 Yeah, just so you know, I mean, I feel strong about that. Thank you so much. Yeah. No, no, I get it. I get it. But the BTab did its job. And I'm forced. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Don't go sit down. I took the megabus down to Boston for my eye. Yeah, go ahead. And guess who was the other writer? Yeah. Someone you know. Ken. He was going down to visit his family, but Janice was already down there. So visiting close. Anyways, it was like, I think there's going to be some questions about that. Not from me, but from Max. What are you doing here in downtown? I'm taking the bus to Boston. I said, you are? I am too. So anyway, it was great. So for me, you know. So anyways, it's okay. It's not wonderful. Anyways, it's good to see you. Thank you for being here, supporting us. You know, at the end of the night. Yeah, sit tight. Sit tight. How are you doing, counselor? As I told you, I just came back from Boston. He got off the megabus and I was so glad that I only hear him. Me too. But I never been able to do that outside of here. And I never imagined good to be here. Yeah. Because the thing is, Ting wants all those scores to show. I don't know where you are sitting. Oh, okay. So you probably know what I'm saying. Ting has already told all of you that they're not interested. Oh, he's still going to do it. Okay, but they're not interested in me. No, it's fine. Just everyone knows. I'm just saying. No, it's helpful to know the problem. So my guess is that Dan Drucker is probably going to go against the table. Sure. To me. Yes. Yeah. He's really mad at me, Steven. Because I went. You have a right to talk to whoever you want. Yeah. And I went down. They called me. Oh, this is the. Sure. You might as well. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah, I'm not the tech person, right? It's not good. How are you? Sure. So, yeah. Well, we don't lose control. We've got nothing here. We just finally lose control. Yeah. Yeah. I think the PNCS has to sign off on it by January 1st, that's my understanding, okay? No matter what happens here tonight, no matter what, we're sticking with keeping to the timeline. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, because gas we have today. Alright, the agenda. Two people objecting. We don't like that. Very good. What's that? You know, if I'm going to nominate KBTL? Yeah, at the end of the day. Parents, now she's talking to Eileen. Please, please join us in the Pledge Allegiance. So this is a continuation of the adjourned session from Monday, October 30th. And at this time, I seek to participate in the debate and I am going to pass the gavel to Council right for the remainder of this item. Thank you, President Nodell. So as we remember from the last meeting, I think pretty much everybody was here that we recessed the previous meeting in a way that we were going to begin right up where we left off in terms of the debate. So we have a resolution in front of us in terms of the voting method, but I will recognize Councilor Tracy. I have a point of order acting president right. Okay. Councilor Tracy, what's your point of order? I would like to gain further clarity on the recusal issue that we dealt with last at the last meeting. And if I may continue, I can proceed. Okay. So at the last meeting, we had a counselor established that they had a conflict of interest and now say that that conflict of interest has been resolved. And we still don't, as far as I know, have a full explanation of what the conflict of interest was. And that would seem to be crucial to understanding how, if and how it has been resolved. And so I'm wondering if we might be able to get a further clarity on not only that, but then also the legal framework that allows a counselor who's declared a conflict of interest at the beginning of an item to enter in, because I've received some Vermont statute that really talks about the grounds for recusal, but it doesn't establish a path back into debate where there to be a, you know, a resolution of that conflict. City Attorney Blackwood. Thank you. So when a counselor declares a conflict of interest, all they have to do is declare to you a conflict of interest. And the way that the City Council generally works when we've dealt with conflict of interest before is that they talk to me about what the conflict of interest is, because they have an attorney client privilege with me and can reveal information, but I can't reveal to you necessarily to the rest of you all of the information that I know, but I do look at it and say and help them determine do they have a conflict of interest or do not. And in the situation I did look and talk to the counselor and determine that yes, there was a conflict of interest that was legitimate and that the counselor needed to recuse herself. Once that somebody recuses themselves, if the reason for the conflict goes away, and in this case I believe that Councillor Paul has stated that it was a professional conflict, it was connected with her job, and she has now resigned her position. Once the conflict of interest goes away, the conflict of interest has gone away, and the counselor is free to engage in whatever proceedings then occur from then on. So that's the situation that we have right now. May I just ask if Councillor Paul or Councillor Blackwood would be willing to clarify what exactly the conflict of interest was and how it's been resolved? I've told you what I can tell you, which is it's a professional conflict that was connected with her job, and that she has resolved that by no longer being employed at her job. Would Councillor Paul care to offer any explanation as to the nature of the conflict? Okay, thank you. All right, thank you. So next up we have the resolution that the council needs to vote on, and that deals with the voting method, and the crux of the resolution is basically that we have two finalists. I'm not going to read the whole resolution, but it's on board, Doug. You want me to move it? And actually let me go to President Nodell. Yes, thank you, Acting President Wright. I would move adoption of the resolution really. Attorney Blackwood. I do think that you actually technically have on your agenda first a pending motion to postpone to a date certain that you need to do something with either amend or resolve in one way or another. I apologize for interrupting. So I recognize you for that. So I think that just the floor is open on the motion to postpone. And I would argue that this was a reconsideration. Just remind the council that we successfully voted to reconsider that that succeeded. And then we immediately went to adjourn or to recess the meeting and to resume tonight. But the motion to postpone has not been dealt with. So we're back on the motion to postpone and we know from previous meeting. So I would vote against the motion postponed so that we can proceed with the voting tonight. Any further discussion on that? All right. All in favor of voting to postpone, please raise your hand. And all those opposed, raise your hand. So we have disposed of that. And now I will go back to President Nodell for the next motion. That's great. So we made a unanimous decision just then. That was good. Maybe the last one tonight. So I would move adoption now of the resolution relating to adopting a council voting process for choosing the BT buyer. Looking for a second. Councilor Roof seconds. Thank you. So I just like to I think read into the record the steps of the process that we've laid out. And the purpose of this is just so we all know how it's going to unfold tonight. One, the president or acting president of the city council will present to the council the question of whether it should authorize the mayor to sign a letter of intent with KBTL or with Ting. Each city councilor will vote for one or the other bidder consistent with section seven of the council rules, which requires each councilor to cast a vote on each motion unless that councilor has a conflict of interest. Three, if one or the other bidder receives the majority of votes cast, the president will declare that the council has authorized the mayor to sign a letter of intent with that bidder. Four, if however there is a tie, the council will recess for a brief period and another vote will be taken. Five, if the tie continues after the second vote, the council will continue the process of recessing and voting until one of the bidders is selected or until the president asks the council if it is ready to declare that the voting process should end because the council cannot break the tie. And the majority of the counselors then present vote to end it. If the majority of the counselors then present have voted to end the voting process, the president will declare that the action to authorize the mayor to sign one of the two proffered letters of intent has failed and the president will entertain a motion about how to proceed with this matter. Thank you, President Odell. Okay, so we have that on the floor. It's been moved and seconded. Is there discussion on this resolution from the council? All right. All those in favor of the resolution to pass what President Odell just described as our voting procedure tonight on this issue, please raise your hand if you support this. And anyone opposed? Again, I was wrong. We passed another thing unanimously. All right. So now we will move right into this issue. And as President Odell just stated in regard to our voting method, we have before us the resolution to which finalists to send forward to the mayor, Ting or KBTL. I'll recognize President Odell and floors open and anyone else who wants to get in the queue, raise your hands and thank you very much. I've prepared a document with some of my thoughts on the choice before us and this is posted to board docs if people are watching at home. It is a little bit long. I'm going to not read it, but kind of walk through the high points. We have before us two potential, but I'm warning you this may take a little time. We have before us two potential buyers of BT that are in many ways opposite of each other. Ting is wholly owned by a publicly traded corporation based in Toronto called Two Cows and KBTL is a new consumer cooperative based in Burlington. There's a stark trade-off here. Ting is reasonably well capitalized, although not the strongest on this count that we have seen, but Burlington loses control of the asset altogether. KBTL offers total local ownership and control of the asset, but it lacks an upfront equity base on which to run the company. Now over the course of this process of selecting a new owner for BT, I think it's been well understood that BT is now a very profitable company due to a number of factors including its effective and hard-working management and staff, many of whom are here tonight with us, and also the reduction in debt servicing costs compared to the city days. But another key driver of the profitability of BT is the fact that we made a very large upfront capital investment in this infrastructure. Yes, we overbuilt in the past, we suffered losses, others suffered losses as a result, but at this point the next buyer is going to be the one that earns the attractive returns from managing the build-out without having the incremental capital costs they would have had if we hadn't overbuilt in the first place. So the question I keep coming back to is, will Burlington taxpayers get a fair share of these returns and what is the model that's really going to get us the fair share? Now I think that given some more time and some creative thinking, KBTL's model could morph into one that does blend local ownership and control with adequate upfront equity. It would take time, it would take some creative thinking, it would take community will and leadership will to do that. But for me the problems with the Ting model can't really be fixed through any contract language because they really flow directly from the fact that it is a publicly traded corporation. So I want to walk through two main problems that I see here. I think that in the Ting proposal the financial returns from the future growth of BT are disproportionately garnered by Ting shareholders and not by Burlington taxpayers. Now Ting has offered to buy BT for a multiple of about eight times the FY17 earnings of the company which are $3.5 million. Now Ting has its own multiple as a publicly traded corporation which is called its price earnings ratio. And Ting's stock has been on an upward trend, it jumps around a lot but it's been trending up. And at the beginning of 2017 for example it acquired a company and its stock price increased about 30% as the market recognized all that earning growth associated with an acquisition. So although its multiple has moved around a lot say between 20 and 40, I'll be conservative here in this memo and just say let's say it's 20. So BT's multiple is 8 and Toucow has a multiple of 20 and that means that creates a tremendous opportunity for Toucows to buy BT's earnings for basically $8 for a dollar of earning and then have the stock market value those earnings at $20 for every dollar of earning. So while Toucows is valuing BT at $28 million, 8 times 3.5 million, they can instantly turn that into once it's part of Toucows into a market value of say $70 million. So if for example after this acquisition Toucows stock increases by something like 5% which is, it could well rise more than that but just to be conservative. The new shareholder wealth that would be created would be on the order of $30 million. Now this is a large number compared to what Burlington would receive if we cash out under the Ting's model which is $6 million. Now the city could potentially do better than $6 million if we take our share of the net proceeds as a carried interest in the new company. But here the return to the city depends on the terms that we can negotiate with Ting. In earlier versions of their LOI and up until very recently, Ting said that they would buy a dollar of BT's earnings from us for $8 today but they would only buy a dollar of earnings back from us in the future at a price at a value less than $8 at a discount from the multiple that they are offering today. As if the asset value would actually deteriorate over time instead of being enhanced through its integration into the Ting and Toucows enterprise. So I did bring this, I think, very unfavorable language to the city to the attention of the mayor on the morning of October 29th and that this language was subsequently removed and Representative Ting let me know that they had intended to remove it. So even though the language was removed, it deeply concerns me that it was ever proposed because it is patently unfair to the city. Patently unfair and it's important to note that this language was not revised and improved on terms that acknowledge the Burlington taxpayer's right to a fair return. The LOI is simply silent on this point. So if we were to vote for Ting tonight, we'd be saying I guess we'll work it out later but we have no bargaining power at that time and under this model no one's going to buy this share from us except for Ting. So we have zero bargaining power in this transaction. To show the importance of the carried interest terms, let's just play out a little scenario. Let's say that BT's earnings double in five years to $7 million which is not an unrealistic trajectory at all because we know that we have new residential units coming on online at Cambrian Rise and at City Place and we know that BT's market share will continue to rise as long as the management keeps on track with a good product at a good price. So let's walk through, so that means in five years if you apply that multiple of eight to $7 million, the company is worth in five years $56 million. Now if there were to be a discount applied to that multiple of say four, and this is an extreme example, I'm not saying it would be four, but if they were to discount as heavily, then if we were to take our 20% share in five years, we'd get $5.6 million which is less than what we'd get today, we would obviously would never do that. As the multiple increases, the return to the city gets better and better. But I would argue that we should get a multiple like Ting's multiple on that future transaction and if Ting were to do that, and I don't think that they will because this is not really part of the model for them, then we would get a return in five years of $28 million. Now I do think that there are proposals this council has received that would give us this kind of return. They're not in front of us tonight, but there are other bidders that would have been willing to share their returns of future growth with us. Getting close to the end. So that's one problem. The second problem is that two cows could well be purchased by another company through a friendly acquisition or through a hospital takeover. So that same logic where two cows does well by buying us at a lower multiple, there are other companies out there who have higher multiples than Ting's and they will see mutual benefit in offering to Ting to buy them at an attractive price and it is a win-win situation for both the acquiring company and the acquired company. And two cows cannot, they're publicly traded, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. So when we've been hearing in the debate this concern, it means that they wouldn't be able to walk away from a great deal like that. And so this, that means that over time under the Ting proposal, I think it is very likely that Burlington will become a smaller and smaller part of a larger and larger multinational corporation and we will completely lose any ability to have a partner that owns and operates, manages our telecom infrastructure to work with to achieve our economic and social goals. And that for me is a very, very high price to pay indeed. Now the revised letter of intent, we reminded multiple times last week that there's this improved language about a repurchase price, a right of repurchase that Ting has now offered the city under very certain, very circumscribed conditions. If there's a hostile takeover or Ting divests, there's some defined events that have to happen within the first five years. It's a five-year window that Ting would offer us the ability to repurchase the telecom business at a price equal to the earnings times the purchase price multiple. Okay, so going back to my example of where it's worth $56 million, that means that they're offering to buy us for $28 to $30 million. And in five years later, we could buy it back from them for $56 million. And it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the city would actually exercise the option at that price. And I want to add that this offer is only extended through the city council vote on November 6, 2017. So it expires after tonight. So I combined that with the initial offer on carried interest. And it gives me, and I just have to say, I am not feeling the love. I am not feeling the love. Okay, excuse me. Remember, we're following President Nodell's rules. No applause, please, so we can keep moving forward. Do the hand signs or whatever you want to do. So I think that there are other entities with whom we could have a more positive partnership is my point. So I'm going to conclude is that under the team proposal before us today, I think that Burlington is inadequately compensated for its past investment. And we are inadequately compensated for the loss of local control and the loss of a Burlington based telecom entity. Now, clearly tonight we are a divided council. We are a divided community. And I believe the best path for us is to work towards a solution that is somewhere in between these two options that we have before us. And we may come to a decision tonight. We may not. I think we need to find a solution that pervers preserves BT as a Burlington based company, but that also adds the upfront equity that the current proposal of keep you to local before us does. So tonight I will be voting for keep you to local because the problems I see with that bid can be addressed. Team cannot change itself from a publicly traded corporation to something else. And so that's why I land tonight. Councilor, Councilor Wright acting president, Mike, excuse me. Thank you. Councilor Nodell and we'll now open the floor to any other councillor. And I just want to say first that I am ready to sign up for Professor Nodell's economics class. Anybody with me? Okay. Who else? Anybody else ready to jump in here? Are you ready to vote? Councilor Hartnett. Thanks. I hate to go after President Nodell, but I will. I'm kind of in the same place as President Nodell. And as you might have heard, it's a divided council and it looks like that we're six to six. And that's okay with me. Because unfortunately, neither one of these were my top two choices. And I feel there is a better partner out there for Brownton telecom. And hopefully there might be a path to that partnership. And maybe we can get there later tonight. But it comes down to two things for me. One, in the BTab committee, one of the things we talked about, one of the most important things we talked about was local control. Not local ownership, but local control. Ting takes all local control away. It doesn't happen. And I just can't get there. Brownton telecom, their financials haven't improved from day one. And are really almost impossible to get to. It's doomed for failure at the current financial status they're in now. And so that puts us in a very tough spot moving forward. And that's why I'm looking for compromise tonight. And I said hopefully we'll get there. This is kind of what I was thinking about a lot over the last week. We've been through a lot together with Brownton telecom. Bad times and good times. No question about that. The mayor spoke last week about all the hard work he's done to put us in this position tonight. The deal with Citibank, the Blue Water Deal, and he's absolutely right. Without those deals in place, we wouldn't be here tonight. There's no question about that. And the work he did was phenomenal. It was amazing. And I give him credit for that. But let's not forget why he was able to do that. That we had 3,800 loyal BT customers that never left us. They stood strong. When times were bad, when Comcast and Dish and Direct TV were breathing down their necks to switch over for a lower price, this town said, no, we're going to stick it out. We're going to stick through this. And when I say that, that's not me. I'm Brownton telecom now, but I wasn't back then. And I look around this room now and I see a lot of familiar faces that were with us back then. And I say we owe it to Brownton telecom. I owe it to the people of Brownton to find a better partner. And we can do that. And I know KBTL is not going to be happy with me. And I know Ting's not going to be happy with me. But there is no doubt. In fact, the unfortunate thing about tonight and last Monday is that the highest, one of the most highest thought offers coming out of BT was shores. When BTab finished their work, shores was considered the top offer. Unfortunately, shores isn't in front of us tonight. And that's because we stopped listening to each other. The Ting side told the KVL side, you've got to bring shores along with us. The mayor was on record saying shores is a great company. I could live with shores or Ting. This side, the KVTL side, don't take shores. Don't take Ting because we don't think we can get there. But if you take shores, we think they could be a great partner for the city of Brownton. And hopefully I'll be able to talk a little bit about shores later. I don't want to get into that, what they can offer. But it's pretty amazing. And a lot of things that Councilor Nodell mentioned that they bring with them. All right, we can get to a better place. We can compromise tonight. We can get to a better place. We can stay within the timeline. And we can do the right thing for everybody. So be patient and I hope we can get there. But for tonight, I'll be supporting KVTL. Thank you, Councilor Hartnett. Other Councillors who want to speak on this round. Okay, before we, I want to say one thing. Oh, excuse me, Councilor Roof. I'm going to shut my computer because everything that I prepared might not be so relevant at the moment. You know, I'm hearing from President Nodell and from Councilor Hartnett that they see an alternative path forward other than the two options that are in front of us tonight. And it seems like they plan on discussing that more later on. And I'll partake in that part of the debate when it comes. I think I will, I promise I will. For me, I came prepared, I said this last week, I came prepared to vote tonight. That is, you know, I have two options in front of me and the work that I did with Tang and the work that I did with KVTL and the work that we all did in the community. I came prepared to vote tonight. And I guess similar to the way that others have seen Tang as a non-starter against my best effort to be patient with KVTL and to help that team see what concerns I had in very concrete and distinct definitions, they did not meet that for me. And those concerns in short were an offer price that was less than half the value of the asset, an interest rate that was more than double what the industry standard is, and an operating cash reserve of less than one month. If those items were addressed, I'd been clear and consistent and fair that they could have earned my vote. Those things did not come. Those things just, they did not come. And for me, like I said, maybe similar to my colleagues on the other side of this, that is a non-starter for me. And over those, that same time, over the last couple of weeks, Tang has made substantive improvements to their bid. They've increased their offer price by two and a half million dollars up to 30.5. They have committed $50 million over 10 years. I have become confident that they will be, they would be a responsible and committed community partner, not just through kind words and dollars, but through real infrastructure and jobs for the long term, as they would say, forever. And I know that many in this community shake their head at that, and I understand why. I understand the logic and reasoning that Professor Nodell laid out in her remarks. They're not falling on deaf ears. I promise you they're not falling on deaf ears. My concern here is that KBTL is a non-starter. We're hearing it from the other side of the table. The concerns are real. They're shared with many around this table and many in the community. And so tonight, I've come prepared. I've talked with, we've all talked with hundreds of constituents and staff over the last weeks here. And I'm going to be voting, I'm going to be voting for Tang. I'll stop there. Thank you, Councilor Roof. Just before I go to another Councilor, and I see Councilor Shannon's hand up, and I'll go right to, I just want to, we talked last week, I know Councilor Shannon actually mentioned this, that they're wanting to offer BT employees the ability to speak if they wish to. I want to just say that I've talked to the BT employees. They actually do not want to speak tonight. I do want to say that, I know many of us around the table here took the opportunity to afford it to us to meet with Burlington Telecom employees. And we had great meetings with them. And I would just like to take a second and actually thank the Burlington Telecom employees for all of them, for taking a company that was in financial distress many years, several years ago, and building it up to where we are today with a valuable asset with serious bids on the table that's going to help this city move forward into the next decades going forward. Thank you. And lastly, just in case this vote goes different than I think it might, and I have really no idea, I want to thank everybody for coming tonight. This is unusual that we don't have a public forum. We have heard you many times in public forum. We've continued to get your emails and your contacts, your calls. I know I did many times today and we appreciate them all and we appreciate all your participation and your contacts with us and we know the passion everybody has on both sides of this. So thank you very much. We really do appreciate that. And with that, I will go to turn the floor over to Councillor Shannon. Thank you, Acting President Wright. I have a question for the city attorney if that's permissible. Absolutely. Does the council get to vote again on the final contract? Will that come before us? Yes, as I thought. Thank you. So I just wanted to make note of that because there were some issues raised by President Nodell that I do believe could be addressed as we go to final contract because we do get a vote on that again and that certainly gives us some leverage. Sorry, running over my own wires here. My bias throughout this process has been in favor of keeping Burlington Telecom local and it was my hope that I could be here announcing my support for the co-op. Despite that bias, I agreed with my fellow BTAB members including President Nodell, Councillor Hartnett, Councillor Paul, former GM of City Market, Clem Nylen, Teresa Alberghini-Dupalma, Tim Halverson and David Provo that the offer from the co-op is not viable. The BTAB was created for the purpose of bringing the expertise of the community to the table and to help the council solve this crisis in a non-political environment. I appreciate their service and respect the work and input of the group over the last eight years. As a group we have followed this issue from beginning to end under the skilled leadership and impartial leadership of David Provo. And my deepest thanks go to David. As President Nodell stated at our narrowing vote, we should be picking the bid that will present us with the most powerful partnership with BTV Ignite, a federal initiative to foster good jobs in the tech sector and innovation across the economy. She also made comments about the pro forma and at the end noted that the KBTL offer is not there yet. I agree. While some changes have been made, they have not addressed the major concerns raised unanimously by the BTAB, putting them in last place of eight bidders. Namely, those concerns were heavy reliance on expensive debt financing. The 14% interest rate has not changed. Despite a press conference to the contrary, there is no 8% interest rate, and the board has now acknowledged this. I thank them for that clarity and honesty. No management depth beyond the existing team. This hasn't changed and was raised as a serious concern when I talk to the current employees. Concern about ability to get a required certificate of public good due to debt structure, lack of capital, and lack of management experience in the industry. This issue has actually gotten worse, not better since the bid was reviewed by the BTAB. Due to the letters we have subsequently received from City Bank, virtually assuring that the city will be in litigation if we accept the bid from KBTL. KBTL was only advanced because of public interest and was advanced without recommendation. While moving the offer forward to the council, the BTAB stated, however, unless KBTL can address the concerns of the BTAB, we do not believe this to be a viable offer. Given that these concerns have not been addressed, I cannot support the local offer because it remains not viable. In other words, KBTL does not have a reasonable chance of succeeding. I don't need a sure thing, but I do need a reasonable chance of succeeding to support any offer. That means no matter how I vote, this is not an offer that has a path to success. Moving KBTL forward will mean either it is vetoed by the mayor, vetoed by Blue Water, or vetoed by the PUC. And according to both the employees of BT and the BTAB analysis, they are highly unlikely to be successful operators of BT. In contrast, the analysis of Ting by the BTAB was glowing and starkly different from that of the KBTL analysis. And this is a quote from the BTAB report. BTAB offers Ting to cows as a finalist to the city council with one reservation about its publicly held status and a desire to continue to work with them to strengthen their proposal and minimize the risk to the city in the event of a sale of the company. Since this analysis, Ting has worked to improve their offer in a variety of ways and address the one concerned raised by BTTAB. They have given the city a limited right to repurchase if they should sell or be taken over. I'll acknowledge that I am still a little bit frustrated on that one point, but it's still just one point in comparison with many, many points on the other offer. However, they have also improved other terms of their offer. In particularly, they have increased the amount of their bid from 27.5 million to 30.5 million. They have agreed to make their eastern headquarters for video services here and will make BT a center for research and development of technologies that integrate wired infrastructure with radio spectrum to achieve the next generation wireless experience of ambient connectivity. From the beginning, Ting has committed to provide annual contributions of $60,000 a year for BTV Ignite, $50,000 a year for free TV advertising on premium channels for local startups and community events. $140,000 a year to other community projects and free service to select local nonprofits. To be fair, KBTL did improve their bid to add $50,000 to BTV Ignite and to provide co-working spaces and internships for students. In addition, all BTV employees... I'm sorry. In addition, all BT employees will receive retirement benefits from Ting and only 50% receive retirement benefits currently or with KBTL. The clear choice between these two options is Ting. However, I know some of you are still... I know some of you still desire the forbidden fruit of the fourth bidder or shares. And would like to reopen this process to those options. I do not think either could make it to full council approval. The fourth bidder had a conflict of interest and voluntarily withdrew their bid when that was brought to their attention. Shers was also my favorite for a period of time. But leading up to the narrowing vote, I felt they were not engaged in our civic discussion. Ting was. The reason the offer from Shers is not on the table is not because we stopped talking but because it only received one vote. In the comparison between Ting and Shers, a constituent who works in the creative economy said it best. He wrote, in looking at the websites and business models of both Ting and Shers, it appears that Ting is most closely aligned with the outlook and sensibilities of Burlington. It's somewhat anecdotal, I agree, but this should be an important consideration. Old family run and stable is nice, but Shers really appears to be a Midwest or newspaper company to me. They are stable, safe, and boring. Are they going to add to the vitality of Burlington and help us become a true destination for creative entrepreneurial thinkers who want to dig in? Ting may have their flaws, but to me they seem to truly believe in Burlington's future as a hub of the creative economy. They want to be part of this story. But alas, that ship has sailed on Shers or perhaps sank with only one vote in support. And we now have Ting and KBTL. Ting will be best for the tech and creative economies, best for startup businesses who will benefit from Ting's annual 250,000 contribution to their endeavors, best for Burlington residents who don't yet have BT service, best for nonprofits who qualify for free service, best for those that do subscribe to the service who will receive improved customer service and better hookups, and best for our regional economy with a $35 million investment in building out regional. A vote for KBTL assures that we will continue in litigation with Citibank and is unlikely to get necessary approvals for a CPG due to that litigation and other considerations. Another interesting point that was raised by President Nodell is could we get more for this? Has Ting somehow short changed us in their offer? But I think that what our asset is worth is determined by what the market will pay. We had eight offers for this business and there was no offer higher than what Ting has offered. So I don't think that it's fair to say and I surely do not understand stocks as well as President Nodell. But I don't think I am a realtor and I know what we say is market value is what people are willing to pay for any property. And we have put that to the test here and what the market is willing to pay is right about in this range and it's not like we have numerous opportunities of people beating down the door for this asset. I think that that's a big risk to take. There's one last thing. Many of us did have the opportunity to meet with BT employees and I so appreciate the time that they took to meet with so many of us and I know that councillors Tracy and Busher and President Nodell were not able to find the time to meet with them. But I wanted to share just one thing out of that conversation and there was a lot of good and meaningful feedback but this was inspirational. We could really stick it to Comcast if we were able to grow. We are waiting for the flag to wave so we can go running. Ting understands everything we need and can help us get there. And I think that sentiment was very broadly held by those in that meeting and I will support Ting. Thank you Councillor Shannon. Councillor Moore is up next in the queue and then Councillor Tracy. Thank you. So first I have a clarifying question about the repurchasing process. I'm wondering how the city might do that. Would that be some sort of a revenue bond? I'm just curious. Is that a question for whoever I guess can field that question? Thank you Councillor Moore. I think it's a great question Councillor Moore in that as we have discussed many times together the city has real limitations on today certainly on how it can make investments and actually spend taxpayer money or other public money on telecom assets. We have prohibitions in our charter. There's prohibitions in state law and the license. One possibility that some people have wished for is that that might go away in the future and the city might have more flexibility in the future depending on how public policy shifts from here. Even if that does not happen and there's no indication that that is imminent I think the process we've been through over the last six months gives a sense of what an answer could be is that the city would have the ability to try to marshal resources put together a new deal in the face of a hostile takeover or in the face of Ting divesting. They were the specific circumstances that Ting's offer speaks to were the specific circumstances the council has raised concern about. That's why they were so specifically articulated. They were the ones that gave us concern and trouble and if those circumstances were worth it to transpire the city would have an opportunity like we've had now to try to marshal forces, resources, partners to make such a repurchase. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I too had a chance to meet with Burlington Telecom employees last week and I have to say that conversation really through me. It was very emotional. I walked away definitely questioning what I had been thinking and planning previously and then I found myself coming back to the asset that this community has invested in and the value of that and I completely understand. I mean Ting has a lot to offer right now. It's impressive and I get that these employees that have worked so hard and through such difficult times and have had really much more success and really obviously brought BT to where it's at today want to be able to just focus on making that company soar right now and do everything that it possibly could do right now and yet I can't help but think of 10, 20, 30 years into the future and really the vision that this company was started with and I get maybe that ship has sailed. Maybe I'm holding on to something that isn't realistic but I can't help but think of that investment wanting to retain it ideally, locally owned or at least get some more value back to our taxpayers. I mean we certainly know every year that the budget is very difficult there's increasing needs in our city and $17 million is a lot of money. So I guess the reason that I can justify accepting a bid that is so much lower recognizing that it has its flaws is knowing that that asset is retained locally. So I started thinking of it. It's not like we're just selling it off. We're retaining it. So I am hopeful that there will be some other options. We talked about them a little bit yesterday, some possibilities when we met. And I know that people want to move on from this and a lot of people are really tired but I have to think of the long-term and not just the next few years. So I will be supporting the co-op tonight. Thank you, Councillor Moore. We will now, Councillor Tracy has the floor. Thank you, President Wright. Certainly appreciate it and I appreciate everyone coming out today and being willing to join us for yet another meeting on this important issue. When we began this public process, one of the crucial issues that we dealt with was establishing public criteria and we went through lots of meetings, lots of surveys, lots of outreach to the public to understand what were the important terms, what were the things that were most important to them when we looked for a sale, when we were looking for a potential buyer. And the thing that came out time and time again, head and shoulders above everything else, was the issue of local control, maintaining local control. And that came as no surprise to me. This is part of who we are as a city. This is part of who we are as a state. This is part of our culture. This is part of our DNA as a place. This is what we are in Burlington, Vermont. We're all about local and because local has worked so well for us, keeping it local in terms of the waterfront, keeping it local in terms of our grocery stores, keeping it local in so many different ways has brought tremendous value to our city and getting it to be local was, in fact, the answer to the problem in the first place that we were dealing with. We were dealing with a multinational tech conglomerate in Comcast, well, Adelphi at the time. And so the solution to dealing with the bad service, the high rates, the lack of competition was to, in fact, keep it local. And that was done under very challenging conditions. And I think conditions that in many ways set up the situation in which we find ourselves, namely the fact that we weren't able to build beyond Burlington under the initial CPG, but that there was a full build out that was required. And so I think that in many ways that this idea that it was set up to fail are very much true. And I think that being relieved of those conditions will be much more beneficial in the future. However, I think that the best opportunity for success comes with keeping it local well into the future and going with the co-op bid tonight and well into the future. And I think that the reason that I've kind of come to that decision has been through lots and lots of public outreach, going to lots of different meetings in the Old North End, talking with constituents where when you ask them at that meeting, raise your hands, you know, how many of you support this? Everyone in the room supports KBTL. Emails, tons of emails in support of KBTL, both to the BT feedback account, to my personal account, to, you know, as a city counselor, to all these different accounts. At public forums we see, you know, at the first public forum for the first cut, 32 to 1 for KBTL. The last public forum we had 35 to 16, so a little bit even more even split comes with people getting more familiar with these meetings. And, you know, I'm guessing that that would probably continue tonight. So if I ask, how many people, raise your hands, how many people in this room support KBTL tonight? Pretty powerful. It's pretty powerful to see people turning out time and time again saying that they want local, that they want local opportunity, that they have continued faith in Burlington Telecom, in local people's ability to not only take over this, but to run it and to do so successfully through a democratically run cooperative. And that's really what we're looking at tonight, is two fundamentally different proposals. One is saying, let's keep it local, let's trust in Burlington residents, let's trust in the expertise, the amazing creative forces that we've brought together on the KBT local board, let's trust in the cooperative model and the ability to give people in Burlington a real voice and real say, real ownership over this entity, real control not only now, but well into the future, and an opportunity that will dramatically decrease, if not completely erode, our ability to maintain control of this asset tomorrow. Not necessarily tomorrow, literally, but pretty quickly thereafter, and that really sits poorly with me. And I think that we really have an obligation to listen to the public outcry that we've had around this, the grassroots support that we've had time and time again value that public opinion and really turn it into a real bid. But what we've seen throughout this is that instead of working with the cooperative model, we've seen continual arguments against the cooperative model, continual reasons why we can't do that. And I'll be, I'll certainly admit that I have had those doubts, but I've worked with the members of the cooperative to better understand the model to get the answers that I need to be more comfortable and to really work collaboratively. I don't feel like that's necessarily the case overall, and I think that we could have done a lot better job in doing that. We've seen issues of debt being brought up, the 14% interest, but not necessarily enough weight placed on the debt coverage ratio, which we see that the KBTL model will certainly have enough ability to cover the debt that they propose to take out. And not only that, but that ignores the fact that these questions about debt also ignore the fact that we'd be able to refinance once this gets up and running, so that would bring that cost of borrowing down substantially. In addition to that, we've also heard questions raised about the managerial expertise of Burlington Telecom, which I think is pretty insulting to the members of the board of KBTL who are very creative, who are very diligent, who are very committed in their efforts and who have continually risen to the challenges that have been thrown down in front of them, and they've brought on expertise to really deal with a lot of the concerns that have been raised. Additionally, we also, that has also as many of these complaints do, taken focus away from some of the weaknesses of the Ting bid, which the reality with them is that they have less than two years in this business. Their primary business lies in domain names and cell phones, so they're not really necessarily well experienced in running the type of system that we have here in Burlington, and that's something that's incredibly significant. So I think that the focus on the shortcomings of BT have really taken important and necessary focus away from some of the weaknesses and shortcomings of Ting. Additionally, we've heard more about lawsuits, and I think that while the banks can threaten us, it's important to understand what grounds they have to stand on, and the agreement says that we were able to direct the sale and continue to remain and continue to be able to do so, and that moreover we're not obligated to take the highest bid as part of that sale. So whether or not they actually have grounds to stand on with that lawsuit remains to be seen, but the point that I keep coming back to is that we fight for what we believe in, we fight for what our community wants, and as we saw today, the community wants this. We certainly take their concerns, the banks concerns seriously, but we also take the value and the feedback that we hear from our constituents, the people that come to these meetings seriously, and we really try and act on that. In addition to that, I do also want to address the employee piece, and I do want the BT employee piece, because that was raised and Councillor Shannon did try and call me out for not attending the meeting. I have a full-time day job, I can't just at the drop of a hat meet with them. I apologize to the employees for the inability to do that, and I sincerely thank you for your hard work in making Burlington telecom the success that it is today. I absolutely have a deep sense of gratitude for you. I hope the intelligence that you brought to the table in terms of that would also help you to understand, would also be present in terms of understanding that this is an incredibly complex issue, and that we have a lot to balance whenever considering this, a lot of different interests to balance, and that I also have a lot of constituents who are passionate about this entity as well, and so I have to balance all of those different concerns. I think that for me, I keep coming back to trying to create an accurate balance of those different concerns. I would also just say that the employees asked us not to make them political pawns. I don't think that that's fair, and I think that we should really make sure that we're treating, taking those wishes seriously in this matter. Listening is one thing, but then our counselors for not being able to meet with them is a completely different matter, and so I would ask that we really take that seriously, that we don't make them into political pawns. And then all of these things in terms of these concerns that have been raised, one after the other after the other, again, have continued to not, have continued to draw focus away from the analysis of Ting that counselor Nodell, President Nodell so eloquently ran through. I mean, that is a fundamental analysis, an analysis that really hadn't been brought to the fore. So first of all, thank you President Nodell for doing that analysis, but second of all, that's a pretty fundamental concern. So those people who say that, you know, we are, that that's, that that's clearly the better deal, I don't know that that's exactly true. That's, that's a complete, you know, 70 million, 70 million dollar true price versus the 30 million dollars that were being offered, and really not, not a really a fair opportunity to be buying it that back is is complete, is something that we, we really haven't spoken to until really counselor Nodell brought that up, and I have not heard anybody dramatically address that undervaluation other than that, that's what the market will bear. And I think that this speaks to the fact that we really need to, if we are going to be giving up a community resource driving a much, much harder bargain, we need to be having much better negotiation if we're giving this up, because once you lose something that's local, it's gone forever, and we absolutely cannot lose this, this, this local control, you know, in terms of this, and we certainly can't do it for this price. So I think that we, we absolutely have to, have to keep this, this entity, this entity local, and to do so by voting for KBTO. Thank you counselor Tracy, please hold the applause, we appreciate the, your finger gestures, whatever they may be. But we will, we will recognize counselor Hartnett for a brief comment and then I'll swing back over to this side of the table for counselor Dean Mason and Paul, and then back here for counselor Jiang. Just a couple quick things I didn't want to get into the shores thing counselor Shannon brought some things up and I just want to everyone to realize you know, to say that shores is not community engaged, I believe shores and there was another company when the, when the first four were advanced, at least I know shores was the only company that went to meet to be BT employees at least, at least upper management so to say that shores wasn't engaged and didn't want to be engaged I think they really showed the initiative right off the bat they were the first ones to go so I think that's disingenuous to say that about the company I also would like to say it's, it's ironic I hear all the counselors to talk about them going down a meeting with the BT employees right and what an experience it was and trust me nobody knows better than I I was the first to do it with not anyone to tell me to go, not setting up meetings just walked in there one morning and had a frank conversation with them all and I have a tremendous amount of respect for them but to think that they were only singing Ting's praises is little misleading as well they're ready to soar but they were ready to soar with others as well and so I want to be clear about that and to be fair to all the employees down there okay because they could soar I think with the right partner which I don't think is there and Councillor Shannon also mentioned you know $30 million price tag from Ting that's just matching shores that's just coming up to match where shores was just so everybody knows and the thing that important with shores is they want to offer us one third partnership we can own one third of the company under this corporation this is why it's so important that we get back to them okay and I hope we can do that tonight alright so I didn't want to get into that debate I'm hoping that we can have that debate later but I just don't want any misinformation out there about shores thank you thank you Councillor Hartnett we'll move to Councillor Dean thank you Councillor Wright so I'd like to begin my remarks tonight with a special thanks to Councillor Ali Dieng for encouraging us all to go and visit directly with the BT employees I attended a session last week with councillors Mason and more and it really was a revelation it was a true eye eye-opener we spent a little more than an hour hearing from earnest, motivated and dedicated people what we heard was an intense sense of pride and ownership this is really their Burlington telecom they built it with their sacrifices their hard work and dedication and their 80-hour weeks they did all this to bring Burlington telecom back from the brink of failure to become a company that is legitimately worth 30 million dollars they should be proud and we should recognize their investment and expertise by listening carefully to what they have to say what we heard in their voices was deep concern a real worry a deep seated unease built up over many months as this city council and this community at large has debated the future of Burlington telecom their Burlington telecom that they built that they sweated for and that they missed their families and weekends for they are tired and worn with worry about where this all is headed because they do not want BT to fail again and they know enough about their business to understand that success is not assured it depends on hard work and dedication but also it rides on knowledge and experience and vision and careful planning so what did they say to us why are they so concerned what they see is the real possibility that their Burlington telecom where they have invested their best energies will be sold to a group of investors that although well intentioned and community minded are under capitalized, burdened by debt have no experience running a telecom have little in depth understanding of the telecom and fiber to home space and have no clear vision for the future a critical necessity when they look forward to the years ahead the BT employees expressed in no uncertain terms that if they are to survive and thrive they must have the leadership and financial resources to expand their network and their business right now not 10 years from now the employees and leadership of Burlington telecom want the best for their Burlington telecom for their Burlington telecom and it's incumbent on us to make the best choice so we can respect their investment their passion and their commitment so what is our best choice my challenge, the challenge from most members of this council to KBTL from the last vote was to use the time available until tonight to improve their offer to make it as much as possible commercially reasonable all with the hope that they would consider supporting it without accepting unacceptable regulatory and legal risk well let's look at where we are the financing terms presented to us are not in fact the same as last presented they are actually less acceptable should the city not elect to accept the 12.5% carried interest equity stake in the company KBTL will now take on an additional 1.5 million of highly leveraged money for main fiber a more than 10% increase in the debt position held at junk bond rates of 14% making the burden of debt service even higher and leaving even less money available for capital expansion or community support we can look backwards in contrast Ting's updated LOA makes significant additional investments commitments to capital investment and community development and the city council's visit to the Toronto headquarters we need to ask challenging questions and assess for ourselves the strengths of the commitments that Ting has made in their offer to us so how do we evaluate these two options here's what I see what the city takes on if we choose to accept KBTL's 12.5 million offer for a company that is legitimately worth 30 million dollars we get promises and requests that we have faith there's a report that KBTL has secured financing from their lender 8% this turns out not to be true we hear an argument that KBTL will be able to negotiate more favorable terms with another financial institution a few years down the road relieving them of some of their very significant debt service burden but do we know that conditions for finance will be any more favorable a few years from now there's a mention in the LOI of the line of credit for additional working capital and that the equity will be secured for that line but there's no letter included from those people who are securing that investment showing that that is really secured we understand that from the LOI that KBTL will identify and hire a management team that can prove managerial experience and technical competence to the PUC so that we can get a certificate of public good we are assured that a management team will be found but that will follow later the burden of debt service and ongoing operational costs there are only limited additional resources available to invest in capital expenditure to improve and expand the network we need to accomplish this build out to maintain BT's competitive advantage we are assured that KBTL will be able to do this with the resources available but can we really be sure we are informed that we need not worry about a potential lawsuit from Citibank because this really is too small an amount of money for Citibank to worry about the negotiated terms of our settlement agreement will protect us we know this is untrue since we have already been put on notice of Citibank's intent to file suit and I have seen no opinion from any legal professional stating that this litigation is unwarranted and that the city would have a chance to prevail so ultimately the question for all of us in this are we willing to take a gamble to take on all these current risks and the limited community benefit for the next 10 years all with a hope for a future unspecified and unquantified community benefit a benefit that goes to the subscribers of BT and not to all the taxpayers who don't choose to be BT members so effectively let's take a risk play the cards that were dealt from KBTL and trust that we have been dealt a winning hand so what's the other available option if we elect not to gamble well here's what we expect from Ting we get a well-financed experience an innovative telecom operator willing to buy the BT asset at fair market value including recognizing and paying for two and a half million cost two and a half million dollars of capital expansion in time until the deal closes we get an investment commitment to invest 50 million dollars in the next 10 years expanding the fast fiber network in Burlington and to adjacent communities we get a company that has to know how to lay fiber and potentially connect a thousand addresses they can get more done with the planned capital investment and in less time and even with all these capital investments we the city of Burlington get in assure 250,000 dollars annually into the future to support BTV Ignite free advertising for community organizations and to invest as we would like to support community initiatives in addition Burlington becomes the eastern state headquarters for a new national video over in internet service we get a company and finally we get a company that has built its brand around customer service where a customer always gets to talk with a person not a machine and typically within a few seconds of placing your call and if it takes too much time to fix your problem each customer service representative has the ability to credit you back as a customer for your time that you invested we even get a company that's building new platforms and who tracks with GIS technology all of its assets placed underground and in the air we get a company that claim for great service and customer support and that's heard from its Charlottesville customers through a Reddit forum and letters noting commitment to community and to public private partnerships from the coalition for local internet choice and there's much more Ting is in no way even remotely like Comcast or Fairpoint on the other side we have promises and trust me's and on the other we have financial wherewithal innovation know-how and concrete promises of economic development and real quantifiable commitments to community investment and customer service to me the choice seems very clear so finally I'm familiar with being the local competitor going up against a larger more experienced out of state firm we take on that challenge quite frequently in my business we're competing for work against other national and international architecture and interior design firms as a local firm if we want to succeed and win we know we need to demonstrate professionalism, competence and experience we need to bring our best people and projects forward and demonstrate why the value of the local teams know-how and insight outweighs the additional capabilities and experience that the national or international firm brings we know we have to bring our best and we do and without it we would not win but even with our a-game and competence and professionalism and hard work and effort we often don't succeed we aren't selected we know that being local brings value but we also know that it does not and should not outweigh everything else we understand and respect the potential clients we have to trump everything else the decision we are trying to make is about a $30 million company that has the potential under the right ownership and leadership to bring great future benefits to our city this is no game this is not a place for guesses and assumptions and it's not a place for unreasonable risks and unqualified and unquantified promises of future return let's seize the opportunity and vote for a truly bright future for Burlington both for the short term and for the long term thank you thank you Councillor Dean Councillor Mason to be followed by Councillor Paul and Councillor Jane Councillor Mason is going to pass Councillor Paul thank you acting president right this has been a long journey that we've all been on to arrive at this moment Burlington telecom's history has been one of innovation innovation probably a bit ahead of its time but it's an exciting and almost exhilarating idea that in the midst of the rush to expand and given that excitement got a bit ahead of itself and in doing so planted the seeds of what would later create missteps perhaps errors in judgment that led us to the legal settlement and to this day when we must decide on the future owner of Burlington telecom five years ago to a group a loyal group of 3,500 or so subscribers today that figure is over 7,000 and is going strong we have an amazing staff as we all know of BT employees some who are here this evening and many of whom that I met with a few hours ago they're all very talented they're engaged, they're committed and they're looking forward to an exciting future for Burlington telecom of the 30 employees at BT I was pleased to meet with about 25 of them this afternoon and hear from them firsthand about their perspective on Burlington telecom's future their input was invaluable to me and I'm sure it was to others who are at this table as well over the last several months I think we have all done our own due diligence to arrive at this evening's decision we've heard from many counselors already and it's clear that we have all worked very hard to arrive at our decision by being careful, being thoughtful and again doing our own due diligence we are all bound by a fiduciary responsibility in this role as city counselors and that means the highest standard of care it's a pretty awesome responsibility for me above all it is this standard this responsibility to do right by the city and its citizens to protect our assets from undue risk to support our financial foundations and to ensure the city's continued well-being that guides me we have made enormous progress in the past few years with Burlington telecom and surely we all want to continue on that road part of my due diligence has been many conversations that I've had with the KBTL leadership which began almost from their beginning shortly after the city bank settlement I am grateful for the time that they've given me similarly I have long felt that I couldn't make a decision of this magnitude without visiting for myself Ting's headquarters in Toronto getting an appreciation for the feel of the company's culture meeting with some of their employees and just being there in order to see their operations visiting Ting opened my eyes to what was behind the leadership and yes of course the company put their best foot forward that day we all know that and indeed it was only one day but facts are facts and culture is not something that can be created overnight to permeate an organization for one day visiting Ting gave me what I needed to see in order to have get a feel for their organization and I just wanted to make a couple of points that I think to some degree have been made and I'll try to make them brief there's a lot that's been said about how customer service will suffer under a Ting management and we'll lose out with a big corporate entity with some huge call center somewhere in Canada running our customer service experience customer service will remain in Burlington the only change to our customer service and this was something I gathered from the employees that I met with today the only change is that it's going to get better 24-7 service no answering service after hours full service all the time and a Burlington a Burlington BT person answering the phone when Burlington telecom is open always someone with full access to your account who can problem solve we actually saw Ting's state of the art ability to troubleshoot and that access will become an exciting part of BT's infrastructure we're talking about state of the art connectivity that they in fact have created this system just a few hours ago when I met with BT employees I could tell that they are united in their support of an owner for Burlington telecom who has the resources the depth of knowledge and the formal business structure to collaboratively take BT to the next level the new owner of Burlington telecom must and I repeat must retain current BT customers one of the things that I have always been puzzled about in the conversation that has taken place over many months with BT is the concern that people have that only having BT in local hands will ensure that prices won't go up that if BT is owned by a large company prices will increase and the customer the consumer will suffer again the new owner of Burlington telecom must retain current BT subscribers for the long haul their pro forma is built on retaining and expanding their footprint over time if you raise your prices you cost yourself customers and you begin a cycle that you may well not be able to get ahead of even over the long periods of time Burlington is not a huge market and we could not afford no one can afford to hike prices and still remain successful I understand that there are employees of Burlington telecom who were initially very supportive of some of our early bidders as was I initially but one thing that I gathered today for sure and it's not just from BT employees it's from many people in the community who have emailed me we need to make a decision if at all possible tonight and we need to move forward I think the community deserves that and I think we owe after such a long discussion we owe it to everyone including ourselves to make that decision this evening based on the letter of intent and the proformas the additional funds to Burlington from partnering with Ting instead of the other proposal is $43.5 million over 10 years and I think that should count in terms of when you look at the value of the company I think you need to take that into account as well that is a lot of money and it's a lot of jobs and it's a lot of funding to Burlington based services local means local jobs and expanded infrastructure to attract more people to Burlington and expand our tech footprint this is an economic development tool for the long and the short term you know running a successful telecom and cable enterprise is very difficult under the leadership of Stephen Barraclough and the managers and employees that he has assembled some of whom are here this evening this group has recently made running Burlington telecom almost look easy the truth is that it wasn't always that easy the truth is that Burlington has already learned the hard way that it's really hard to run a telecom enterprise now that things are going well it's easy to think that we can anyone can come in and just take over and the trajectory that it's on will continue new operators in any business struggle no matter what the industry being nimbled and seasoned and well financed is critical Ting has a distinguished track record of outstanding service and affordable pricing they're an established operator of fiber to the home networks they're supported by highly efficient well financed state of the art operations the coalition for local internet choice which is a national coalition of public and private sector interests we support the authority of local communities to make broadband internet choices that are essential for economic competitiveness recently honored Elliott Nos of Ting with the local internet choice private sector champion award the director of the CLIC whose name is Catherine Rice said at the award ceremony Mr. Nos was selected due to his and his companies on paralleled willingness to deploy gigabit internet connectivity through creative partnerships with local communities as exemplified in Westminster Maryland, Holly Springs, North Carolina and Greater Sandpoint Idaho and for standing with the CLIC when state legislatures have attempted to prohibit these kinds of public-private partnerships when you talk about a community partner for Burlington and net societal benefits Ting has committed and these have to some degree been mentioned Ting has committed to an additional three and a half million in upfront funds 50 million in capital investment over 10 years a minimum guaranteed $250,000 a year continued support of BT's Lifeline broadband program expanded digital divide efforts focused on gigabit service community support for local Wi-Fi event sponsorships internships internship programs and free services to qualified local organizations speaking of jobs and putting BT and Burlington on the tech map nationally Ting has committed to BT being the eastern US video headquarters for their company additionally Burlington would become the national site for two cows ambient connectivity research and development hub their capital investment and commitment to Burlington being their video headquarters and R&D site will bring good high paying jobs and money that goes to services and the people of Burlington who will benefit directly we all know that we are a close community neighbors no neighbors we all help each other when we need help and we are all connected in many ways the adage that there is six degrees of separation between one human being and another on one side of the globe well in the city of Burlington it's probably about one degree of separation our lives are intertwined with one another and I do believe that the KBTL offer and the enormous public engagement has made for a better process I don't see my role tonight to point out the weaknesses of the KBTL offer in an effort to strengthen my arguments in favor of the other I don't feel that that solves anything and I don't think that that's really who we are in closing I'd just like to add one more thing growing up in Burlington I've always been attracted and attached to the local by local argument the KBTL mantra we in Burlington espouse diversity, inclusion and tolerance and how we welcome people to our city the truth is that we're actually pretty hard on outsiders that we don't think believe fiercely to our values and priorities sometimes we don't even give them a chance assumptions about Ting have been rampant over time I really believe that they will prove to us that they are a good community partner we have letters from other municipalities just like us that have said that much and more as much as I believe in local we know that being focused on any one thing any one mantra can have unintended consequences when you become myopic in your thinking your mind becomes so focused often at the expense of other factors governing is about balance and myopic thinking is not about balance I truly believe that many of the positives that a local co-op might bring can be brought to Burlington by others many have worked hard for many years to bring BT to this point I hope that we can move forward together embrace progress and let's continue to build on BT's successes thank you thank you Councillor Paul Councillor Jang you are up next thank you acting president I will start by talking about governing as a community such as Burlington the first thing that we need to have and if we don't have it we don't have any chance is a vision a clear vision for the resident of this municipality where do we see ourselves what is our identity where do we want to go unless we have that a lot of things will not happen and one of them been playing out through this process which mean we want to keep things into closed doors we don't want to invite our communities to be part of the process to let them know that you murder we care unless we have a clear vision many things won't happen we see we are Burlington our identity is all about community building a greater and sustainable community we been working so hard for many generations to make sure that we stand against corporate to make sure that every single resident here can strive every single resident will feel that they murder that they part of the process we haven't provided the best option to the resident of Burlington whether it's TING, SUERS, ZRF I feel like the best option has been put in front of us by the Keep Burlington Telecom Local in a very simple way group of people who stood up among us and I think it was supposed to even be the city but a couple of people and say hey, Brick bless you bring us a proposal in keeping our asset we did not do it a group of people stood up and professionals well educated people who have knowledge very respected in this community they stood up we did not rally behind them but we tried you cannot do it to just have the elite elite to keep on running our city doing our due diligence we haven't done it none of us we went to two cows this is a document and it is my conversation with the TING operator wherever he was, I don't know but our time frame was so there was a huge gap and listen I'm going to read just something here and I said what are the cities in the United States currently using TING internet services his name is Chris, he said hi Ali TING home internet at this time is available in three cities Charlottesville, Winchester Maryland, Holy Spring we are expanding in ID I know how maybe and CO and I asked him how long have you been operating telecom business and he made it very clear because all of us we miss that TING is new TING has only been operating was launched in February 2012 they've been operating business in 2014 2015 starting in Charlottesville right and we all are here and this is the company that has the best experience in building our company our asset I don't think that's true the truth is the keep the Burlington telecom employees those are the great people that we need to applause those are the best people that turn this company around and we all of us have been underestimating them we don't need keep BTL to money we want those 30 people 35 people to keep on operating it we haven't done our due diligence the way it should be we haven't gone to Maryland we haven't gone to Virginia to see how TING operates but we went to two cows a company that was created in 1993 there is a big difference in my own sense what I feel like is important is we need to come together and stand against corporate we need to make sure that every single resident in Burlington can gain our $17 million back the way to do it is not giving it to a corporate company we have knowledgeable people who are able to run we have knowledgeable people that know about finances in laws and regulation in hiring and retaining why can't we make that happen keep BTL and the Burlington telecom the employees they are our dream team it's not about the 14% interest rate again it's not about that we hired a financial advisor he was here I'm not lying we all know he was right here and I asked him a very simple direct question do you think in 10 years keep BTL with the 7000 subscribers can pay back the debt he made it very clear to all of us he said yes didn't he say that he said that right here and again a knowledgeable person we have telecom expertise we have financial expert we have Burlingtonians 7000 people who are not going anywhere and we also have the ability to bring more the only option in getting our 17 millions back is to find way for Burlington telecom and the BT employees who work together to make it happen we all going to win we haven't done our due diligence in going even to main fiber and asking are you going to really lend us this money we haven't done it and we are going to this vote tonight it's about our identity we voting about the identity of this community are we corporate are we going to build a sustainable community do we want to leave a legacy to our children and grandchildren that this vote is about it's not about the 30 millions or 12 million it is about the legacy we want to leave not for you for me not for you to be reelected again this is about our future the best choice for our country the best choice to show the rest of the nation is we start taking our own asset into our own hands we are not letting anybody to come and take it away from us do not do not make me sick President Nodell on you please I will again say something about President Odell because also of her expertise in knowing the economy how it works she just brought up something new that I never thought of how this company 5, 10 years how this company will become with such respect until we feel like we can do it nothing great will come out of here it starts here it will come inside you it start with a clear vision and as leaders we need to make sure that every single person living in Burlington and our surrounding communities can strive the best option is not to bring those we let go the best option if we cannot give it to keep Burlington Telecom local the BT employees and Ting to work together for the future for the legacy I will be voting for the BTL thank you councillor Jang we will turn over now to Mayor Weinberger Mayor the floor is yours thank you acting president right I will try to keep my comments brief I wanted to thank councillor Hardner for his warm comments about the events I've been involving getting up until now I want to say very clearly any success that I was involved in up until now was a shared success with the council we've done it every step of the way over the last five and a half years together and it is certainly my hope that we can find a way to finish the job together hopefully tonight I also want to say again my appreciation to the KBTL board who have continued even in recent days to continue to work to find a way despite major challenges to make sure their vision survives regardless of tonight's outcome and I appreciate the ongoing discussion and look forward in one form or another to continue and I think there may be more discussion of that tonight it strikes me having listened to this first round of comments leading up to the first vote there's been a lot of conversation about essentially equity investments and how to get the best return on the asset that we have some share of I find it interesting that this has been the focus tonight and I just feel one thing that I've learned and I think we've learned together as a council is how difficult it is to project out into the future what company is going to succeed financially who is going to create the most returns we actually interestingly as a council and administration chose to move away from trying to pick winners with the respect to the way we manage our pension fund and we did that because it's almost impossible to do no one has a crystal ball about exactly who is going to succeed the most how our equity share might grow the most in the future let's be really clear that essentially all the bidders in this competition have offered very comparable share of equity the equity percentage that the city could end up with has essentially been calculated the same way with each of the different proposals it's been done as a percentage of the net sales proceeds that the city will earn in the transaction as a percentage of the valuation and doing that math is why it ends up with about 20% is the equity share with the Ting proposal and only 12.5% with the KBTL proposal the fact that another proposal suggested the city could earn up to about 30% equity you know really I think is not a distinction that I recommend we focus on here and that really that would require additional money being put in that the city may or may not be privy to but the point is this if we are going to have if we're going to make this decision on how much our equity is going to grow in the future I think it's very hard for any of us to know what that's going to be none of us has a crystal ball if you did have to make a guess I have a hard time understanding why we wouldn't guess on those grounds that Ting will have the best chance of growing they are the ones that have committed the most resources to growth they have been unique and that they have said they will spend more than 50 million dollars over the next decade to grow the asset they are hands down the best operators in the space they are hands down the operators that have most invested in fiber and expertise in fiber they are they have focused their business entirely on that so I think it's you know if we were going to make it on those grounds I think they would have a very strong case that said I don't think that's the way we should be making this decision I think the decision comes down for me at least to who is going to do best who is going to do right by our constituents who is going to offer the most affordable prices who will have the best customer service who will run Burlington telecom with progressive values around net neutrality around privacy policies around digital divide policies on those fronts and so I think most importantly King has by far the best record of all the companies all the competitors that have been in this process from the beginning all eight of them and I think we do a disservice to the people we represent when we overlook that record entirely and write it off simply because the business has been organized in the legal structure that it has I think that is far from the analysis for such an important decision Thank you Mr. Mayor we will go to Councillor Mason and then Councillor Busher and then we'll go to the second round Thank you President Wright I don't view this as a vote about our identity I've articulated my support for Ting in the past and that has not changed over the past three weeks I think framing it as a vote about identity ignores the context of the bids one being for 12 million dollars and one being for 30 plus million dollars I've not heard anyone articulating a vision in terms of how if KBTL is the successful bidder there is a path forward to them we we have been told in no uncertain terms that Citibank will bring suit against us all we have to do is go look at that email I mean that was the sternest email I've seen litigation with Citibank will cost the taxpayers in order to defend it will distract this council and the administration from other priorities that really have been left as we've been engulfed in this decision and it will also cause additional uncertainty for employees and staff at BT litigation doesn't end in months it's potentially years it's going to further impact negatively impact KBTL's efforts to obtain a certificate of public good the PUC is likely to stay proceedings until that litigation is concluded since any damages owned to Citibank will have to come from the taxpayers in violation of our city charter we have also received two very credible threats of taxpayer suit if we choose KBTL a sale to KBTL also requires the consent of blue water holdings that consent is conditioned on whether they determine whether KBTL could obtain a CPG in a timely manner we reached out and requested pre-approval of the KBTL bid they politely declined to offer that pre-approval but did note that they had serious concerns about whether KBTL can obtain a CPG from the PUC citing its first time operator status lack of management experience and proposed debt financing reflecting junk bond status or worse they also cited the delay associated with litigation with city capital and taxpayers and finally because the offer price is so much lower than other bidders I think Councillor Hartnett said at best last week that they said no without actually saying no in light of those I do not understand how KBTL gets through the other thing to keep in mind is under the management services agreement we don't get a do over if we don't do this right by December 31st of 2018 the City of Burlington loses the ability to select the bidder I appreciate not everyone at this table may be enamored with the two finalists but we've undertaken a significant long process to get here and I don't believe there's any certainty that the bidders the next bidders will be any better in addition over the last three weeks a number has been articulated some of us visited Ting and saw first up close and personal what they stand for and I will echo the sentiments around the table that I believe they are will be a good steward of this asset the last thing I really haven't heard although a number have spoken about their visits with the employees what I heard which is something I hadn't fully appreciate it is the BT employees were very interested in taking this overbuilt asset and using it to its full potential under the Ting bid with the $50 million investment they are excited to take this to the next level under the KBTL offer there's in essence a standstill until the 10 years is up when the debt service has been repaid the concern that was articulated was that fiver to the home is a real thing and it's going to happen and if BT does not take this opportunity to build in the surrounding communities that opportunity will be lost thank you thank you Councillor Mason, Councillor Busher thank you so I've listened to all of you as each one of you have shared your journey to tonight's vote and that matters to me other things matter to me too so I just want to reflect a little bit on the fact that there are two things that are really forefront for me in discussing this one is Ward 1 is having an NPA meeting Ward 1 and 8 are having an NPA meeting Wednesday night, why is that relevant well one of the topics from the steering committee was you know this city has made a lot of decisions that have really highlighted us and is our process working the current process or should we do it differently how do we engage, how do we talk to each other differently and they're referencing the town centre and now this vote I think that's something that we need to reflect on after tonight also because I think it's really a very important observation and some people have spoken to the process inclusive, exclusive, etc the other thing that I wanted to share was that it doesn't seem that long ago for me but for many of you it would be a long time that I was in this room and people were speaking with a Delphia presence speaking in support of us going into the cable business and there were people that said that's for the private sector the city of Burlington should not get involved but there was the hope and a promise of potentially offering a service that would be be able to compete with the Delphia and now Comcast that would help control prices it was a monopoly and there was a concern that people that were on fixed incomes couldn't get services that they needed and so I'm reflecting on that too that was a very interesting process and I've been there all along and I've helped make good decisions and I've helped make bad decisions I own all of them and I'm reflecting on all of that too I was one of the councillors who have not had the opportunity to meet with the employees of BT I did speak with Abby over the phone this afternoon but Steven and I have been in contact and conversation for forever it seems and I feel that I have honestly shared my concerns and seek his advice and his insight as how he's managed BT so I feel I understand Steven's vision and how he manages and what he thinks is best for the entity and I have not had the opportunity to hear directly from employees what they feel is best but I have heard it from my fellow councillors so that leaves me to not really regurgitating what everyone else has the letters of intent are out there for everyone everyone knows what Ting will offer everyone knows what keep BT local can offer everyone knows the downside of each proposal so when I'm looking at voting I'm looking at those Ting and keep BT local that's what's before me and I'm thinking about the employees who currently are employed there I'm thinking of those who have left who actually started that company and really stayed with it for a long time and didn't benefit from Steven's leadership but were there and were there to start it I'm thinking of the citizens who made that investment so yes there's an investment of time from the employees there's an investment of money from the residents of Burlington and there's a concern from all of the residents about now losing that entity or losing their say in that entity and I understand you know councillor Mason and I are on the ordinance committee and it's not like I value his opinion more than anyone else's but we work together and I do value his opinion a lot and so you know when he makes statements I really reflect on them and think about what that means and it's not just about local control I agree councillor Mason it's not just about local control but it really is about not just the money on the table either it just isn't about that either we want to get some money back from the investment we want to pay back somewhat the residents of Burlington we want to pay back City Bank we want to do the right thing all of us want to do the right thing and so here I am before you all thinking what is the right thing so some of my ward 1 residents thank you all for all of the comments that you shared with me about how I should vote or what you think and I really mean that because that really keeps me righted in this turbulent water so you know everyone was saying well we're worried because this council is divided we don't feel good about any decision that is so divided and lopsided so why do you have to make this choice when it feels like you don't really have the right entities in front of you that garner the support why do you have to vote right now and so I said well because and the timeline has been addressed that if we go to January 1st 2018 the percentage of money that the city gets to vote significantly and so and so some of you, not all of you but some of you said well I'd rather have you make the right choice than get that additional money I don't want to feel like that timeline is going to force you to make a choice that we're going to regret forever so I want all of you to hear that because I'm just echoing what the people that I represent so I'm not looking to delay Mr. Mayor so I can see Mr. Mayor Maro worried, he's looking at me going oh my god where's she going with this well I'm not really going anywhere except to just state all of the factors that are coming at me and what goes into my process I'm not an economist but thank you President Nodell for enlightening me because I need that information just like I need the information from everyone else who shared their insights whether they went to Toronto or not or you know really the passion that Councillor Jang offered I mean that what he had to say really resonated for me and it was so honest and raw and I appreciated that so I find myself with two choices and I find neither of them perfect anybody that thinks that either of these choices is perfect really you know it everyone in this room knows that there's not a perfect choice probably in any of the proposals but I think that there were some choices that allowed us to breathe life into the entity to not risk the entity to not frustrate the employees and to not leave the citizens saying what have we got a few million dollars and no nothing else so at this time I'm going to after all of that I am going to say that what I hear from both sides from Keith BT local and from Ting our promises and trust me someone said that that was only Keith BT local but I hear that from both sides because if you look at the LOA from Ting I didn't find the substance yeah there are some dollar amounts but I didn't find the substance and I mentioned those at the last meeting you know dramatic changes in the I asked specifics and I wasn't happy with the lack of specifics I understand this is just a level a letter of intent but anyways so I feel both sides are saying you know trust me and offering promises and right now my indicator based on who I represent and I'm not trying to kind of throw off my financial obligations to all of you by any means by what I'm going to say but right now I feel that I need to stay with Keith BT local at this juncture hands hands so that's the way I'm going to vote and I've tried to explain how I've come to this and what I see the risks are for me and what I see my obligation to all of you is thank you thank you Councillor Busher we will go to another round with councillor Nodell and any other councillor wants to get another and then hopefully we will start moving toward our first or a vote thank you acting president right I will be just really really brief acting president right I'm very disappointed that the mayor has found my analysis shallow and I'm not sure that I was successful in getting across my main point in there which was not to predict who's going to grow the fastest but to emphasize the importance of the terms and the initial sellback of our share which have been unfavorable in the case of Ting and what they have committed to put on paper and I think this is just a key point for me it's not a small point for me it is not something we can just overlook and move on and say we're figured out later because when figured out later we're going to have no bargaining power and Ting's recognition that we had no barring power is why they put in that discount language it took it out because it was a political problem but they didn't put anything better back in that was really my key point and I wanted people have been talking about that Ting will build out to neighboring areas and I just wanted to reference the October 29th LOI they commit to expanding out within Burlington New North End in downtown 1200 addresses within Burlington identify the city some multi-tenant units and businesses quote we will also review plans for neighboring areas including Winooski, Essex, Williston and South Burlington and build their if warranted so I just wanted to be sure we understood what they have committed to I could go on with those points but I'll leave it on I'll leave it there thank you Thank you President O'Dell any other councillor who wishes to be heard all right I think we are ready for a vote and we are ready for a vote if oh I'd like to request a roll call vote please okay request has been made for a roll call so with the clerk's office please call the roll councillor Hardnett I'm sorry and right and each councillor will indicate which whether it's Ting or KBTL they're voting for councillor Hardnett KBTL City Council President O'Dell KBTL councillor Dean Ting councillor Shannon Ting councillor Bushor KBTL councillor Tracy keep Burlington Telecom local councillor Moore KBTL councillor Wright acting city councillor President Wright councillor Paul councillor Jing KBTL councillor Roof Ting the vote is tied six to six and we will take our first recess council is in recess and we will we will look to come back hopefully we can be back about ten thirty excuse me that clock is wrong we'll be back about nine thirty let's fix the clocks calling all city councillors councillor Tracy I mean yeah councillor Tracy no no no I said Tracy over here I said where's Jane and where's uh Karen Ting wants to work on I'm not going to I'm not going to I don't think anyone maybe somebody locked her in the bathroom should we send out a search party we are back in full force and back on the table is according to the resolution is that we have another vote after the first recess and so I don't think it calls for there to be more debate but another vote after recess so we have taken a roll call so I think that we would ask the clerks to clerk to call the roll call again councillor Hartnett KBTL councillor Nodal KBTL councillor Dean Ting councillor Shannon Ting councillor Bushore KBTL councillor Tracy KBTL councillor Mason Ting acting city council president right Ting councillor Mason I'm sorry councillor Moore I'm sorry it's two votes Ting councillor Moore KBTL councillor Mason thanks councillor Paul Ting councillor Jing KBTL councillor Roof Ting 66 Thai all right we are back in another recess but a shorter recess let's try to be back at quarter to 11 not quarter to 11 some people have it yeah we gave you one here maybe we could just start without them I think we got the votes actually that'd be great City councillors we are 10 minutes over could someone actually ask councillors in the hallway to saunter back this way is that anybody know where he went alright we are back again and I am going to coming back from the recess where we've had two deadlocked votes following the procedure that we have set up in the resolution I am now going to ask if the council is ready to cease voting and look at other options is the council ready to cease voting I would like a show of hands of all those in favour of ceasing the voting at this time please raise your hand we have a majority those opposed we have a majority that have voted to cease voting that's the process of the resolution with that we want first we'll go be going to councillor Jang in a moment who is going to make a motion but first there was a conversation that occurred that we would like a report on from both representatives of Ting and from KBTL to allow to give us an idea of what just occurred so if Mr. Matson well tell them they need to cease discussing and come in time is up former councillor Montrell welcome and Ms. Webb welcome both like to give us a report that whatever you can tell us the full council about conversations that just occurred certainly you know as always what we're looking to do is what's best for our community and if there's a desire that we keep PTLocal and Ting speak we're certainly happy to do that we don't know whether there's a place with us we don't know what the end results would be but having conversations and trying to see if there's a place for you know a mutual way to work through this is certainly an option that we'd be open to looking at again I don't know what an end result would be I don't know if an end result could get there but looking forward you know looking and attempting something and I know there's a resolution from the council that's asking us to do that and if the council adopts that we'd be happy to take a look at that and see what kind of thing arrangements we might be able to make I think we both recognized that there is some philosophical alignment about doing what's best for the community could you pull the microphone a little bit thank you we recognize that there's philosophical alignment in doing what's best for the community and we talked about some broad concepts that we would that both parties and we suggested that we work out more details over the coming week and that the resolution that is going to be introduced would set the stage for that councillor no doubt thank you were any firm commitments made in the conversation in the hallway just a commitment to discuss further over the next week thank you very much any other councillor have a question councillor jeng and by next week do you mean next monday yes by the next city council meeting next monday thank you any other councillor hearton is the revised amendment out there no are we clear in saying that if they come back and there's no agreement no we're not there yet councillor hearton that's going to be part of the councillor jeng has to make his motion and then we need to see whether there's any changes proposed to that so we're not quite to that discussion yet so alright thank you we appreciate that so we'll turn to councillor jeng now who is going to make a motion an amendment to the motion that authorizes the mayor to the council to forward a bid to the mayor between Ting and KBTL councillor jeng you have the floor thank you very much acting president be it further resolved the city council hereby request that the tip Burlington telecom board KBTL local and representative from Ting two cars develop a joint vendor proposal that addresses the followings how our municipal fiber network can benefit the city of Burlington Burlington resident and specially Burlington telecom subscribers through a co-op model how our fiber optic network can be extended throughout Burlington and the surrounding communities such as Colchester, Wienewski Essex and beyond how keep Burlington telecom local, KBTL and two cars Ting can create a Burlington telecom infrastructure enabling representative from KBTL two cars Ting alongside a city representative on a governing board of the new Burlington telecom how Burlington telecom KBTL and two cars Ting can create an ongoing fund that support technology initiative in our community that benefits our entrepreneurs our youth commission who needs restraining our digital literacy support be it further resolved that the council further request the keep Burlington telecom local and two cars Ting user assistant of a meet-fill agreeable third party as they deem appropriate to help them develop the joint vendor proposal as outlined the City Council and Mayor for no later than November 13, the next City Council meeting. Failing to address this venture proposal from both KBTL and two Caltings by no later than November 13, the City Council could resolve to reopen the Wellington telecom cell process including and not limited to the four initial barriers such as ZRF, KBTL, two Caltings and Shours. Okay. And we need a second. Councillor Moore seconds that motion, that amendment. So thank you, Councillor Jang. Councillor Jang, did you have any other remarks to make with that or do you want to open that up to the full council now? Yes, I have all the remarks. Okay. I move that motion, that postponed action on the bearing process in direct representative of the KEEP Wellington telecom local KBTL and representative from two Caltings to work with an independent entity that develop the joint venture proposal within a week. Now it is clear that the people of Wellington wants to keep and control our local Wellington telecom. And also it is clear that the Wellingtonian as well as the city and many residents would like to regain our 17 million dollars back. A lot of people are not happy with this process on how that it was handled. With some bidders being asked to withdraw without the council input. With some councillors requising and then and requising themselves. I believe that having a two party sit down and work out a joint venture bring back will bring much closure to the whole community. And I think when we talk about who would be that person who would be that entity who will help those two entities, the person that comes to mind is Peter Clover. I feel like if we request his expertise, his experience in building a closure about this deal that would be wonderful. It is clear that the community wants the co-op. But the staff are also concerned such as the BT staff are also a little bit concerned. That will hopefully make everyone come together and work and make BT as strongest as possible. And I also want to know that this is probably one of the biggest issue that the city council councillors right now have ever came across to. And I believe Burlington is strong. The people of Burlington are strong. And I believe that no one is coming. If we cannot solve our problems, no one will do it for ourselves. We have a huge, we have a huge work to do, a lot of work that we need to do. And together we can do it. So that's what I just wanted to add. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jang. We need a motion to suspend our rules. Councillor Naudel. President Naudel. Acting President Wright, I move to suspend the rules to continue working until we have completed this item. All right. Thank you. That requires a two-thirds majority. Any, all those in favor of the motion by Councillor Naudel to suspend our rules and continue our work to the end. Please raise your hand. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. And I will now recognize Councillor Paul. Thank you, Acting President Wright. So I have a number of amendments to this, to these resolve clauses. I'm going to try to do them as efficiently as I can. These are amendments that have been agreed upon in principle by both KBTL, the KBTL board and representatives of Ting. There's no number, so I'll just go through them by sentences. In the first sentence, after the word venture on the second line, it would say venture comma in concept, not the legal construct proposal that addresses the following. The first bullet point at the very end, the words through a co-op model would be deleted. Number, in number two, the second bullet point would be deleted. Number three, the third bullet point, the words if the city opts to take an equity stake would be before the word how. After the acronym KBTL would be the word and, to cow Ting, that's on the second line. The words alongside a city representative on a governing would be deleted and the word and advisory board of the new KBT would be added. Bullet point number four, at the end of that sentence where it says over time, the words by creating a process to determine allocation of Ting's community impact funding would be added. Those are the changes that I have. Thank you. Councillor Busher, do you have a point of order or information? A request, actually. Could Councillor Paul go back and go through them again, please? I'm sorry, but it was a little too quick for me and I lost you in a couple of them. Not the first one, but beyond the first one. Good point, Councillor Busher. Can you walk through those again first, Councillor Paul? Sure. So on the first bullet point, the words at the very end of the sentence on the second line through a co-op model would be deleted. The second bullet point would be deleted. The third bullet point before the word how would read if the city opts to take an equity stake. After on the second line, after KBTL, the word and, A&D would be added. After Tukau Ting, the words alongside a city representative on a governing would be deleted and that place would be added an advisory. In the fourth bullet point, after on the second line, after the words over time, it would say by creating a process to determine allocation of Ting's community impact funding, period. And I can give those to... Does the clerk's office think they have this? I see the eyes are crossing over there, like mine are. Okay. Everybody feel they have a handle on what that is? Okay. Councillor Naudel. I'm offering another amendment. Oh, you need to vote on that amendment. I'll wait until we get to the very end. Okay. Sorry. All right. So we have an amendment on the floor. Was there a second to that? Seconded by Councillor Mason. Is there any discussion about the Paul amendment? Councillor Naudel, I'm wondering if I might be able to ask one of the members of the KBTL board to come up. Question for them? Looks like we're going to hear from Councillor Montrell again. So Councillor Paul referenced your agreement to the idea of...to these amendments and one of those is taking out the language through a co-op model. Do you support that? And if so, why would you support taking out that if that's seemingly the fundamental piece of the proposal that you're putting forward? I think on a resolution like this, you know, it could take a variety of forms. I think the key operating parts of the resolution are having us try to work together. I think holding true to the co-op model is something that's really important, whether it's in the resolution or not in the resolution. You know, that's where, you know, our view is we need to hold true to that concept. But I don't think the resolution, frankly, you know, directing it that way is, has that much significance for us because, again, our view is to hold true to that as much as possible. And I don't know, again, if we'll be able to reach anything, but, you know, I've gone into settlement discussions, mediation discussions, enough to know that when you go into something, you want to have a broad range of tools available to you. So if the council wants to keep that in, that's fine. If the council wants to take it out, that's also fine because that's where our beliefs are to begin with. So that's where we're going to be holding to as much as we can. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Montrell. Councillor Buscher. Thank you. So if you would stay there, Andy, I have another question. So my focus is on that third bullet where it changes from a governing board to an advisory board and talks about only if we opt to take an equity stake in the entity. And so I just wanted to understand, I understood what you said before about the broader language, which I understand. When you remove something, it doesn't mean it's gone. It's just not in black and white. It can be still considered. But when you change language to say only if and change governing to advisory, that is in black and white and that is different. And so could you just speak to how keep BT local, dealt about that? I don't have that language right in front of me, so I apologize on that. But if, again, I think that going into discussions like this with them, those are some of the elements that we think are really important. So whether it's in the resolution or not in the resolution, those are areas that we'd be looking for. If the council feels like that's important enough to just say it, but for that we don't want to move forward. I keep it in, but going into a negotiation or trying to see if there's a place for us to be able to work together, which I honestly, I don't know that there is, but to try to explore that, there may be other avenues that we're not even thinking about. And so in my view, when you're going into something like this rather than be boxed into any particular corners, it's better to have the flexibility. And having flexibility doesn't mean that you get to the end result that you want. It may mean that you don't get to the end result that you want, but there may be other ways of getting there than any particular way that's stated. Thank you. But, you know, I appreciate your feedback. I see this language, this particular language is more restrictive and not as open-ended as you interpret it, but thank you for your input. I appreciate it. Thank you, Councillor Bushard. Is there any other questions for Councillor Montrell? If not, then I will recognize Councillor Nodell. Yep. Oh, I'm sorry. Councillor Jang. And I think that's a question for both Ting representative and and and and I think the most important part of this motion, I mean, it was not amended. The most important part is basically we don't want the city, this administration, nor a city councilor to be involved. Are you ready to go back to the table between you two with an independent entity? To help you get a better deal for burning tonions. And yeah, that that's, I think, is a really important point that I really wanted to make. That would be fine with us. Yeah, could you elaborate on the independent entity? Independent, it can be an advisor or someone who can assist you. You know, a mediator, thank you. Yeah, and I think that's a very fundamental aspect of this. It's not blue waters. It's not PCOR. It's not nobody, but someone else who is not involved and not a stakeholder. What can you come up with a resolution with the help or assistant of that mediator or person? And how would you decide who would be that person knowing that you probably not local, but it can be also somebody who's outside of, who's not a burning tonion. You know, ideally, I think we would start exploring this on our, you know, just with the two parties. But if it came to that, we could certainly find common ground and find somebody that worked for both parties. And this is also another question, too, because I don't know how things work, but I feel like it's really important to have Wellington Telecom subscribers through a co-op model or considering that aspect to not lose track of that because it's a really, really important. Thank you. Okay, I think they've answered that. So with that, thank you, Councillor Jang and unless there are, Councillor Nodell. I was going to briefly say I support the language and look forward to moving forward to get some strong consensus on this amendment as a whole. Great. All right. So we are, I think, ready to vote on this. So all those in favor of the amendment by Councillor Paul to the motion by Councillor Jang, please raise your hand. Those opposed. It is one, two, three, four opposed. The motion passes eight to four. And now I will recognize Councillor Nodell. I would like to offer another amendment and it relates to the very last clause. So the amended language would say failing to provide a joint venture proposal from both KBTL and Tukau Ting by no later than November 13th. The City Council would reopen the Burlington Telecom sale process to the four following bidders KBTL Tukau Ting Shours and ZRF comma for a final decision at the November 27th City Council meeting. Right. Is there a second to that motion, Councillor Buscher seconds it and Councillor Nodell. You still have the floor for you. Thank you. I just think that it's we'd be very helpful to us tonight to have a whole process laid out so that we know what happens This is a promising process. I hope that it has that it bears fruit. But if it doesn't, I think it's good for us to walk out of here tonight knowing what would what would be the next the next step. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Nodell. Councilor Roof. I'll just say that I support the the amendment and the new the new language that came prior. I look at part of these part of this document as Not so ironclad. I really do want you to to run with it with a third party and you know what councillor Chang said But I do I am thankful to see the the more tight language around date And not opening up to anyone beyond the four that we've considered. So I'll be supporting this Councillor Mason Thank you acting president right. I guess my question and I'm not sure to whom this is directed is What if the council is not Willing to accept I mean is the expectation that we would vote on the joint proposal and if that went down we would reopen the process I'm just trying to figure out This just says if they don't come back with a proposal Councillor Nodell, would you like to address that just a point of order? I had similar questions So I was wondering if we could vote on this amendment and then come back to that Thank you Okay, any other any other Discussion on the Nodell amendment and that is as she indicated set up a process as we go forward For the november 27th meeting which we would if there's not an agreement bring back the Four bids that we just mentioned. Okay all those in favor of the amendment by councillor Nodell. Please raise your hands Any opposed? All right, that's apparently unanimous Um So now we will go to councillor mason Again, I'm not sure to whom the question is appropriately addressed But my query is sort of what happens this this contemplates or asking them to Meet and come back with a joint proposal by the 13th And then provides if they don't then we reopen the process. So I guess I'm Trying to figure out what happens if they come back with a proposal that is not acceptable to a majority of the council Councillor Nodell Yes, I had a similar question So my question was so who decides if they have who decides if they have succeeded right coming up with the joint venture proposal So my understanding would be that they would only bring us something if if they mutually agreed To this proposal But that it would still be up to the council to have a vote a yes or no vote On the now blended proposal that would be before us And that would we could make the judgment then whether This is a six a model that we think can succeed moving forward or not Maybe that doesn't shine like so then to follow up the expectation would be assuming it did not pass Under this language, we would reopen The process to the four bidders with an expectation of a final vote on the 27th I think that would be the expectation councillor nodell Yes, I think the concept and this is this is a roof concept that we would go We could go from four to two to one at one meeting And have a decision at the end of the night And I think that I think that is doable. All right So I think then that we're clear if everybody in the council is clear with that that The idea would be that if they do reach mutual agreement Come back to us and tell us that both parties have agreed the council will then Vote whether we we agree with that agreement that we sign on to it And if not if that does not happen if either one of those two things don't happen Then this language will kick in and we will Councillor nodell. Yes, just to further clarify. I'm sorry. I'm taking too much floor time. I think it would be It would be a most probably a ting letter of intent with some kind of appendix or or kind of Supplementary document that is laying out the terms of the working together City or there would be some some documentation for us to Authorize the mayor to move forward on Would be my expectation I mean, mr. Mayor. Did you want to comment on that? I think that's well summarized. That's my expectation too and Have something clear to accept or not next monday. All right. Great. Thank you councillor shannon Thank you. I So so we would vote If this effort failed and they were not able to come to agreement or it was not acceptable to the council Then we would bring back the four bit bitters and we would start the voting process as we have previously agreed. Is that correct? Councillor nodell I think we could then have another conversation about how we wanted to run the voting process for the 27th We wouldn't necessarily have to I think we would want to renew an agreement and decide how we wanted to vote Is that something we can work out tonight? So we know how it is we're voting prior to uh the 13th I think we better serve to work that out after rather than Tonight I think we can come to an agreement on that the council still will have to we'll have to vote on that And anyone else are we ready to vote? Councillor tracy Thank you president acting president right. I just want to say that i'm disappointed that the language regarding through a co-op model was eliminated I like um, you know the the strong supporters of the co-op and particularly Drawn to the cooperative model and that I think is a fundamental difference that Exists within the co-op model. I wish you great luck in trying to reconcile these two very different proposals I think that we're at a point where we at least have to try that and see if we can come to an agreement, but I'm really I for those of you who are strong co-op supporters Please don't take this as you know backing off or away at least on my particular part From the cooperative model or a commitment to that I very strongly am committed to the cooperative model But I feel like we have to at this point work try to see if we can come to some mutually beneficial solution Um that still maintains those co-op principles. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor tracy. Council heart net. Thank you um, and Thank you councilor dang For bringing this forward I have mixed emotions About this Isn't it ironic that it was council heart net that was going to sell kvt out Right tonight. I was the one that was going to flip I was the one going to tang and now the board of directors of kvt l Sells themselves out to tang. I find that very ironic. I really do I think it was a bad decision actually I have mixed emotions because I'm in hopes that you don't come because tang's not the right partner for brokington in so many ways And there are better partners out there Including the two that we could add back into this And we could get to a better place so I'm not sure if I'm going to support this Because I said at the beginning I could never vote for tang They're not the right partner for brokington And by me voting for this says I think they could be a good partner for brokington. I just don't see that So I will be voting no All right. Thank you council heart net other comments. Are we ready to vote councillor shannon? I'm concerned that We may not know whether or not they have reached an agreement until monday And at that point If they haven't reached an agreement then we're going to Have a vote on We're going to narrow the vote that day Like I don't really even know what we would narrow the vote on. I don't know what the offers I don't know what the offers would be. How could we do that on the 13th? I really Are we narrowing the vote on the 13th if they don't come okay So we On the 13th we bring them back, but we vote on the 27th. Is that correct? Um Councillor nodel My understanding the timeline would be that on the 13th. We have a report back If they are successful There's some kind of documentation of their agreement that they've both Lee have both agreed to And the council would vote that night On whether to accept that and to authorize the mayor to move forward If that fails then on the 27th We would go back to the four and go from four to one on the 27th With potentially, you know updated LOIs from all parties Councillor mason um This councillor shannon does bring up an important process question This requires them to come back no later than the 13th, which is the day of our meeting given the overwhelming public interest in this I think you both can appreciate the need for us to digest whatever you have come up with our advisors as well as the public so I'm not sure what date we should be using but I think the 13th is too far on one side My suggestion if you're amenable might be the friday, you know, friday five o'clock or something that would allow us the You know the weekend and monday to get this out to constituents as well as have our advisor I think that that's an excellent point by councillor mason. Um I think that we don't want to get something on the day of the meeting or the night of the meeting. That's Councillor jane Yeah, and I think what we're talking about here on the 13th is actually for us to discuss their proposal It doesn't mean that they we will not receive the proposal beforehand But we will be discussing it here and then sending it to the mayor for signature. Okay. Thank you councillor jane So so having heard that can we just Can we just ask you to If you have something that gets worked out to have it to us by the end of the day friday Or report to us whether there is something for us to be considering We'll do our best and At the very least be able to provide a report of where we are Okay, all right. Thank you very much um With that, I think we are ready to vote So all those in favor of this additional language and amendment, please raise your hand opposed Councillor hartnett that language passes Motion to adjourn has been made Seconded thanks everybody for coming appreciate all your input over the last few weeks So