of the runway. Wants to know the truth about everything, GMOs, water contamination, etc., as well as the F35s. Mr. Cioffi: Represents GBIC. Respects people on both sides of the issue. Felt intervention as this point is too late and is “nothing more than grandstanding.” South Burlington has already spoken and is on record. Mr. Crandall: The Air Guard defends his right to express his opinion. Feels the bedding of F35s here is political. There would be a great loss of property and reputation if there were to be a crash. Urged joining the lawsuit to get information. Ms. Citro: Essex Junction resident, South Burlington business owner. The Air Guard does good for the community and will continue to do so. The process was not transparent and there should be a public vote not left to the personal inclinations of Council members. Ms. Bluto: Winooski resident who supports both resolutions. There is a lot of fear. If there is nothing wrong with the F35s, what is wrong with getting more information. Has read the administrative record and said “it would make your toes crawl. This ended the public comment. Ms. Riehle then reviewed for Ms. Nowak, who had joined the meeting by phone what the Council members had said. Ms. Nowak said she supports a non-litigious answer. Felt there will probably be an appeal, whatever the Court’s decision is. Did not want to see 5 people, who are strong and passionate about this issue, to make this decision. Felt there is no better time to get information. Mr. Chittenden moved that on the very next possible election, hopefully 9 August 2016, voters be asked to vote on whether or not to join this lawsuit as either a plaintiff or amicas. Ms. Nowak seconded. Mr. Barritt said he would agree if this were a question of joining the lawsuit as a plaintiff. But he supports being an amicus and feels it is too late to be a plaintiff. He feels the city has to inject its opinion into this lawsuit, just as GBIC has done. He felt entering as an amicus curiae “hedges all bets.” Ms. Riehle said she felt it was important to join the lawsuit because it requires the Air Force to answer questions regarding health and safety and noise and to position the city to get the best information it can get in order to be prepared to be partners with the Guard and first responders. She stressed the city’s position has nothing to do with stopping the F35s from coming but acknowledged that the lawsuit is about opposing the basing of F35s in Burlington. Ms. Emery said she doesn’t believe this is about the basing of the F35s. The suit asks for information, and that is her motive. It has to do with safety and noise mitigation. Mr. Chittenden said this is the only path the anti-F-35 movement could take. He noted that Attorney Dumont said this himself. Ms. Nowak said that she is disappointed that information brought to the City Council never seems to be enough. She cited the last meeting when the head of the State’s emergency services spoke to the Council regarding safety concerns. Ms. Riehle felt that going to a public vote could set a “bad precedent.” Mr. Barritt said there are other controversial issues the Council doesn’t go to the public on. In the roll call vote that followed, Mr. Chittenden and Ms. Nowak voted in favor of the motion, and Mr. Barritt, Ms. Emery and Ms. Riehle voted against the motion. The motion was defeated 2-3. Mr. Barritt then moved to adopt the resolution for the City to appear as an amicus curiae in this matter. Ms. Emery seconded. In the roll call vote that followed, Mr. Barritt, Ms. Emery and Ms. Riehle voted in favor of the motion, and Mr. Chittenden and Ms. Nowak voted against. The motion passed 3-2. Ms. Emery then moved to ask the State’s federal delegation for funding for noise mitigation and to address safety concerns. Mr. Chittenden seconded. After a brief discussion, Mr. Chittenden moved to table the motion. Ms. Nowak seconded. In the roll call vote that followed, Ms. Emery, Ms. Riehle and Mr. Barritt voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Chittenden and Ms. Nowak voted against. The motion passed 3-2. 4. Other Business: There were no other issues raised. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 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 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 Congressional Delegation, Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Bernard Sanders, and Representative Peter Welch, 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 22nd day of June 2016. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL _____________________________ _____________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair Tim Barritt, Clerk _____________________________ _____________________________ Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair Pat Nowak _____________________________ Thomas Chittenden COMMENTS AND PROPOSAL 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.    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     Pat Nowak    ______________________________________  ____________________________  Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair    Thomas Chittenden    _____________________________________  Tim Barritt, Clerk  Emery  RESOLUTION  A RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFFS 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; and  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 plaintiffs’ complaints and requests in the matter of Zbitnoff et al v. Deborah Lee James, 5:14‐cv‐ 132, represent the City of South Burlington’s and its residents’ interests and concerns; and  4. The City of South Burlington fully supports the plaintiffs in the matter of Zbitnoff et al v. Deborah Lee  James, 5:14‐cv‐132, and will seek compensation if the City’s and its residents’ interests and concerns are  not met with a mitigation and management plan that will remedy the environmental and financial  impacts of the F35 basing.  Offered by Councilor Tim Barritt RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE F-35 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT LITIGATION AS AMICUS CURIAE, 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; and 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 participate as amicus curiae 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. 4. eliminated 5. eliminated