 Councilor Icaro, I just have a second. So we'll call board finance to order at 537 p.m. And see you all, y'all here together. First item on the agenda is the agenda and we'll push it to itself. That's right. Great, thank you. Councilor Chang, is there a second? I got our discussion agenda, okay. There's no discussion. Of course, we'll say aye. We'll push. There is we have an agenda. Yeah, no, I think since there aren't finding a solution to go out, I think we'll put it here later. I think that was the thinking of my own. I'm not sticking to it. Let's, sorry, I'm not sticking to it. So, let's just do this again. So could someone make a motion to accept the agenda with 4.09 removed? Yes, so thank you. Thank you. Second. I'll go to the vote. All of the fair most we say aye. Opposed? Yes. That brings us to, that brings us to the public forum. 2.01, is there any present that would like to speak to city board finance? And that is, we have, so just this. So for just the point of clarification for board finance public forum is just in person, at least for today, and for city council, we have a fully integrated, you can do public forum in person or on to. So I think we haven't made any, that's not to just any conclusions about future. No, just the technology. Catching up. Please. Oh, thank you. Sorry. So is there again, we're only having an in person public forum tonight, is there? Sorry, come on in here. All right, so the council has closed the public forum and we'll move to the consent agenda, which I would love more motion. Great. It's our second. That's a problem. Thank you. Is there any discussion? All those in favor of motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Opposed? Yes. Yes. That's it. Okay. So we're going to present the 4.01 request to accept the federal aviation administration grant for taxiway K and RW1 PAPI construction and inspection to execute an FAA grant for communication FAA oversight at places. Execute contracts for construction and inspection services for these projects for the STI or in the city to consult and respect them. Are we out for the procedure? Are we ready for the motion? I think I'm happy to make the portion of the FAA a plus city of the dollar amount. Sweet. Let me speak from right here. I think that, I think that, I think that's perfect. So I'll make it as simple as possible. It is a little bit less complex than the writing is. So what we're trying to accomplish is one apply for a grant, which is the earliest that we're going to apply for an FAA grant considering that the federal government just reopened the federal fiscal year. This grant is going to accomplish two construction things. One item is to construct a new parallel taxiway which will allow or not allow aircraft to cross an airport. This allows an aircraft to go from parking to the end of one of our airlines without intermingling within the air, or within the airport system to cross any runways. That's that taxiway, kilo portion of eight per long taxiway that you're moving. The second portion is a visual aid for aircraft that's arriving into a runway. It's called a PAPI or precision approach PAPI indicator. It's literally four lights that tell an aircraft if they're too high or too low visually. We're moving our existing PAPI from one side to another so that it's not in the way that that frame is actually going to be described as well as some other holding positions. So that's essentially what those two construction items are and the associated contract that is the Ireland against CHA, who is the designer. Thank you. Thank you, Nick. Any questions for Nick? To make a motion. All dispense with the reading of the core items and just make some motion that we recommend the action as indicated. Thank you, Councilor Pollard. Is there a second? Thank you, Councilor Jag. Thank you. Discussion? No, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of motion, please say aye. All right. All right. Opposed? Namously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That's the team. Okay. That brings us to 4.0 Q. CBCF, that's the contract for RTA, the law enforcement training. CELIN, CJC. Okay. Would you guys like to take it? Just a short summary of what we're going to do. Sure, I'll read it. We'll do that. Everyone, this is a contract put out by the Department of Children and Families at the Health Services Division to offer law enforcement trainings statewide with focusing on counties that have low diversion referrals currently. Diversion as in lower case D, not just the Attorney General's funded diversion, but diverting cases from the traditional system. And they're wanting to focus specifically on youth. So youth and restorative justice training to law enforcement statewide. So if you apply for that contract, we rewarded it, it is slated to start October 15. So it's a year long contract. Like the proposal we wrote involves contracting with restorative justice practitioner when we worked on St. Joseph's or an interest or an inquiry and using staff, teams, as well as some other former staff like Mohamed Jafar at the REIB to design and then execute and deliver this training. So Chippin County, how many folks will be trained? So Chippin County would be a low priority because they have diverse states in the state. So they do the most pre-charger referrals in this county. You'd probably not focus on Chippin County at all and you put this on a different place. But it's using, I think we rewarded the contract because of our good success in Chippin County with what the contractors proposed. I would see you tonight, Chippin County. I'm happy to thank you for coming to take your time and actually see you in the next conference. Right, is there a second one? Thanks a second by Councillor Chen. Thank you. Any further discussion? We'll go to both of those here as much as we can say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. And, okay, this brings us to 4.03, which is our first discussion of our project. We'll be discussing what we did. Hopefully we've got to put that to the next year for the Street to Main Street design consulting contract. Just to give a little context, I think detail about the project, I just want to frame this up. This is just our third major project with the downtown Tiff. History of the downtown Tiff goes back to Kiss administration and to prior public votes. We've used the downtown Tiff district up until now to rebuild two blocks of St. Paul Street for a small part of the Segal Park construction. There is substantial additional capacity in the downtown Tiff district. We need to commit if we are going to use it over the next year. We need to make sure that we have the capacity and if we are going to use it over the next process of two years, less than two years. One project that already has partial voter approval is a public discussion. It's the Main Street, Great Street projects. They will remember the public engagement and design process we went to several years ago in advance of the St. Paul Street construction project. This is a project that was designed to go from concept to something that actually takes voters and then mill. That's an echo here. So we promote design contracts with important milestones and future milestones for the folks to send this to the site to set the project to something that is designed in the project to send the project to voters for the remaining approval that's needed. Two of the total six blocks have been approved so far or remained approved. Ultimately the council on more time is also going to be in the construction process. This is the beginning of the process. We will be in the process of the project. It's a really important thing. Just to note, this is a downtown tip. It's an independent funding source probably from the companies you have recently. It's funding that the cities are collecting. We can leverage in a different way other budget conversations that are happening. We have a short window of time to develop projects to construction and understand costs before we lose the opportunity to bond. Tonight's request is really to restart that effort to get a consultant under contract so that we can re-explore this project to a concept that everybody is going to agree upon and then move it into construction. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Looking back at the same fall project, some of the challenges we face with that project, I'm curious, even at this early stage, there's still so much to be figured out. What are some of the lessons that you're carrying forward from having been involved in Mexico? We're involved in that. I'm curious, if I can take those lessons as much as possible. We started with a really large group. We've been meeting internally since late summer. Business outreach, community outreach, community input. Bringing in standards that didn't exist when the Great Streets downtown standards were adopted in 2018. We saw a lot of work across the board in various areas. Our team has gotten a lot larger. We need to take a look at the concept as a whole to go through how we have to update things. The business impact is one that we've discussed at every one of our internal meetings, trying to think about ideas, what other communities have done. One of the reasons that we have selected this consultant is that during our interview process, they highlighted the fact that during construction, it's impactful. It's important for us to be able to leave the area so that they can get construction done. They've worked on other projects to find a way to bring people into the area to keep it vital and active. But that was really moving and kind of forward thinking and an engineering consultant that's usually like giving my space and letting me do my thing. So it's a very active conversation. We will certainly come back to you guys with creative ideas. Like the city probably hasn't explored to date about the construction. Which is that one you're actively doing to change to various water resources, policies, and so it makes sense to encourage, to encourage to the project, to upgrade their lives at the same time. The cities and the street working on the main lines that have a lot of efficiencies and I think it's everyone for doing that. Our current policies are some of the things that we can offer to incentivize that kind of coordinate action or to change those policies to, you know, to be generous. So the users in the city. Also, I appreciate that. Somebody touched on the fact that that's a key piece. The other thing that I was curious about was the soil issue that we were going to do in the city. I think it's probably going to be an issue here as well in how you manage that whole front of the, from a camp, a remediation standpoint, but also a cost standpoint. It's not going to really shift the budget. So you can continue to explain what maybe a little determination with a lot of determination. Yep. And we've already started thinking about that with the request for tonight. So we're going to go ahead and take a look at some of the things that we're going to do. So we're going to go ahead and take a look at some of the things that we're going to do as opposed to consultants we had in there. Let's consider it a phase one, which is a desktop. Take a look at all the state sites. Take a look at other projects that have investigated the area. And evaluate our risks. We fully anticipate that we're going to have to add on to the contracts through the contingency. We're requesting to do localized testing. So we're going to go ahead and take a look at some of the things that we're going to do as we move forward. Being Burlington and having worked right next to City Hall Park. I think that there is some anticipation of various areas that will have contaminated soil. As we worked all the roundabout project, Olivia is actually with me on the roundabout project. It's a constrained right of way. We have what we learned on St. Paul's date and said, you can't have stockpiles in the room to be ready to move the soil. So we're going to go ahead and use it on site or have it, have a solid management plan before we start construction. And so we're already taken that approach with this. Work. We've already included it in our anticipated construction budget. So we feel much more prepared. We've already had the conversation telling DC. You're ready to restart Main Street. You want us to talk to. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you for the question. For the question. A little bit of the same words, you know, testing for contamination, final contamination. Contamination is something. Now. You have to go that way. Is that what you built? So right now, what we anticipate that the consultant would need as extras to be able to go out and actually do the next step, the outside investigation. So they identify a parcel that. Used to be a gas station. And we'll look into the history of it. We'll go out and take some existing soil samples. And then from that, we'll have a better idea whether it's already been remediated because Main Street's been dug up enough or maybe that's on the lower end. It's still there because it's a little bit more untouched. And then from there, they develop the plan, which will give us a better idea. How much they anticipate having to manage during construction. So the construction has its own allocation right now. Inside a budget that I'm not sharing with you guys tonight, but it's for some reason, you want to be able to speak to what I certainly can answer those questions. You'll get a more information. We actually probably at the end of the concept base. Questions. For action. President Tracy. I moved to take your recommendation. More docs. President Tracy. Second. Sorry for the discussion. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry for the discussion. Great. I guess I would just. Thank you. Thank you. So we'll come potentially from this project. Asking our case making. Our. Store water. Motion please. Motion carries unanimously. That's to. For. Oppositional or contract. Point service. By your term. To. Speak to this. No, there are. Talking questions. Summary what this is. We have a number of things going on. Also. Creative flux for. Council. There's a. One of our. Explosive goals. But regardless. We'll have. That's. Yeah. Punishment for that. But we basically raised the Scott threshold. So. It's a very frustrating situation. So that's what I'm going. With this proposal. It's going. To. And we've also created. As a secondary. So. That. We basically raised the Scott threshold. So. It takes more to get into this car situation right now. Basically. One ticket. It's a snowman ticket. And you can get. So it's it's a very frustrating situation. So that's what I'm going. With. This proposal. It's going. It's a very frustrating situation. So. What that means is that. My staff. Look for. Basically. For people that are. I can't just randomly type numbers. You know, license. But. Toe doesn't stop. To have people are illegally. Yeah. So that's a fundamental change. And they weren't doing it as practical. Well, anyway. But now it's even worth. Proposing that it goes into ordinance so that it's. Absolutely. That. My staff can't. And then. Oh, right. The third is sort of the biggest thing. It's. A proposal for a Wolf's Park. So everybody. If you. Get a ticket. And you appeal it. You can appeal one ticket a year. So that should drastically reduce the number of people. Exposed to the potential of having overdue parking. And then exposed. So we're taking a number of steps to avoid. Excuse me. Sort of. At a policy level. But the reality is you still need a telling contractor. It's available. For. For. Telling cards away from walkthrough. So what. Sort of safety. So I'm sorry. The Wolf's program really only applies. To overstaying meters. Or. So if you're parked illegally. You're the corner. That's a safety issue. So anyway, so this. Item 404. Is really related just to. This contract. To make sure we have. Accessible. And most of this, this is $140,000 annually. But that's reimbursed. We had. So we get. We get the vast majority of that. 40,000. We get back. Whatever we don't get back, still sitting books. And some get to Scott. So theoretically. We could get. I'm getting a little. Thank you, Jeff. Yeah. I don't know much about. Scott. Which is just the contract fixed. We don't have in front of us and title the. Contractor. To get any other. Finances like, you know, they hold the car for X amount of time. But they're getting X for the day. Like that. It's in the word section. So that's one of the things that makes it a special contract. They get. Including the per day. And sorry. Last question. If we were to change that up in the next five years. It changes with the ordinance. The contract changes. Because if they're connected to that dollar values in it, it says. Thank you. So just another wrinkle is this contract was actually did by John King. And developed by Joey. John tires. Joe. So. I think what I like about this is supposed to. I want to also. If I get out of my house. And my car is no longer there. How would I know if you're still. So. Oh, part concerns. And. They, they, they inspired me. Yeah. Because we have a. All back end computer system. Every product itself gets registered. To run the place, you know. So if you don't pay to take it or don't pick it up. We can actually track it. And now, if you would. Too many different. It's no income. You have a system. Right. Right. And the issue is there aren't really any other companies around that are. Scale. Enough trucks. So. You know, you know, you know, You know, You know, You know, You know, You know, You know, You know, You know, You know, You know, Enough trucks. People to be. All. We need to be no stars. We need to purchase the situation. Just wanted to. Hope you have seen it. To get to build off by the people, the word that you're on. So. So we are. This is in a suite of a variety of. Other challenges. We recognize that that's right now. that allows us to negotiate a payment plan that can with the city attorney, but this was the most program sort of our first for a formalized ability for our staff to avoid techniques. So any other sort of special customer services to go through the city attorney's office, but as we go forward, we are hiring a number of ways to pull some of that activity out of the city attorney's office. So when somebody gets a ticket, they're just dealing with us. You know, if it's just they stayed over the time, it's like a late library book, you shouldn't have to go to New York, if it turns out to be a library book, library book. That's kind of the plus, but yeah, it kept working. It's a tricky, challenging, legal space and we've been exploring it for almost six or seven months now. We just had a plan just to discuss this. Get this through concrete, it's a quick test case. Yeah, no, I think it would make sense to continue to try and figure out something before. I know we there is, I feel like there is precedent for it in other areas of the city in terms of not necessarily this kind of a thing, but other areas where the city is a little bit different. They're challenging to process, but your legal constraints, I'm probably not leading. Today's is a legal architecture. So I have two things. The first is that I have this one ticket for the year and it also applies to the U.S. only part of the contractuality. So what does you would get an additional one? Those are $75, so that means that that's the same thing as getting a $15 parking ticket. Not really sure if I would necessarily agree with the equity of that, but if that's what it is. Well, the idea is that what we're doing now is we're letting anyone, any city resident, any other resident, accidentally park their car here and didn't recognize it. That's the intent. So if a person lives on a personal property automatically, that's one way for it. For any reason at all, they use that one. They can then use the second one to get forgiveness of this proposed ordinance, which again, I realize is not part of what we're talking about. So this is going to certainly think about how it can be a concept of it doesn't apply but if you have the president of parking, you're parking in your own zone, that's fine. I mean, there are street centers. And then the other thing I just wanted to mention, part of this, since it goes forward, following along the idea of what President Tracy said, I do think that we should look for other ways and more creative ways to help people who may accumulate a lot of tickets and to find ways to not necessarily implement the library offers another policy, but they do food for fines. This item, this motion to TPW a year ago, and I was rather disappointed to find out that after a year of putting that idea forward and being extremely thoughtful and extremely kind of not pushing that item, that there are really any discussion that item was completely tossed aside and sort of deemed not to be able to come forward. And I think that's really unfortunate because I think that there are people that we can be helping twice, helping people by allowing people to pay a parking ticket without using, without directly using money, and help people with an issue that we know exists in this community which is hunger. I think that's really unfortunate. Despite following all the rules. To be clear, again, that's not an issue before it's heard, considering, again, it's just considered up to a number of weeks ago, besides the policy on that, so we can make sure where we had traction that we really could throw up my tape. Okay, I'm sitting in a quiet response to the generous to during preparing this policy, we have suspended Scott's policy for substantial emergency too. In this contract that's enforced, so to bring the focus back to the contract, I don't believe that motion. Councilor Jay, thank you. All those in favor of motion please say aye. Very close. Motion carries unanimously. Just to clarify, I think we have the chance to give us a quick summary of the set. But yes, that's the time of the grant, the life that's passed, so $175,000. Hopefully they spend it up front as part of the project, as we normally do. And Ethan Allen, we research the same, we're doing stormy water structures just this fall. And I believe starting on some of that, I guess, this week. So I plan to be in this portion of the CY22 program that we've been up later this fall this winter. And we'll get started that spring. Yes. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Jay. Thank you, Councilor Powell. Yes, one, I think here on the demo, stating that in 2020, the payment contract which is anticipated for fall of 2020, it's basically back to that next year. And this is maybe just about the pros and cons of condemnation. Why most of the time we care for condemnation in some cases of the CY22 program? What that you guys do in the moon of 2020? We're not doing much subsurface. Hopefully we're doing a resurfacing of the roadway at just some of the fall water structures. On occasion, there have been, as a path prior to my opportunity, some observations of some CY22, and usually those rest and only investigate at different costs. But as far as the payment program, it's not something that we care for. Seeing none, we'll move on to the shared motion. Please say aye. All right, most. 4.06, several EKW personnel items for the parking, Jeff is back. Are you ready for a motion on this? I move to recommend city council for draft resolution. Great, thank you. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor James. Discussion? Seeing none, we'll move on to the vote. Also, a fairer motion. Please say aye. Any votes? Okay, we have two more items for 13 minutes. That's 4.07 weeks of ARCA funds to clear the customer rearges. Yeah, this is something that was included in the FY22 budget process. Excuse me, you may remember it from there. And the only reason it's usually coming before you again is because the auditor would like to have something in their files. That is clear than our standard budget approval attached so that we can have something attention to the federal government showing ARCA approvals. So that's why we're asking you essentially to approve this the second time. But the rate case for BED was built on the understanding that we would help them out with this $1.3 million as the memo states. Unfortunately, BED is already up to $1.5 million of customer rearges. Correct me, it's probably higher now since a couple of weeks have passed. And they are working with the state of Vermont to secure as much help in terms of covering those rearges through that state program as possible. But we knew that you can see from the amounts here, those are like $300,000 here, $300,000 there. And so more assistance for Burlington customers as needed. And that's what this is for. Anything that I can answer, we'll be happy to take any questions or any questions in the discussion. That's all right, quick. And then this is more a question for thinking as we're going through the rest of the ARCA process, I'm wondering like what the timeliness in terms of making strategic decisions on how to resolve the problem. Because we've gotten one at a time. Yes, well, that's right. There have been friends that have not been for a long time. This is one in the discussion. Hopefully you've seen that the process for aging of the public, including the prospect of $1.5 million of funds have been earned. We'll ask for four weeks and the hope is that we can start working with consensus and investment in front of us. I'm not quite sure how it's going to work. And how that will unfold exactly. But I think we'll start to get much clearer picture for the fall. That's for getting funds, but there's still many issues. I'm not sure what we call those decisions all at once. There will be a subsequent one. I'll start with a survey. I can start with the process. We should also do four more. That's why 22 budget process. We, you did also approve a million dollars for parking. And so like we have this level here for BED, we will likely come back to you either next week or our first meeting in November for another similar, like, please re-approve this so that the auditors also have a fair trail. But again, that's $1 million that we've already purchased at like $1 million out of 27. It's not going to be as. But then the thought is we'll go through the public process and I see Clara is something which you may have something to add. But then we would start to come to you with here's what the public said. Here's our plan for like this big. For the discussion. That's good. That's good. That's good. Tracy discussion. We'll go to the motion of the side. The motion was minus three. Congratulations, Mike. Successful and the last thing we had. This brings us, I think, to a final item tonight which is in the classification of 15-month-fifties. to recognize these different expansions of duties is to provide for each of us, but this has been assigned to a driver here, and it's large enough to check. I would want to make the motion to look at the same concept of this. Great. Thank you. To Chiang, to Tracy, for their special. Yeah. I don't know if you kind of have to hear what you're hearing. So, I guess I'm just wanting to do the best I can. So, I would just say that, thank you, I would just say it's been someone who has been doing this for a little while, it's a sustained work that they do that it was tremendous. I think this is an interesting part of what it's done. Far beyond, like some, this is a long time, long time overdue, so thanks for putting up with us. Certainly as someone over you, there is someone over there. There it is, sorry, it's someone over there. It's that, it's something that's been done by the bus. With that, for the discussion, we'll go to both. All those of you who are emotionally sad. All right, let's get a slate. If there is no objection, you will adjourn as part of finance. Yeah, so we're going to need to have councilors. To the consent agenda item 6.27. Recording in progress. The action to approve the acceptance of the attorney. Add to the consent agenda item 6. Dignation with the act is on file. Advertise the vacancy in seven days. And send Mary D. Hart a letter of appreciation. Thanking. Add to the consent agenda item 6.29. Communication. Accept the communication. And materials for agenda item 6. I'm sorry. Agenda item 7.05, resolution, church street marketplace, location, board of finance and councilor mason, an additional co-sponsor per council. Thank you, councilor Stromberg. We have a motion on the agenda. Is there a second? Any discussion? Councilor McGee. I'd like to move to, so wait a second. We'll come to you in just a second. So any further discussion on the agenda? Councilor Shannon. Remend the agenda. Move item 7.10 to item 7.075. That is moving it. Thank you. I'm clear now. Thank you, councilor Shannon. Between 707 and 708. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Any further discussion? All right. Hearing none. Here was a second from councilor Carpenter. Why is that amendment being made? Oh, a second. Sorry. Councilor Shannon, would you like to speak to that? Yes. It's an item with a high level of interest. And I believe a lot of people are going to be speaking to it tonight. And it would be good to get it earlier on the agenda. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, councilor Shannon. Any further discussion on the amendment to the agenda? All those in favor of the amendment, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Councilor Hanson has a no. So will the city clerk please call the roll? Councilor McGee. No. Councilor Hanson. No. Councilor Strongberg. No. Councilor Shannon. Yes. Councilor Amason. Yes. Councilor Paul. Yes. Councilor Jang. Yes. Councilor Carpenter. Yes. I don't have my sheets. That's why I'm sorry. Oh. Councilor Hightower. Yes. Councilor Hanson. Oh, no, I already did. All right. Yeah. Yes. Did you get councilor Freeman? I'm sorry. And councillor Freeman. Yes. Three days. Okay. The motion carries. We are back to the. The agenda has amended any further discussion on the agenda. So we'll go to the vote on that all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Point of sorry. I was just wondering, didn't Councilor McGee have an amendment to the agenda that he sure okay you want to make an hour yeah yeah I guess you you have the ability to make an amendment so I would like to further amend the agenda to add to the deliberative agenda item 7.11 a resolution relating to the health and safety of house lists for monitors second we have a second from Councillor Stromberg is there any discussion on this Councillor Shannon I would just like confirmation that adding an item to the agenda requires two-thirds vote City Attorney yes it does it's to add an agenda item under the Council's rules which rule 16e no matters of business other than those included in the agenda as provide and provided Councillors in the packets or electronically provided by the City Clerk's office shall be introduced and considered at any regular or adjourned regular meeting of State Council without a two-thirds affirmative vote of the Councillors present and voting and that's consistent with Robert's rules of order as well I will have note anticipating potentially another question because this is a motion to amend it is a debatable motion thank you very much appreciate that Councillor Shannon you have the floor okay Mayor Weinberger thank you President Tracy I do have some updates regarding Sears Lane that I think the Council may appreciate having in deciding whether or not this item should be added to the agenda tonight so I'll try to be brief I'll have additional comments to make about Sears Lane at my Mayor's remarks but I do think it's germane for the Council to be aware that after working through the weekend and working in good faith having many campers at the site working good faith with city staff and after further defining the way in which I believe you're having trouble hearing and yeah so this is still following I believe the rules are great on it so here are some updates with respect to this year's lane situation I think maybe germane to the Council sorry if there's anyone who cannot hear before we've been working through the weekend many of the campers at Sears Lane have been working in good faith with the city further the way in which we will support the campers as the encampment is disbanded have we've been working on those details hard and working with key partners and we have the following to share and this has just gone out in the press release as well ideally would have been able to get this press release out sooner but we have been working hard up until now so here's here the updates the first of all we we are going to bring there's an element of our encampment policy the policy that was negotiated with the ACLU where the city is committed in circumstances like this to provide storage for campers who are leaving the site for up to 30 days the way we've determined we can best do that in the situation is to actually bring storage containers to the site and then make those containers available to people would like to retrieve their belongings during daytime hours those containers are expected on the site on October 25th next Monday because of the sniffing level of good faith coordination that's been taking place and because of that detail among others we are extending the deadline for campers to leave Sears Lane leave the encampment until October 26th further we have secured commitments from the Vermont Department of Children and Families to pledge emergency funding and provide direct assistance to the Sears Lane residents Sears Lane campers in their transition to other housing DCF has determined that they're going to do this in part by working with CVOO the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity and that nonprofit is service provider is providing direct service outreach outreach this year's Lane encampment CVOO is offering campers hotel assistance transportation assistance and other housing assistance the CVOO is getting support from the city's recently expanded community service liaison team in this effort on Thursday this Thursday October 21st the city staff and community partners will meet with campers to discuss resource connections explain the city storage policy and identify work with hopefully the campers to identify how trash is to be an abandoned items will be removed from the site and then there will be additional meeting on Friday with the Department of Public Works and Parks and Recreation to assist with the disposal and removal items of those items there's more to say again I will have further up further discussion of this important community topic one that we've the city team has been working hard on for months at the mayor's update but wanted you to know that those steps are taking before deciding whether or not to put this agenda item on the on on for business tonight thank you President Tracy thank you Mayor Weinberger I don't have others in the queue is there anyone else in the queue on this item Councilor McGee thank you President Tracy you know giving these updates I am I remain concerned that deeply concerned that the capacity of our services in the city to support on house folks is overextended and I am not confident that the folks at Sears Lane will be able to find housing in this short period of time given the crisis that we're facing across the state I would like to continue moving forward with this amendment to the agenda thank you thank you councilor McGee any further comments from counselors counselor Freeman yes I agree with those statements and I think also that the conversation shouldn't exclude the fact that people not everyone wants to be relocated and that this is a form of displacement and that we need to consider the the possibility that people want to to shelter on public lands on open lands and I just I don't think that this is the right the right decision I think it's discriminatory I understand that the date is being pushed out back in terms of clearing it but I just don't agree with it being cleared I think that people who do want to access resources and access you know sort of more traditional forms of housing should absolutely be given resources and those opportunities but that still doesn't it excludes the fact that some people will simply just not want to have traditional housing like what we think of as like sort of four walls indoors and I think that that ultimately is discriminatory and that we need to consider that as a as a part of a comprehensive policy so I very much support this resolution I support it being amended onto the agenda thank you yes oh yeah yes sorry President Tracy the one moment so President Tracy the the purpose of this executive session is to brief the council on an update the council on work with respect to the waterfront Tiff district and possible issues that the council should should be aware of and hear from directly from the city attorney at this time I think the council would would welcome this this this update and on on the waterfront if this tool that's been used to rebuild so much the waterfront and parts of our downtown thank you mayor appreciate that all right in order to get into executive session we have a two-part motion the first of which is a finding then based on that finding both of those motions are listed on board docs may please have a motion regarding the finding President Tracy I would move that the council find that the premature general public knowledge of information concerning the downtown Tiff district would place the city at a substantial disadvantage thank you we have a motion is there a second seconded by Councilor Mason any discussion can we just get a little more explanation on why why it would disadvantage the city city attorney Richardson sure part of this does involve legal advice and is allowed under section 313 legal advice is normally best given in confidence you know that way the board can decide if you come out of executive session and this information should be shared publicly that would be yours to wave as a body as opposed to beforehand when it's an attorney client communication and it is my recommendation that be done in executive session just simply so that I can talk through some of the issues you often don't want to broadcast attorney client information because it often provides roadmap if somebody says well I want to challenge x decision or why decision and that's simply I think the basis for the executive session tonight to enable me to give you a turning client information about the Tiff waterfront district involving certain legal issues Councilor Hanson okay can you give any more for the public like any more insight into what the legal issues are regarding can say that it is the you know in part involves how the Tiff district is administered how it is reviewed and issues concerning that but I wouldn't feel comfortable going much further than that okay thank you that's our answer okay any further discussion on the finding okay all those in favor of the finding please say aye opposed that carries unanimously now based on that finding is there a motion to go into executive session yes based on that finding I would move that the council go into executive session to receive confidential attorney client communications one vsa section 313 a1f in a pending or probable civil litigation matter one vsa section 313 a1e thank you we have a motion to go into executive session is there a second seconded by councilor mason any further discussion okay all those in favor please say aye any opposed that carries unanimously so councillors let's head back down to we don't so we don't have to clear everybody out of the room we'll go down to comfort to the conference room downstairs for members of the public we'll be back closer to 730 for public forum so we'll be quick about that and we'll come right back to you for public forum so thank you get started with for this meeting but before that mayor Weinberger asked to to say a few words go ahead mayor thank you president Tracy and I will try to be brief I know it's important that we get the public forum started very soon I do appreciate the opportunity to speak and that isn't that I know met a number of you are here tonight to speak to the decision that I felt I had to make last week regarding the Sears Lane in camp and I'd like to give a little bit of context to to that decision and to where we are going from here I will not repeat the announcements that we made at about an hour ago that we have that detailed the supports that are that we are providing to campers at Sears Lane and that gave a significant extension there's a press release out on that now so I won't spend the time doing that what I would like to just say is those of you are here to say we shouldn't that we should have better housing options than we do that we specifically should have better housing options for the campers at Sears Lane I agree with you you are right worked as hard as I know how since coming into office to provide supports for the chronically homeless that people are experiencing chronically chronic homelessness in this community this goes back to in 2014 opening the city's first low barrier warming shelter for winter housing options to making that facility in the last year a year-round facility getting millions of dollars emergency funding from the state to do that so that we now have low barrier option for approximately 50 people living in the former Champlain Inn includes the work that we did to relocate that low barrier shelter in the early days of the pandemic to each campground so that we could have a COVID safe option instead of the congregate living facility for people who are in that warming shelter and it includes very importantly I think relevantly strenuous attempt over the last year to add to the housing resources of this community a facility at Sears Lane a year ago working with local business and nonprofit providers I went to the Vermont Housing Conservation Board and asked them to fund a tiny home project that would have in a matter of months created a tiny home project at at Sears Lane unfortunately and to my continued disappointment the board of the Vermont Housing Conservation Board despite the support of their own staff voted in a split decision five to three not to support that after that setback we attempted to do what numerous cities have done of turn Sears Lane into a managed campground this summer so that we could be a place where people could camp and they could do so safely we in this community have too often seen these encampments become places of violence and tragedy and that can be avoided it's been my position with active management and so when Cedar Director Brian Pine one of his first assignments as he started with the city this June was to help us bring the first managed encampment here to Burlington and in some sense it wasn't the first we had a management encampment in some in some sense at North Beach during the pandemic Cedar worked through the summer and into the fall to try to talking with many nonprofit providers to try to make that happen and unfortunately it did not the no people no nonprofit providers responded to the RFP that the city put out several weeks ago we attempted even after the failure of the RFP we attempted to negotiate directly with one social service providers may active management the site and unfortunately because of internal changes with that provider just a couple weeks ago those efforts collapsed so that is what I was faced with last week is that those efforts to bring active management to and safety to the Sears Lane site to avoid the kind of tragedies that we've seen multiple times in the recent past here where people have lost their lives in these encampments our efforts to do that we're back at square one as of just at the end of two weeks ago and then and then the very troubling disturbing events of last week took place where it became very clear that the encampment has become a place that is unsafe for the campers at the site the neighbors surrounding the site and even the city's personnel responding to medical events at the site so it's that we have a policy in place to address situations like this the policy that was negotiated extensively with the ACLU and other local advocates for the homeless and this is a policy that we are following very closely the policy that gives the mayor the authority to take this step when a determination about safety is met and I felt that had no choice but to take those steps per the policy we have not given up I will say on either directly helping the people who are currently camping at Sears Lane in the wake of last week's decision I'm encouraged to say that a whole suite of new supports and this financial assistance for the people living there has become available and we're going to work very hard over the next week to make sure that everyone who wants that kind of assistance and support is able to get it and then further I will just say I have not in any way given up on the idea that the city's properties that can in this acute housing crisis that we're in and this acute homelessness crisis that we are in any place where the city properties can help add to the resources add to the to the supports to get us through this crisis we should do so and the CEDO team continues to work on that I hope will have further announcements beyond today's extensive announcements very soon thank you President Tracy I appreciate it thank you mayor all right we will now go into public forum we're going to be trying a different type of a different format for public forum this will be our first meeting where we're going to be having in-person commenters as well as remote commenters we discussed as a council kind of this transition back back to this when we were coming back into in-person meetings that we would be having comment in both cases are in both allowing comment through both formats in those conversations we were going to at least try out have we are practiced normally within the pump within Burlington City Council is to prioritize Burlington residents and so what I'll be doing is starting with Burlington in person then Burlington remote then non-Burlington in person and then non-Burlington remote looks like the great majority of speakers for this evening are Burlington speakers and so our first speaker this evening is Ernie Pomerlew before to be followed by Dan Beto before we have speakers come up though I just want to encourage people to please listen to all speakers do not make any noises or clap or cheer just really create we want to make sure that people have the ability to express themselves and we it's best if they're just able to do that without sort of outbursts in between speakers or while speakers are speaking also please stick to the issues and don't personalize issues please speak to the issues as much as possible thank you Ernie please join us thank you Ernie Pomerlew longtime Burlington resident we own multiple properties in downtown Burlington employ a lot of people and been been engaged in Burlington for 50 years working with the marketplace and creating a lot of vitality as you all have been responsible for this is not about a we they this is about a tipping point in Burlington we've seen a lot of situations the incidents that are happening daily with our employees and our customers has gotten to a point where I would highly recommend to the board to increase the police mandates as to the numbers and also promote dramatically mental wellness and awareness and I know you've got a study and you're looking at a lot of stuff you have a lot on your plate but I would tell you again and I'm repeating myself but we're at a tipping point and it's crucial for the vitality and the long-term vital be this town is our town it's a magical wonderful place that people are drawn to and right now I'm concerned that we have a situation that has evolved that we can quickly and dramatically alter and get back on track but as it presently stands there's a lot of concern and a lot of angst on the street which is impacting shoppers impacting employees and impacting the economic viability going forward so thank you for your time and for all of your interest in Burlington we're all in this together thank you thank you our next speaker is Dan Vito or Bido and if I mispronounce your name please correct me and appreciate any help that I can get Dan Bido to be followed by any pronunciations fine but chicory in order to be respectful of all your time I prepared a statement it's about three minutes long I hope you'll allow me to read it in full because if you won't you're gonna have to get someone to drag me out of here the failures of local government and of our economic system to provide adequate and affordable housing for all has led to the residents of Sears Lane taking the initiative to house themselves in recent weeks the behavior of some homeless community members at Sears Lane and in public areas such as Church Street and City Hall Park has become an object of concern I'm not here to deny this reality nor deny that it's a problem rather I'm here to tell you that this is a rare instance of natural justice the disruption to tourism recreation business and everyday life caused by the omnipresence of homeless homelessness in our city is simply the consequence of the profound inequality that pervades our society and our city it's only natural that when tourism and the temporary residency of many students and their families have led to a housing crunch in a city with a largely low wage service sector economy many people can neither afford to live here nor to move away and must do whatever they can to survive it's only natural that those who dine and luxury on Church Street should be confronted with the destitution that exists only a few blocks away it's only natural that students and young professionals who've brought so much wealth into this community and drastically raise the cost of living should sometimes have their bikes or other valuables stolen by someone who might have been priced out of a home or out competed for an already low paying job but it seems that the mayor and the city government find these inevitabilities intolerable rather than live with the consequences of their values and priorities the respectable citizens and city officials of Burlington intend to put a clenched fist on the scales of justice and eliminate this unflattering reflection of their failed utopian vision by force through the demolition of the Sears Lane encampment in the midst of a record spike in covid cases and with the onset of winter temperatures just around the corner this is an unconscionable act of cruelty and it will solve nothing now let me be clear in saying that nobody deserves to be robbed or assaulted or harassed in this city by anyone homeless or otherwise I want to live in a peaceful and harmonious society like everyone else but it's more important to say unequivocally that no one deserves to be turned away from nearly all aspects of public and commercial life because of the stigma around homelessness and the many forms of discrimination against the homeless for their credit or criminal history or disappearance or disposition nobody deserves to be driven mad or have their body degraded without comfort or stability no one deserves to rely on substances like men's or alcohol to get through daily life because hyper vigilance and a greater reason to be called our necessity on the streets most importantly no one to be forced to choose homelessness because their other options predatory services organizations and most exploitative and unpleasant employers and landlords as to offer are less desirable alternatives so long as these realities remain my sympathies are the homeless even if they're disruptive even if they're committing petty crimes and even if they're violent you please rub nothing the homeless can do will remotely compare to what we all in our complicity with this equal to run to them I'm here today because the city wishes to resolve a lesser injustice and you please do so without addressing the primary injustice that people who are forced onto the streets in the first place and this is all aside from the fact that the vast majority of homeless people do have jobs do mind their own business you please wrap up control or positive contributions to society in spite of the hardship they face the reality is the only solution to this problem is bold and unprecedented you please wrap up distribution toward the goal of ending homelessness please wrap up unconditional housing first approach you're not worth the chair you sit in folks could please please don't have a if we could please just may not have any outbursts and also please if you can respect the timing this is a an open meeting law issue people need to have if we're we need to have equivalent time for individuals in a you know in a public forum so go ahead my name is Violet up chickering and I'm here tonight to call on the city council to reject and resist any attempts to remove the people staying at Steers Lane I think it is incredibly vile that instead of actually solving any of the systemic problems that lead to homelessness such as exorbitant rent unlivable wages and underfunded social programs the city instead wants to further criminalize and harass those are most vulnerable in our city how do you sleep at night knowing you are tearing down people's homes right as the cold starts to set in proponents of this eviction say it is necessary for public safety I ask whose safety that of wealthy business owners and landlords who want to amass even more wealth without having to look at the products of their exploitation or the poor racially marginalized queer and disabled people who are disproportionately homeless 40% of homeless youth are LGBTQ but I guess but I bet most of you would say you're a queer ally your hypocrisy is as exhausting as it is extensive in order to trick yourself into believing the monstrous cruelty of this eviction is just many of you attempt to dehumanize the people living on Steers Lane you employ racialized epithets like criminal deviant danger to the community but I reject this dehumanization and demonization homelessness is not a character flaw or a lack of work ethic or something that can be beaten out of people with a big enough stick is a product of our white supremacist capitalist system fundamentally this eviction is an attack on those left behind by neoliberalism in this city will you reckon with your disastrous policy and ideology or choose to continue harming those you see as inconvenient to your wealth thank you thank you our next speaker is Lee Morgan to be followed by Casey Lee Morgan is next. Casey, if you could just please wait. Lee is next. Casey, go ahead. Okay. Casey, go ahead. The state of Vermont has been known as a massive drug problem and I agree. I was hit with a baseball ball after that. I always picked up what that be. Those are the names of the judges. If you could please speak into the microphone. You could just speak into the mic so that folks who are tuning in remotely can hear you. These are multiple. These are multiple. Please support. That belated upon me. That's illegal. This right here is a nice radio. When you're cack out of towels, I've been stuck in. With flies in it. Mold all over the walls. Mold all over the ceilings. And you're forcing people to leave. This right here is a nice little video of the food that people are being chewed like animals. So this is all I can eat. No, I don't. Share housing. What's your housing? Okay. $22,735 of my money went into BHA files by Vermont League of Legends. You see this? I got 10 more of these bags. I got 10 of these and I'm putting it all together and going to Washington. These are all false police reports. There's not one name of a cop on one. There's not a statement of a cop's name, a judge's name, a court date. And you're saying, oh, Sears Lane, oh, well, let's play everything out. These are your documents. 4,400 violations I got on the state of Vermont. Plus you people sitting here. Him? Since 2011. Every time I walked in these doors, that's what I found. I had five cops up my ass every time I walked out that door. Five. Okay. In 2009, I got in an accident. It was 60. I got rolled eight times to 65 miles an hour. What happened? I automatically blacked out. The doctor got up my ass. Why not happen with that one? That's 200 pages of your mental health system. How you screw people, you don't get no help. Actually, wait, you give me two more minutes. Please wrap up. There's 200 pages of mental health files that you guys are screwing out on. If you could please wrap up. So you guys enjoy the jobs that you have? Hopefully people actually pay attention once being set up. Please wrap up. But all of this is bullshit. People learn how to do your job. We might have housing if there weren't all dumps to live in. People don't have to be on the street. Have a good evening folks. Thank you. Oh, by the way, keep your... Please wrap up. By the way, I decided... If you could please wrap up. I just had an immediate stroke. No, you're going to wait. I just had an immediate stroke. No, your medical center hospital did to me. Right after I made your stroke, it threw me out the door. If you could please wrap up. Enjoy your day. Thank you. Leap to be followed by Chrysanthemum Harrell. Hi, so, Mayor, I'm just going to talk to you directly. So... Please direct your comments for the chair. Okay. Okay. So, I might just look at you. So, everybody, I just want to... I'm here to advocate for really all Berlin-tonians, but specifically Sears Lane residents. So, I feel anybody who's making impacting decisions upon those residents have to have the qualifications to do so. So, I'll give you my qualifications. So, I'm a drug addict and an alcoholic. I've been in recovery for quite some time now. I'm also formerly unhoused. And I feel like it's important to understand I don't know your back story, but if you are not a drug addict, alcoholic, have some sort of substance abuse disorder or have been formerly unhoused, I feel like you should really limit your process in the decision-making in both residents and also people who have gone through the process so they can share with you what has worked for them and what doesn't. I think it's important to recognize that everybody's solutions are going to be very individualistic. Definitely not a one-size-fits-all situation. I'm going to keep this brief because I know there's a lot of people who have good things to say. I want to share with you what is kind of one-size-fits-all. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs has been greatly agreed upon by the medical community is what everybody needs. Tiered Pyramid. You need one level to move on to the next. And I ask you to provide the base level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. I feel like it's perfectly able to be secured tomorrow. So this is food, it's deep and warm. I feel like that's really attainable for tomorrow. It's unrealistic to ask any human to engage in any sort of compliance with law enforcement until they have their base level. I think anybody could relate to that. So I ask you to deliver that tomorrow. Thanks. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Chris Anthem and Harold to be followed by Will Keaton. Hi, my name is Chris Anthem and Harold. I am a trans woman student organizer. I am here today to stand in solidarity with the residents of Sealers Lane who are set to become the next victims of Burlington's long history of colonial violence. We stand here today on the unseated and illegally occupied land of the Abenaki people. A fact that is too often unacknowledged or brushed over by the city of Burlington. We are currently in the middle of another imperial project by the city government. The full-scale gentrification of Burlington is the result of the reduction of the number of development developers and corporations. The housing situation in this city has reached a point of no return. At Vermont's current minimum wage, a full-time worker can only reasonably pay $611 a month a rent according to a report by the Bennington banner. Yet in my current housing apartment search, I am lucky to find anything under $800. My landlord has raised my rent or renting for nearly $1,200 a month, which is almost twice what you could reasonably afford at minimum wage. Do you all actually care about working class people being able to live in Burlington? Because we are only a few years away from an entire social class of people being wiped off the map of our city. Even among members of the Progressive Party who have campaigned on a platform of housing affordability, there is not the sense of urgency needed to stop short of the cliff that we are diving off of. No more can we sit around and casually talk about housing affordability or believe in the false promises of corporate developers. The strategies tried by both the Democrats and Progressives have failed thus far. We need action now. It is time to lay everything on the line. We need to build more public housing now. We need to UVM to drastically lower their housing costs now. We need the city of Burlington to seize property from the private developers that are ringing our city dry. And we need to stop the immoral and life-threatening eviction of community members from their homes for six years. I hope that all of you feel shame and guilt for what you are trying to do. Please wrap up. If you walk into any fraternity on the UVM campus grounds, you will find more drugs and violence than anything that's going on in this campus. Please wrap up. If folks could please hold the applause. Our next speaker is Will Keaton to be followed by William Dunkley. Will Keaton welcome the next speaker? Will Keaton. It seems like the city's brilliant plan is to put people in storage units and put human beings in storage containers. It seems absurd and wrong to me. As Kristianth, we are occupying this land. We have UVM, committed genocide against indigenous people with the Toucanics program. And we got to lock up people who use drugs and then use that as an excuse to destroy and terrorize communities. So I guess the War of Drugs lives on strong in Burlington. So yeah, I don't know, quit raiding and busting up communities for a zero reason. That's all I really gotta say. Thank you. Our next speaker is William Dunkley to be followed by Emma Schoenberg. Is William Dunkley here? Okay. Emma Schoenberg to be followed by Julia Masuga. Hi, it's nice to see you. My name is Emma. I've lived on and off in Burlington for over a decade. And I began feeding people in this community 10 years ago. And some of those same people are still here. Some of them live in Sears Lane. But a sad amount of them are no longer with us. Friends have died from exposure on the Burlington streets. These are people who have tried to access the services that this council has promised to provide, and they have failed. We can point the fingers at the why, but the reason is that the need is still there. My father taught me once, and he's quoting someone else, it's Marshall Rosenberg, that violence is the tragic expression of unmet needs. It is the tragic expression of unmet needs. So when we talk about violence, the violence that is happening on the street or the violence that is supposedly happening in the camp, it is coming from the violence that is the unmet needs of the people. We can talk about the nonprofits that can provide access to resources, but when are we going to start listening for what people want, what they need, and what can be provided? We have a community of people here in Burlington that's almost three to 400 people strong that during the pandemic has been feeding people every single day, just a few blocks from here. They are unpaid. They might even be called volunteers, and it's not because it feels good, though every once in a while you get that moment where you make somebody's day for the only meal that they're gonna eat that day, but it's because we see ourselves as part of a neighborhood, part of a community that you are all a part of as well, that Sears Lane is a part of, one that struggles just like any other community to stay safe. That's what's so important here. I will finish up, Max, just one second, President Tracey. If you could just please wrap up. Yeah, yeah, thank you. And so the last thing I'll just say is that we are all neighbors in this community together, and we have the ability to actually respond to what people want. If you could please wrap up. Yeah, I will, thank you. So no matter what we're doing here, why don't we listen? Why don't we allow Sears Lane to stay there and start becoming better friends over a meal? We'll probably have a barbecue at that point. Come down, come chat. Next speaker is Julie Masuga to be followed by Leif Taranto. My name is Julie Masuga. I use she, her pronouns, and not 15 minutes ago, I was on the phone with a young, houseless person who checked in with every single shelter in the city and qualified for emergency housing and had nowhere to go. So after this, I'm gonna go figure out where she can go. I've been here a lot of times and I've never felt so physically just sick and raw and ashamed of what's happening in the city. The administration has potentially sentenced houseless neighbors to their deaths. Winter and COVID are undeniably dangerous and forcing the people to leave their homes right as the weather gets colder and that's barbaric. In the city of Burlington under the direction of the mayor, campers at Sears Lane had originally been given six days notice to leave or face legal consequences. Now I guess they have another week but that doesn't undo the damage that's already been done to people, our neighbors, our siblings. This comes directly after the city had put out a request seeking a nonprofit to help manage the site and allow for some of the campers and structures to stay. The last draft of the request for proposals which is still on the city website said, the city seeks a proposal that describes the coordination mechanisms necessary to ensure continuation and expansion of service access to ensure that every camper secures suitable housing. Instead of following through with that program as imperfect as it was, the city conducted a raid on the camp a few days ago traumatizing residents. Now because one person was arrested, the entire camp has been threatened with legal action if they don't leave. The extension is not enough. Remember that UVM student that died of exposure last winter, that's what people are facing in mass just because the city wants to continue to criminalize poverty. I also oppose the proposal for a so-called police accountability. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Leif Toronto to be followed by Deirdre Graham. Hello, can you hear me? Yep, go ahead. Hi, I'm Leif. I also wanted to oppose the proposed police accountability measure because it doesn't provide actual community oversight and still leaves the police chief in charge of disciplinary processes. What we need is a charter change, not fake solutions that keep the same system in place. So I just asked you all to oppose that and support a charter change instead. I also want to talk about Sears Lane. I heard what the mayor was saying about the work that you all have done to support houseless community members. And I wanted to let you know that that has failed. You all have failed as our elected officials to provide for our houseless community members. As Julie was saying, our friend right now is looking for housing and qualifies for it and has nowhere to go. And I wanted to ask you if you are really ready to kick people out of their homes in the cold, in the COVID, to possibly to their deaths because that is what will happen. You are punishing the people of Sears Lane for your own failures and that is not okay. And I really want to stress that these are homes. We have, I have friends at Sears Lane who have gardens, who have yurts, who have houses. This is a community that has been built in extremely dire circumstances and people trying to take care of each other because no one else will, because you won't. And so to criminalize these folks for the community and lives they have built when there were no other options is absolutely unacceptable. And I really want to stress that this is criminalizing poverty. There is so much violence that happens elsewhere in the city that the city does absolutely nothing about because it does not give them an excuse to take people's homes away. So when you use alleged events that have not been proven in court and people are incident innocent until they're proven guilty to take people out of their homes in the winter, that is not okay. I want to ask you to reopen the request for proposals and also to just leave the people of Sears Lane alone and allow them to have the self-determination that they should have as members of our community. So we all need to be listening to what they want and the solutions they can provide for ourselves with our help. And so please stop failing them and punishing them for your own failures. If you could please wrap up. Thank you. All right, our next speaker is Deirdre Graham to be followed by Esher Lee. I'm a Burlington resident and I'm disgusted and disheartened by the city's recent decision to abruptly shut down Sears Lane. And I was feeling very desperate to pass 7.11 but I guess that's not happening. It's still a truly dire situation as many of my comrades have stated before me. The mayor has said that Sears Lane has become untenable and unacceptable but forcibly removing 30 plus people from their homes with essentially no notice. Still 12 days is not really any notice. That is untenable and unacceptable to put mildly. Other counselors, Councillor Shannon has been quoted multiple times and are discontent with Sears Lane. And it's pretty obviously that you're disgusted by anyone who's poor, houseless, struggling, not living the wealthy white life. And I don't disagree that there should be better resources citywide. But let me ask you this, what good is ripping people away from their community, from their home, literally leaving them with nowhere to go and no hope. As we head into the winter amidst a global pandemic, that's still raging all around us, categorically causing a lot of harm to so many people. What good is that doing? If you really do care about the safety and well-being of our neighbors and some of the most marginalized Burlington residents, you've gotta do more. Please try just for a moment if you can to remember that these are human beings in our community, in your community. And if you have any bit of empathy and compassion and general human decency, you will do better. I agree with what folks have said before me. You are sentencing people to suffer and sentencing people to die. You have failed, we need to do something. The extension is really not enough. This is also inhumane. Five days, 12 days, that's. And I quickly also wanted to add that I strongly oppose the Public Safety Committee's resolution, we obviously need real accountability and actual radical change and that's not it at all. Thank you. Our next speaker is Esher Lee, to be followed by, I'm sure I have two sign-ups for you who only can speak once. Go ahead, Esher. Esher will be followed by Grace File. I hope you like my shirt, Joan. I'm here before you now, as a lifelong resident of Burlington, utterly disappointed and disgusted by the city's decision to destroy the neighborhood at Sears Lane. People in vulnerable living situations have called that land home for longer than I've been alive. Conservatives like Joan Shannon and Maroon Weinberger have spread lies about the supposed danger of this neighborhood. And I'd like to ask you this, does displacing 30 people right before winter at the peak of the COVID outbreak in Vermont sound safe? The city shelters do not have the room to house all of these people and they will be left in an objectively worse and more dangerous situation. I was under the impression that the city cared for its residents more than this, but now I understand the city council and the mayor only care about the comfort of the rich and white upper class. But if your intent on following through with this act of state sanctioned violence, I at least have the decency to be honest with us so we can be honest with you in turn. Joan Shannon, Maroon Weinberger, everyone has voted against. Please direct comments, chair. Everyone else who voted against the resolution and everyone at the BPD, I hope you all lose your homes this winter so you can gain some much needed perspective. I yield my time to the next speaker. Thank you. Thank you. And if folks could just please direct comments through the chair. The next speaker is Grace File to be followed by Miguel Figueroa. Hi, thank you so much for letting me speak. I wanted to speak to items 7.09 and then I also wanted to speak to Sears Lane. I wanna encourage you to continue to work towards creating true police accountability. The folks who disproportionately receive police services like folks living at Sears Lane and our black neighbors also experience the most police violence and surveillance. Those are the people who need to be at the center of holding police accountable. Our community must have fully independent disciplinary and investigatory powers over our police department. Incrementally increasing the ability of the police commission is not enough. The absolute minimum we deserve as a community is community control of police. I urge the council to continue to pursue actual police accountability through a comprehensive charter change. I also wanna urge you to not evict those living at Sears Lane. I understand there's been an extension to the right 12 days that is still not acceptable. Many of us who work in the service industry and make your whole tourism machine possible, we make all of this, all of Church Street, we make that possible. Restaurant workers and grocery store workers, we are much closer to being homeless than we are to owning a home in this city. We all deserve to feel safe and we all deserve to know where we will sleep at night. I understand that you're trying to kick this down the road to avoid confrontation but we will all be here and we will all stand in solidarity with those who are homeless at Sears Lane and around the city. It is your duty as managers of the city and of this community to care for and to protect the wellbeing of everyone. You cannot simply discard people and push them to the side because their existence is inconvenient to you. Every single one of us is somebody's child, somebody's loved one. What do you gain by forcing the residents of Sears Lane out of the only space they have? I continue to be astounded and appalled at the utter lack of respect for human lives and the disregard for folks in our community who need the most support. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Miguel Figueroa to be followed by Stephen Margolin. Okay, thank you. Our next speaker is Stephen Margolin to be followed by Gene Bergman. Hello. Hi. I'm a resident of Ward 8. I've been in Burlington for about six years now and hope to continue to remain here. I want to start with the most pressing issue. There's a crisis happening down at Sears Lane and it's truly appalling that our city has let it come to this and that our city is perpetuating more violence on those residents because as city counselors, we are here to represent everyone, the people who live in this city and as several counselors have said before, the business owners who also give the lifeblood of this tourism industry. So I'd like to call out, it would sure be a shame for all those fancy South end businesses when people start turning up dead from the cold. The primary issue I'd like to talk about tonight is actually with our police accountability and the proposed half measure to meet justice. You know, it's been said tongue in cheek that diplomacy is when both sides leave disappointed and there is some truth to finding that compromise. I'd like to say that there is no diplomacy or compromise in tonight's change. It simply mid-tains that the mayor and the police chief hold all their power. And yes, I'm talking to you, look up from your phone and be part of this community. Thank you, Marad. So. Please direct your comments to me. I will, thank you, Max. So I urge the city council to pursue police accountability through a comprehensive charter change. That is the only real effective way to create laws that will promote more accountability. The new solution that's written up first is an ordinance so it can't be legally pursued in the same methods. And second, it does not add any new investigative powers to the police commission. They retain, they remain as a body completely within the police department and the chief holds sole disciplinary action. That doesn't sound fair to me. And that's certainly not what we've been fighting for for over a year and will continue to do so. In my last effort, Max, if you could direct this to all your fellow councilors, there's going to be a barbecue down at Sears Lane tomorrow at 3 p.m. Y'all should come down and see what the community is really like. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jean Bergman to be followed by Steve Marshall. I'm really disappointed that you defeated the amendment to put Councillor McGee's resolution about Sears Lane on. There was the opportunity for you to debate this as a council to be accountable to the people and you defeated that, even though there was a majority of the people who did that. That is just very disappointing. It is very disappointing that what has happened at Sears Lane is akin to the collective punishment that is like the House demolitions in Palestine where you get one person who gets arrested for doing something or two people who get arrested and then everybody gets punished for that. It's outrageous. Now, I don't have the information that may have gone into all the other things, but I have read the police report, I've read the news reports. And if those are anywhere accurate, that was just an unjustified eviction. It is an unjustified eviction and you shouldn't suspend it for a little bit. You should like just stop. If you're gonna do all these other things, good, do them. Don't evict this whole community because you're punishing for two people's actions. Let me just turn now and ask you to vote no on the police accountability resolution because it truly is a Rube Goldberg attempt to fix something when you have in front of you, when you had in front of you the solution, which is a comprehensive charter change. And this has serious problems, practical problems. I'd ask you to ask the city attorney to raise those, to ask him about those. It does not give the commission any authority to do this and it creates tremendous complications with their appeal process. So I'd ask you to vote no on that as well. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Stephen Marshall to be followed by Jojo Kuffman. I hope you forgive me for taking off my mask. Presumably you won't get anything from me from that distance. Y'all probably realized that I moved into the Sears Lane camp about six years ago. I spent most of the year there. When I was there, it was a beautiful wooded area and I wanted it to stay that way. A few years ago, I think three or four, I approached the mayor and I said to him, you need to manage this area. He said to me, no, I don't think that's a good idea. And I said to him, well, what happens if there's a recession and there's a whole flood of new homeless people? So I hope that doesn't happen. Well, sorry, hope's not a good policy and it didn't really work. We see today the fruit of that failure to take that advice. The truth is, the folks in the Sears Lane camp would love some structure. They were very welcoming to the idea of a nonprofit managing the camp. So look, just forget about this whole eviction thing and double down on getting some sort of plan together to actually manage the camp. I'll give you two principles. One is maximize freedom without large cost to responsibility and safety. So things like removing the trash regularly, making sure that people who are involved in criminal activity are removed, putting a curfew on generators and lights. You say, you know what, 10 o'clock is late enough, go to bed. I'm not sure everybody in my community would agree with me on these points, but I stand by these feelings and thoughts. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jojo Kaufman to be followed by Ailey Dove, I'm sorry, I'm having trouble reading this. Ailey Dove, I'll allay you. But our next speaker is Jojo Kaufman. Did you, you didn't want to speak, are you Jojo Kaufman? Okay, then the next speaker is, I'm sorry, I can't, I'm having difficulty reading this. I'll allay Dave, I'll allay, it's, I'm having real trouble reading, is it? Okay, I apologize, I can't read this. I believe this one says Amanda Ski something? Amanda, I apologize, I'm just having trouble reading these. In the past 10 months, there were 443 domestic incidents, that's not including assault charges that were actually filed or temporary orders of protection that were violated. I ask you all to raise police staffing to include the Domestic Violence Prevention Officer. Domestic violence incidents are often repeat events. Perhaps because of that, there's a sense of shame and dysfunction when they happen. My grandma May was beaten for more than a decade as were her children, including an infant. Over the years, her femoral artery was cut when my grandfather punished her by cutting off her favorite clothes. She didn't file charges until my grandfather pistol whipped her after making her play Russian roulette. Her skull was cracked open. 45 years later, when my boyfriend got mad at me and hurt me, I didn't report because I felt that same sense of shame that my grandmother had. How invaluable is it then to have an officer who can get to know victims and build trust, to know the person more than the chaos that they're living through? A Domestic Violence Officer can build trust so that statutes can be used to bring victims to safety when they're ready. They're not always ready right away. Of course, it's vital to have social services to connect victims to housing and to connect both victims and defendants to therapy because nobody's first language is violence. But we need both officers and social workers to bring people to higher ground. Please staff to 80 so that we can do that. Thank you. And please everyone, you know how hard it is to get up here and talk about this. Please stop booing people. Yes, please allow the speakers to just say their piece. Next speaker will be Karen Stewart to be followed by Gabe Arnold. Hi, my name is Karen Stewart. I wanted to say thank you to all the representatives here for listening to what's being said tonight as a former federal employee and a state employee. I know what it takes to serve the public and I feel like you have been really misrepresented tonight. And it makes me thank you for what you're doing here as public representatives. There've been 13 gunfire incidences this year compared to an average of two per year in years 2012 to 2019. Those numbers scare me because it seems to be the tip of the iceberg. If we lose businesses on Church Street because people don't feel safe to shop there anymore, how does that affect the economy of Burlington? The tax revenue from those businesses shifts to homeowners, right? Our property taxes just went up and they are at unsustainable levels. And I feel like I'm being forced to move out of Burlington. I'm concerned for our children in Burlington. When a bullet is found in the third story window, of the Edmunds Middle School, that's when I woke up and that's when I got active. There's got to be a middle ground between having adequate police to respond to real crimes and having adequate substance abuse and mental health responses through a community healthcare organization. I know you're working on this, but right now we're not at a place that the police can respond to overt drug deals in our neighborhoods. While I support the plan to increase the mental health and substance abuse service providers to offset calls to the police for these issues. If you could please wrap up. I am compelled to ask you, the city council. Please wrap up. To not let actual crimes go unchecked and to support the Burlington Police Department and its officers with adequate staffing. I can take care of it. I implore you to raise. Please wrap up. Excuse me. No, excuse me, you've had your time. You let those other guys speak? No. One more sentence. Please wrap up. I implore you to raise the cap on the number of police officers to 88 as recommended in the state name of the court. The next speaker will be, our next speaker will be Gabe Arnold to be followed by Christopher Aaron Felker. 22 year old resident of Burlington. I live here with my family and I want to start by saying that I fully support efforts to remove systemic racism and inequities from policing and believe that we must find new ways to address mental health and public safety in nonviolent ways. That being said, I've been absolutely dismayed with how this council has gone about this to date. I'm especially dismayed with the arbitrary reduction of the Burlington Police by this council without any understanding of the implications for the community. We went about this completely backwards, first arbitrarily cutting the police force, then studying how much, how many we actually need and finding out now as all of us in the community have been experiencing that it was cut too much. This has done a lot of damage to the city. It's made the city less safe and it's lowered the quality of life. When the police are not around and not responsive, people are louder. They drive faster, they harass more, they believe they can get away with more and we are all less safe. These are all quality of life issues and we're all feeling it. For me, one of the biggest tragedies in all of this has been the unity that's been squandered by this decision. This was an issue that we were all united on. After George Floyd, virtually everyone in this community was ready to have these difficult conversations about how do we get systemic racism out of policing. Instead, we ended up divided over an irresponsible decision that continues to negatively impact its community and is distracted from our ability to move forward from the issue that we all cared about, which is how do we get racism out of policing? So to ask, I would ask you to vote tonight to bring the police up to adequate levels and start to repair the damage that's been done. And number two, I know these are hard decisions, I know you all are well intentioned and I'd ask you to be more responsible in your governing of the city. These decisions need to be informed by data with a real understanding of the implications, especially big issues that impact the community such as public safety. I respect that you're facing a lot of protestors on that night, but these decisions can't and shouldn't only be because it yells at you the loudest and the longest and an organizer at these meetings like is happening again tonight. If you could please wrap up, thank you. All right, our next speaker will be Christopher Aaron Felker to be followed by Todd LaCroix. Good evening. I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the two very strong women that spoke before me and I hope that you were able to hear their words and the feelings that they had behind them. I'm not here to rehash the decisions that you've made last year or two months ago. I'm here today to speak in favor of 7.10, the raising of the officer cap. I'm asking this council to take the recommendation from the civilian police commission encouraging you to raise the cap. I'd like you to please acknowledge the Church Street Marketplace employees who do not feel safe, the people who work right outside this very door who do not feel safe at night leaving their jobs to try and get back home. I'd like you to listen to the BBA. I'd like you to listen to the residents of this city who are telling you that they don't feel safe anymore. And I'd like you to listen to the CNA report that says that we should raise the officer cap because what you're doing by not raising the officer cap is failing to act, failing to rise to the occasion to protect your constituents, our fellow Burlingtonians. It needs to be done. It's what responsible leadership is. We don't agree on everything, but we can keep our city safe, please. It's time to act. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Todd LaCroy to be followed by Sam Bliss. Just one little note on what he just said, it's not the quantity of police, it's the quality of our police being community based and not militarized. But you know, these people, they don't care to talk about that, do they? I have a parable for you because that's the best way I can communicate all these ideas in one moment. It's a real parable that happened here. There once was a man who walked homeless into Burlington in the 1980s. He had nowhere to go and he found a telephone booth at Nectar's and he spent the night. It looked like a good place to sleep. And in the morning, Nectar Rouris found him in his establishment, sleeping. And you know what he did? He didn't tell him to get lost. He said, hey, you wanna do some dishes? And he offered him a job. And you know what? He instead offered him a job and treated him like a human being. Now he worked up from washing dishes and he eventually became the night manager at Nectar's and they became good friends. His name was Skinner, a man that I'm sure many of you knew once, a man that taught me and many people about music culture and dealing with people who are down and out. Now, we need more stories like that now, not about another era, gone. But yet here we are, 10 years after me, Steve, Emily and many others stood here before you during Occupy Wall Street, arguing about solutions with people and tents right outside. 10 years later, you have found no solutions and in fact, everything's getting worse. Please, I have a proposal here. I've talked to many people at the Howard Center, many restaurant people. Okay, just one second, I'll be done. Please wrap up. Okay? And I have a proposal here that will work to help people in this town. I really wish Mr. Weinberger, you read this because many people in this town are gonna fucking, excuse me. Please wrap up. Many people in this town are gonna be talking about it tomorrow. Our next speaker is Sam Bliss to be followed by Sasha Smith. Thank you, Councillor Tracy. I care a lot about the issues on seven, nine and seven, 10, but I'm here to talk about the proposed 7-Eleven about the eviction of Sears Lane. I'm asking you not to kick those people out. They don't have anywhere else to go. Those are my friends. It's not gonna solve any problems. Clearly, there's some perceived issues down there and the people who live there would agree and have when I've talked to them and when they've spoken publicly about it. The city put out a request for proposals to be so a nonprofit organization could be the managers of Sears Lane. That request for proposals included things like cameras and security, some services as well. Some of the folks I've talked to who live down there were into that idea, even though me and some of my activist friends thought that that was silly. And then what were you doing with spending city resources on an investigation and a raid of the camp? Dozens of people have their residences there and one person had drugs and guns. Now, if you raided that many homes, people who have houses, you'd probably find a lot more drugs and guns, but apparently that's okay. You have a house. I think the people who live there need support and I applaud that part of the plan is to give them other options, help folks find other housing, but for folks who wanna stay, their best option is to not be disturbed. Thanks. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sasha Smith to be followed by Mack Tanner. Is Mack a Sasha Smith here? Okay, I'll go to Mack Tanner to be followed by Kurt Wright. First, I'm gonna ask, can you stop looking at your computers and look at me? Because the entire time you specifically, Joan Shannon, I'm gonna talk to her specifically, has been looking at her computer instead of listening to the people who've been speaking here. I don't know. People have said some pretty good things and I don't need to repeat them. Joan Shannon, you're looking at your computer again. I'd like you to look at me, please. Show me some respect, okay? Ooh, she's still not doing it. I'd like to oppose the eviction of Sears Lane. As people have said before me, they don't have anywhere to go. Yeah. Thank you. Please show everybody else the same level of respect you showed me for the past five seconds. Please direct your comments to the chair. Thank you. All right, our next speaker is Kurt Wright. Is Kurt right here? Kurt, if you signed up, I think I see you on the online. So, Kurt, I'll come to you when you're online. When we get to the online Burlington. The next speaker is Tyler Pasterrock to be followed by Peach Kilroy. Is Tyler here? Okay. Is Peach here? Go ahead, Peach. My name is Peach. I've been a Burlington resident for the past three years. Now you stay. I'm just having a little trouble hearing you. Oh, okay. Can I take my mask down? Yeah. Hi, my name is Peach. I've been a Burlington resident for three years. Now you stay, then pronouns. And I'm here to stand in solidarity with our neighbors at Sears Lane. I heard the supports that were put in place. I understand the extension of the deadline, but I quite frankly don't think those supports are working and I don't think that they're enough. And I don't think anything will really be enough for me to justify evicting people from their homes. I think we as a community need to see our neighbors and meet their needs, how they want us to meet them and not decide what's best for them. And I just think we need to do a better job of supporting each other and evicting 30 people from a community they've built doesn't feel fair to me because it's not. And I just think it's the responsibility of the city to do what's best for the people it's supposed to serve. So don't evict people, please. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. So is Tyler here? Go ahead, Tyler. The next speaker will be Carolyn Bates after Tyler. Hello, I'm Tyler. I currently live in Ward 8. I'm here tonight to comment on items 7, 9 and 7, 10. Starting with 7, 9. This resolution is at best ineffective and insufficient and at worst it threatens future progress towards real police accountability in Burlington. Meaningful accountability is impossible without changing the city charter. Despite over a year of demands for this and a majority vote in favor of it from this council, resolution on the table tonight fails to put a charter change in motion. Without a charter change, the disciplinary measures suggested in this resolution are meaningless. Elevating a case to some group involving the mayor and public safety committee relies entirely on the police chief cooperating because that is ultimately where sole disciplinary authority still lies. While I certainly support the police commission having more investigatory powers, this resolution is positioned to give the illusion that sufficient police accountability has been accomplished. If this is intended to be one step with a charter change along the way, then put a charter change in motion in the same resolution. The ask has been clear for over a year now. Independent investigatory and disciplinary powers given to a body representative of people harmed by police. Nothing about that is radical, very basic accountability. In regards to item 710 about raising the officer cap, I'd like to echo a few comments from ACLU Vermont and a letter addressed to the mayor. According to BPD's own data, crime in Burlington is down dramatically. Public officials have sought to paint a different picture by publicizing and politicizing criminal incidents in Burlington and using them to argue for a retreat from last year's racial justice resolution. This campaign of misinformation is evidently designed to instill fear, direct more funding to BPD and undermine the progress the city has made up to this point. It is not however supported by the facts, including BPD's own data. Finally, I would also like to condemn the violent removal of our unhoused neighbors living at Sears Lane and acknowledge that this is very much intertwined with the other moves on the table tonight. Forcing unhoused people to move will do nothing for their safety or the safety of others. It's a heartless and irrational decision. Thank you. Our next speaker is Carolyn Bates to be followed by Isabel Suarez. Good evening, Carolyn Bates. I've lived here since 1973 and I've under house since 1978. But I should tell you that when I came here in 1973, I had a car, a dog, and maybe $100 in my pocket and no place to live. And it took me 11 months. And I was very fortunate that I did have some friends that allowed me to couch, surf, instead of always sleeping in my car. But I had help to get work and I had help to get an apartment. These people in Sears Lane need help. They don't need eviction. That is a criminal. I just, I mean, it's so ghastly. I don't have a word to say what I feel about you guys just going in and saying, all right, out, out. You know, like they're cockroaches. They need help and support. And I understand you gave them one porta potty for 30 people? My heavens, please give them more porta potty and plan to build a shelter for them with showers, bathrooms, mail service, community room where they can hang out and get warm in the winter or talk to each other. And also to have some real honest help, medically and mentally, and start supporting them. And maybe we have community dinners that we bring to that community room that you so nicely build for them and stop treating them like scum of the earth. Our next speaker is Isabel Suarez. We followed by Emery Green. Okay. Hi. I could say it's good to see any of you, but it's not, unfortunately. I'm here to express my deep disdain and anger at all of you right now for allowing this eviction to go through. I used to be a housing case manager at COTS, the Committee on Temporary Shelter, the exact people that you push all of this shit off onto because you don't deal with it yourselves. And you know what? Out of me and all my coworkers and the hundreds of clients we each had. You know how many got housed with a less than 2% vacancy rate and housing rates skyrocketing every day? Zero. Not a single person in the months I worked there got housed. So you can sit here and save face and say that you've been working hard as you can to get people housed. And I see that it's bullshit. We see that it's bullshit. You can sit on your tower and sit in your Tesla and we all know that you're just saving face to try and trick your constituents, but we are down here organizing and creating community because the organization CBOEO that you wanna push off responsibility on, people are overworked every day. They have too many clients. And you know what? It's sick and disgusted what you're trying to do here. I also just wanna say that every person that says they feel unsafe here so far has been a white person, a white, wealthy looking person. And I think that's bullshit. I think Burlington is browner, it is blacker, it is more queer, it is more trans and people are uncomfortable and disturbed by what confuses them. So stand up for your most marginalized neighbors and your constituents or it is blood on your hands every single day. I yield my time, fuck you. Please direct comments through the chair and please don't use profanity. Our next speaker is Emery Green to be followed by Forest Sims. I did not prepare a statement tonight and I don't believe I need to. I think the community members have already spoken for themselves and I just wanted to add my voice to that. My name is Emery Green. I'm a resident of Burlington, Vermont and I'm here to stand in solidarity with my houseless neighbors, your houseless neighbors. There was not enough housing in Burlington before the pandemic. There was even less housing in Burlington during the pandemic and there'll be drastically less after the pandemic and you wanna put 30 more people out of a home. This is only violence, nothing good can come of this. You are on the other side of this eviction, isn't more community support, it's not housing, it's more police presence and you continuously criminalize houselessness for these folks. I yield the rest of my time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Forest Sims to be followed by Bob Peterson. Hello, my name is Forest Sims. I'm speaking behalf on Sears Lane today and also on behalf of myself. A year ago today I moved to, well not today exactly, but a year ago I moved to Vermont and I was houseless, I was living inside of my car. The resources that I had were caught and they did help me to get housed in a hotel and then previously after that they did help me to get housed in a home but as continuing through I myself decided I could help other people and so I tried to help people in Battery Park also be housed and that didn't quite work out because they didn't have the resources that I had nor did they have the education that I had and so speaking on behalf of people at Sears Lane, I decided to go there and help build actually a shed. That's there, I'm not sure if it's still there and each time that I was there I encountered the cops coming into Sears Lane and just speaking with the residents kind of torturing around trying to figure out what was happening and that was kind of uncomfortable for me in my experience as a black trans person and so one of the things that I wanted to say is that what we can do to blend this community here in Burlington is instead of tearing down Sears Lane actually build up the abandoned building that's there and try to house people in that or in the holiday end that's being rebuilt we can house people there as well instead of consistently giving out these vouchers and only doing that for the winter. Do you all have any questions for the people? Actually I'm just seeing you guys just listening and I appreciate your listening. It's very, very well noted. I just wanted to know if you guys had any questions for us. So we don't go back and forth in public forum. Oh, I understand that, thank you. Yes, thank you. Thank you. That's all, I yield my time. Thanks, our next speaker will be Bob Peterson to be followed by Alex Lawson. I'm a resident in the city of Burlington and I stand in solidarity with the people who are being evicted. I don't know which article it is and I'm a little detached as a resident. I'm grateful to be here. I'm not here to point any fingers. I'm a resident. I do feel very safe in the city. So that's another ballot measure you're voting on, but I feel safe. Also, I encourage you to expand your circle of compassion and try to unify as best you can with any olive branches or insight that you can find. Thank you for your time. Thank you, our next speaker is Alex Lawson to be followed by Sandy Baird. Hi, I've prepared a statement. Evicting our unhoused residents as temperatures are dropping and COVID is spiking is unconscionable. Eviction of this encampment is a violent act of disregard for human life. These are members of our community. They deserve the same dignity as the rest of us. I'm appalled that the mayor and the BPD would inflict this kind of further suffering onto people that are already going through a really hard time. Even for people with the means to afford a house in this city, finding a suitable place to live is nearly impossible. Moving unhoused people out of sight is not a solution. This is a bandaid on a bullet hole and the bullet hole was created by poor policy decisions that prioritize developers and the wealthy and everybody else has to now suffer as a result of it. Homelessness doesn't happen by accident. The system is designed this way and any explanations that don't address that fact are insufficient. Housing is a human right and should be treated as such. As a resident, I am disgusted by leadership's lack of care for our unhoused neighbors. There's absolutely no excuse to worsen the hardship face by unhoused members of our community, especially given the current conditions in our area. Burlington pretends it is better than this and it would be nice to see us live up to it. As a member of this community, I demand to know what shelter where we provided for the folks on Sears Lane, leaving our neighbors in even worse dire streets than they are already and is absolutely unacceptable and shameful. Where is your humanity? Where is your compassion? I reject the notion that there is nothing to be done. We can and we must do better. Poverty is not a crime. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sandy Baird to be followed by Paul DeSalle. My name is Sandy Baird and I live in Ward One. I'm coming to speak to you tonight about the state of the police department and I guess what I really wanna say is that I find myself in the position of wanting to keep the police at the same level as they were before the pandemic and the reason is the following. I am an attorney, as I said, I'm also the daughter of a battered woman who was beaten by my father and her husband for years and years. In 1998, my daughter, who was an adopted black American girl, was also murdered by her domestic partner. So I'm coming to speak to you today really about domestic violence. And when a woman, mainly women, find themselves in the position in our homes of being beaten and abused, they're not gonna call a social worker and they'll need to call a police officer. We need to know also that the police arrest people, social workers cannot. And I'm afraid that if we defund the police further or if more police officers leave, domestic violence will not be attended to in the proper manner. The third thing I wanna mention is that now I have the great privilege of working at the Association of Africans living in Vermont. My offices are there and for most new American women that I see, they are the victims of domestic abuse and lack of child support and lack of all other services that are essential to bring up families in this community. And they too are victims who often need the police. And I'm afraid that these incidents, particularly of crimes in the home are going to be neglected or unable to be answered by a decreased police force. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Paul DeCell to be followed by Gray Bereta. Thank you, President Tracy. Thank you, City Council for the opportunity. First, let me thank the police commission for coming to you with the All Hands on Deck Mental Health Summit Resolution. It is wonderful to see all counselors co-sponsoring this. It's something that everyone in this city should support, does, and I believe is long overdue. So good job with that. Thank you. I'm not quite sure who else needs to come before you and express how Burlington is not as safe as it should be and could be. Undoubtedly, there are many that are committing crimes or causing disturbances that are facing a severe mental health crisis. But it would be naive for any of you or me to believe that some are purely just capitalizing off of the lack of numbers. Anyone looking to commit a crime simply plays the odds and currently the odds are in their favor, not ours. Please let this resolution stand alone, amendment free. Action needs to take place now to be in the long process of bringing on more officers. As well, these folks in blue are no different than any other city employee that we have. They deserve the same respect as all of our other hardworking employees do and are given. The tone and lack of respect you show, several of you you show, our current officers must change if we stand any hope of growing the ranks to a place that it should be. As well, I'm shocked sitting here listening to the blatant disrespect to you, to the Mayor, Councilor Shannon, the Chief. It is unacceptable. This is a democracy where anybody should be able to come up, sit at this table, express what their feelings are without being belittled and harassed from behind. So again, to all of you who have been belittled and harassed, I'll apologize for those behind me. Thank you. Thank you. Our last Burlington in-person speaker is Gray Bereta. I'm actually living at Sears Lane and felt that if you could pull the mic in a little bit. Perhaps. I don't know, I spent all night writing, working with fellow members of the community to put an injunction together that we filed against the city and requesting emergency relief. So I'm also not very accustomed to this. But just a few points, there was the word managed used a lot and that I haven't been there that long. But I could please speak up. The concept of managed was not, has is overused and really not an adequate term for it. There's almost, yeah, there's hardly a presence of, there's people that bring food, but other than that, there's the dialogues of generative conversations are not happening from what I've seen. Looking from the inside out, we've also seen situations, several situations where there are people who have attacked people in the camp, that they're launching rocks into the camp and people are getting guns pulled on them from the Lake View side. That when going to investigate the rocks in the split open heads and stitches. Yeah, I just, I guess, many times I'll put it, I will be putting up a mailbox for 68 Sears Lane and we'll have that mail, you can deliver mail there and I'm wrapping up the, if you could just please wrap up. Yeah, please, please wrap up. We are, we've been here for a long time and we'll be here for much longer. Thank you. There was one more Burlington in-person sign up, Jada Bearden. What's up? Okay, quick shout out to Taisha Green and Zariah Hightower, I love black women. Anyway, so real quick, I just wanna address a comment that was shared earlier. Y'all talk about safety, but I find it funny that there was like almost like little to no safety breach at the camp. What you really need to just be honest with yourself and just say that it's about money, that it's about classism, that it's about ableism, that it's just about criminalizing poor people and if this person, if these people at the camp are not white men, whatever the hell else is the majority. Like you, and when I say you, I do mean this administration, y'all have a commitment to eradicating anything that does not fit your mold and quite frankly, I'm sick of it because it's not about just solidarity, it's about acknowledging that for almost two years, this administration has been awful for anyone that looks like me, anyone that has my identities, anyone that falls short of the identity, god damn. Anyway, moving on, lastly, I just wanna say, like living in this town as like a black queer trans person is very hard and it's even harder when y'all don't care and y'all continue to evict people and make policies that are trash. And last but not least, Jack Hansen, you still a predator and your ass is grass. Okay, thank you. Next speaker. So now we're gonna transition to online and recognize people will go to Burlington online. The first person that I have is Anne Frank. I don't see an Anne on here. So I'm gonna go to the next person who is Marissa McDonald. Marissa, I'm gonna look. Marissa, I've enabled your microphone. Hi, good evening. I wanted to start by saying I'm a Burlington resident and a parent of a Champlain Elementary student. I'd like to thank the person from the encampment, the resident who spoke earlier, they had some great points, which I wholeheartedly support and would welcome continuing dialogue to make that conversation continue and hopefully a solution that's viable to everyone in the community. That said, I would like to take a moment to speak on behalf of the people who are not old enough to speak on their own. The children who live around the encampment and also deserve to have a supportive and safe community. This does not include the sale of methamphetamines, the use and threat of guns, all of this happening within 1,000 feet of an elementary school. Medical staff has been called to this area and had to leave as they were threatened. Local media has tried to cover the story and provide fair information on behalf of all members there and they've been harassed and had to leave for their own safety. This is public land and no person should have to worry about being the victim of harm to their person. For this reason, children are no longer walking between the lakeside neighborhood to and from school down Sears Lane. I'd like to remind people that fencing has been caught, barriers that have been used to protect safe passage have been continually moved. I know that there's not a perfect solution and that the city sent out an RFP to help solidify this location and to help members of this community live there. But the problem is not the community members themselves. It's the criminal actors that are residing in that community making it unsafe for the community members themselves. We've heard that from several members. I think it's important that we look at this from the perspective of everyone in the area and make sure that we take in consideration how this can be a way for members who live there as well as members who live in the surrounding areas to all get along and feel safe in their own community. Thank you. Okay, our next speaker will be Jamie Graham to be followed by Liz. Jamie, I'm not able to locate you. Liz, I'm not able to locate you. So I'm gonna look for Leslie Wells. Leslie, I'm not able to locate you. Erika Victoria to be followed by Harmony Erika. I'm not able to locate you. I do believe I've located Harmony, however. So Harmony, I'm gonna enable your microphone. Hello. Yes, I can hear you, go ahead. Awesome. Yeah, so I wanted to talk on two things today but I think the first thing I wanna talk on is the charter change. A lot of the folks that I saw walk up, profess to be business owners, profess and said that their employees feel unsafe and such as that. I am also a business owner in Burlington. I am a black woman who owns a business here in Burlington. I am someone who when I walk down the streets of Church Street, I don't feel unsafe. What I do feel unsafe though is when I see a police present. I think it's very, a lot of, everyone that spoke today should really recognize if you're a white, should really recognize their privilege. I heard a lot of things of folks saying like, tourists don't feel safe to shop. Okay, but what about the black people that don't feel safe to simply walk down the street? What about the black people that don't feel safe in their homes because of police officers? I hear a lot of people, they were talking about domestic violence as being a reason for police to continue on. As if 40% of police families don't experience domestic violence themselves because of police officers. What about the domestic violence that happens to the black citizens here in Burlington because of police officers? Police officers do not prevent crime from happening. They never have. What prevents crime from happening is changing the conditions at which the reasons why these crimes are happening in the first place. You lessen crime by eliminating, and this is, I'm talking about Sears Lane now, sorry to switch over, but stop the eviction. You lessen crime by eliminating poverty. You reduce crime by allocating resources to those in need. And the last thing I want to say here is that Burlington does not only belong to you rich white people. Burlington belongs to people like me, who are black. People, Burlington belongs to the folks who are houseless. Burlington belongs to all of us that have knots as well, not just you guys. And I can tell that you guys are fighting to keep Burlington white, and to keep Burlington rich, and that's not gonna happen because we're here to stay. That's just that, period. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Alexandra Karambolis, to be followed by Prudin Rose van Wolvier. Alexandra, I've enabled your microphone. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. There, okay. Thanks. Hi, my name is Alex Karambolis. I'm a resident of Ward 4. I want to thank Harmony for their comments before me. And I also just want to kind of piggyback off of that. Just a little bit of misinformation that was stated in one of the comments before me. For all crime has been trending downwards for years in Burlington, including violent crime specifically, such as homicides, robberies and assaults. Specifically, it has declined 46% since 2016. So if BPD doesn't know how to adequately and efficiently staff by choosing not to consistently staff during weekend nights and they have the highest call volume, they need more oversight and more accountability from the department. So the only way to change our accountability structures in Burlington is through a charter change. Unless we face the root of this issue, disciplinary procedures, our community is left without a path towards justice. And this is regardless of any investigatory employee. Additionally, giving the commission more powers without addressing their structure is incredibly problematic. Law enforcement officers are currently able to serve on the commission till that has changed. This does not even get to solve the issue of independent accountability. So I urge everyone to reject the resolution that just came out of the Public Safety Committee. I'm also here to talk about the eviction of the people at this year's encampment of our neighbors who are being displaced with barely any notice from their homes and community and they're being treated like they are disposable. This is very inhumane and harmful. Many shelters are not operating at full capacity due to the ongoing pandemic and our statewide emergency safe house program has been drastically cut, forcing hundreds of people statewide out onto the streets and inundating community services. The action is taking place right before winter and knowing full well that 12 days is not enough time to secure housing. So I'm just wondering what this eviction is going to solve. This encampment was created by the city, by the city's failure to address affordable housing and root causes of homelessness. Sure, yes. Thanks, Councillor Tracy. I'm such as access to adequately funded services and appropriate emergency response services by trained mental health professionals. So, okay. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Primrose to be followed by James Loop and Primrose. I've enabled your microphone. Hi. I'm gonna talk about the Sears Lane eviction as many other people have been. Yeah, I think it's pretty abundantly clear how fucking cruel this is to just kick people out of their homes right as it's starting to get cold. Today was a really cold and rainy day and that's the only shelter many of these folks have. I'm sure it's real easy to just sit back, sit back in your little conference rooms in your offices, your house on the hill, especially for you, Murrow, to just sit back and make these decisions about people's lives when you don't see them face to face. But how many of you have actually met these people? How many of you are on a first name basis with the residents that Sears Lane and know them as people? Would you be willing to walk up to them, talk to them face to face and tell them that you're about to kick them out of their house, give them all this bullshit that you've been giving us about all this effort you've been putting into finding alternatives and solutions when the solution that you're providing is kicking them out of their home? Would you feel comfortable doing that to their face? Come meet these people, come hang out tomorrow. We're having a barbecue and chilling. Come meet the people whose lives you're about to fucking ruin, whose lives are already hard enough. It's so much easier to be cruel when you're not dealing with actual humans face to face. I just urge you to have some empathy and get to know your neighbors who you're making decisions about. I yield the rest of my time. Thank you. Our next speaker will be James Loop to be followed by Laura Mastretta. And again, please direct comments for the chair and please don't use profanity. James Loop, one second, sorry. Okay, James, I can't, I have not able to locate you. Laura Mastretta. Laura, I'm not able to locate you. Next person is Lenore Brotten. Lenore, I'm enabling your microphone. There you go. Yes, could you hear me? Yes, go ahead. I'm in favor of raising the officer cap on the police force. The city council members who voted to take the down-law enforcement in Burlington are uneducated, misguided or worse. By their actions, they discriminate most particularly against those among us already compromised as poor, as disabled, as victims of domestic violence and yes, as the homeless. It is those who already struggle you have put in your crosshairs. That comrades makes you elitists. Elitists always manage to find groups of people they could push around. I'm eagerly awaiting the next city election. Thank you. Next speaker is Corey McDonald. Corey, I've enabled your microphone. Looks like you're muted on your end, Corey. Corey, I still can't hear you. Sorry, I had to find the unmute button. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. All right, great, thanks. Thanks, counselors and President Tracy. My name is Corey McDonald. I'm a 20 year Burlington resident and the owner of a small independent design studio at 27 Sears Lane. I'm a firm believer in safe and affordable housing. This is an issue that needs to be addressed. As the resolution is titled, the health and safety of houseless Vermonters. I can tell you firsthand, the camp is neither healthy or safe. Allowing it to continue would be a disservice to the residents of the camp and the residents that live and work around the camp. You need to separate the issue of unhoused Vermonters from that of criminal activity. They are mutually exclusive and need to be treated as such. Why can we not have both public safety and affordable housing? Having a small business, and I repeat small independently owned business, like it's just me, less than 150 feet away from the current camp. I have seen it go from a relatively quiet campsite which I was fine with for years and would continue to be fine with to a lawless criminal incubator. As you know, as you know, there have been multiple raids by BTB and ATF in the past few months. I have arrived to work in the morning to witness vehicles being stolen from my parking lot with chains and attempted to be dragged to the camp. Items have been stolen over and over from my building and lack of building code at the campsite poses a significant risk of fire regarding the safety of the residents of the camp. As you know, RFP to manage the site went out but didn't get any responses back. This means the current camp is unsupervised and unmanaged allowing this to continue will further expose the residents to the dangers of hepatitis C. There is no real sanitation, rape and violence as there is no current management and the security. The lack of this continues the use of hard drugs which we all know is the root cause of crime. Also, it is worth mentioning after speaking to some of the residents of the camp there is a criminal hierarchy within the camp that is chasing away actual unhoused people to try as they jeopardize their ability to continue illegal activity. I am currently planning a walking field trip for my five-year-old daughter in her class. She attends Champlain Elementary School. I would love to show her and the other kids what I do at work. Thank you. Right. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Please. Our next speaker will be, was not able to locate Ashley Goodrum or Margaret Martinez and Jada Bearden, spoke in person. So that brings us to Kurt, right? Kurt, I've enabled your microphone. I think you have an older version of Zoom so it's requiring you to promote to panelists. Go ahead, Kurt. Kurt, go ahead. I think you need to unmute. Looks like you're still on mute, Kurt. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Okay, good evening, Mr. Mayor and City Council. I wanna thank the people on either side of these issues who have spoken respectfully to the ones that haven't spoken respectfully. Shame on some of you. But I do wanna take a brief moment to speak about the issue on Sears Lane. The person that spoke a minute ago, the business owner down there said it exactly right. There needs to be solutions found for homeless people. We need help from the state of Vermont. But continuing with the encampment on Sears Lane is not, it cannot continue. It is intolerable. For those that want to support that continuing delay is one thing, supporting it continuing. I would ask you, if you've gone down and talked to the business owners down there and seen what they have had to deal with on an ongoing basis, theft, illegal activity, criminal activity, if you talk to residents nearby that live there that have had to put up with, all they had to put up with, it is intolerable. It cannot continue to go on. In regard to the policing issue, I hope that we'll have a unanimous vote tonight to begin to correct the mistake that was made in June of 2020 last year that has put us in such a bad position. I heard Councillor Hanson on channel three news tonight talk about wanting to not support the number that Councillor Shannon has proposed, the 88 effective cap number. They want us to stay on track. That's to me is like the person that's leading the Titanic into the iceberg wanting to stay on track as the boat sinks. We have stay on track for women being afraid to walk to their cars at their end of their work shift. A palpable sense of fear that we've lost the city. People talking about seeing things in Burlington that they have never seen in their lives in the last year to year and a half. And a police force that's been demoralized in a way that we have never seen before. And we had towards a police department that may be end up being a non-functioning police department. And the idea that we would cut detectives domestic violence or CUSY is just unthinkable. Unthinkable, thank you. And please support that 88 cap tonight and begin to correct that mistake that was made. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Willow Starkey Corruder. Willow, I've located you and have enabled your mic. All right, hey, can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. So, yeah, I would just like to speak to kind of urge the support of the community members of Sears Lane. The eviction of the 30 plus people who live there should be fully blocked, not just postponed. These evictions would put this part of our Burlington community in further danger rather than creating a safer city for anyone. Let's not add to the violence and the tragedy by evicting all those that have made a home within a system that has failed them. The violence and tragedy is not caused by its existence but as stated before by unmet needs. The criminalization of Sears Lane reflects back on the failures of our elected officials. I agree with bringing in more voices to listen that are directly experiencing this severe marginalization. And I'll leave my comment at that. Thank you. Our next speaker is Thea Zalowski. Thea, I've enabled your microphone. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. Yeah, I would also like to speak on, I actually have a few items tonight. Starting with the Sears Lane eviction. Yeah, postponing the eviction is a, like as other people said, a band aid and quite honestly, totally useless in providing, addressing the root cause of why people are experiencing this. Yeah, and the root is not hard drug use. The root is white supremacist capitalist society that we all have to deal with. And the, like, excuse me, it's just, like the actual danger of evicting 30 people as Winter said in, as people have mentioned. Yeah, how are South End businesses gonna feel when people are literally freezing from the cold at night and have nowhere else to go? How is downtown going to get safer when all these people have nowhere to go? As people mentioned, there's no, all the shelters, resources are maxed out. And here's a community of people that have made a, taken their agency and created a community out of nothing. Yeah, we need to not, we need to give these people the support so they can continue living their lives and taking care of each other and address the real dangers in our community, like police, so don't pass resolution, what is it, 710, raising the cap. That is the real bodily safety and harm on Black, Brown, queer, houseless, disabled folks in our community. And also 7.9, the more danger of creating the illusion of progress on police accountability as well, so don't pass that one, it's not going to create progress. And listen to people calling for the charter change for years now. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Okay, our next speaker is Makayla Alajam. Makayla, I've enabled your mic. Hello, I'd like to voice my support for the residents of the Sears Lane encampment and to voice my stance, like many other people have said before me. I'm having a little bit of trouble hearing you, Makayla. Sorry, is this better? Yes, thank you. And to voice my support against their eviction, I won't go into the details as so many other people before me already have, but listen to those people talk to them. Criminalizing poverty is not the answer and also hard drugs are not the gateway to crime. And also do not raise the police cap. I see my time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Annie- Anne Lawson and I've located you and have enabled your microphone. Hi there. Good evening. Thanks for the chance to talk. My name is Annie Lawson. I am a clinical social worker, a mother, a resident of Ward 4 and a community member. I'm also white. I've listened to public comment over the past year and a half on the topic of police accountability, particularly from BIPOC residents who have generously shared their experience of what it's like to live in this city as someone who is not white. I've also listened to city counselors explain how much they care about racial justice. To those of you who are white, you just cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim to care about racial justice in the issue of police accountability in particular and also continue to, at the exact same time, actively block police reform efforts brought forward by black and brown community members. This is just blatant hypocrisy. Local racial justice leaders have been clear that the only way to get meaningful police accountability is to give community members more oversight, particularly around disciplinary and investigatory powers. The ordinance will hold on tonight. There's neither of those things. It keeps the police commission squarely in an advisory role and it creates the dangerous illusion that progress has been made. Until decisions around discipline lie in the hands of people other than the chief, nothing changes. The only way to get meaningful change here is with a charter change. The effort to distract with this incremental change is a clear political strategy to try to appease people without actually sharing the power. The same strategy is being used in regards to the evictions at the Sears Lane camp. Postponing this fight several days is meant to take the heat off and give people a chance to feel that something's been done when ultimately no meaningful change happens. I hope that the administration is aware that activists are onto this strategy. It does not work. We're coming out in numbers. We're coming back. We'll keep coming back. We'll keep showing up. We've done it for a year and a half and we're not going anywhere. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so I believe I've gone through all the Burlington non-imperson. So I'm gonna go into the non-Burlington in-person now. The first one, non-Burlington in-person is Kelly Devine. Is Kelly Devine here? Then next person is Jeff Nick. Good evening, everybody. I think y'all know I'm the chair of the Church Street Marketplace Commission. And just to start off, I was shocked at the level of disrespect you've been shown tonight by some of the speakers. Maybe I'm old school, but I never thought I'd witness that in this room. It's a little disconcerting, but I do wanna talk about some of what I heard tonight. And also, capitalism got a little bit of a bad rap today. And if it wasn't for capitalism, you'd have a lot of empty storefronts on Church Street. So just keep that in mind. A lot of the people I hear from on the Church Street, the merchants and the employees, they are fearful out there. It is not a good situation. You've also heard that the reports of crime are down. I would suggest that that's probably because many people just stopped calling in. A lot of low-level crime out there that we deal with every day. And people have stopped calling in, so keep that in mind. One of the biggest problems we have on Church Street is a disorderly conduct caused by the intoxicated folks that drink all day long in City Hall Park right out here and in front of City Hall over here on Church Street and up and down Church Street. We have laws on the books that say that's not allowed and we allow it to continue day after day after day. And that ends up causing retail theft. Ends up causing harassment, fights, you name it. It's all from the intoxicated folks out on the street. A good majority of it is. And we allow that to happen. We need to follow the CNA's suggested increase in the number of officers to 80. I would suggest that's low. And the reason I'm suggesting that's even low is because nobody bothered to consult with the business community. Nobody asked the marketplace, what do we need? What do the merchants need? What do the visitors to our downtown need? So please support the increase. Thank you. Okay, our next speaker of non-Berlington in person is Vicky Rathgab, or I'm sorry. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Vicky Rathgab and I am the executive director for the Chittenden Children's Advocacy Center, which is co-located with the Chittenden Unit for special investigations, which is CUSI. And I'll refer to it as CUSI. Recently, you had a report come out, the CNA report. And from my understanding, you would like to remove at least one detective from our task force. That would put us in an absolute crisis mode. Burlington was the foundation for CUSI. We have a director who was a sergeant and two detectives from BPD at CUSI. These men and women come to help protect our children in Chittenden County. These children don't have a voice. They cannot afford to lose the people that give them their voice. I hope that you will consider changing your mind about removing at least one detective from us. We cannot function without one. CUSI was started 30 years ago and will be 30 years old in 2022. I'm sorry, I'm a little nervous and I wasn't really prepared to come here today. I have been there for seven years and it's the job I am the most proud of and I'm the most proud to work with these men and women that come. When they come, we give them training that they will not receive at their agency. Agencies cannot afford to train their detectives with what I can give them and I can provide them. I level fund my budget for three years in a row and I can still provide these people with the best training so that when they go back to their agencies, they have more skills than anybody else there has. The men and women are valuable. Our children do not have a voice. If we lose a detective, people that are going to take the hit are gonna be the men and women who also are sexually assaulted. There will be, there will be a pushback. We will have to give them back to the other agencies. So please, my hopes are that you will keep the detective there. Please wrap up. That you will keep the detective there to give the children who don't have a voice a voice. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, now we're gonna go back to online, not in non-Berlington. We had Kelly Devine. Kelly, I've enabled your microphone. Thank you very much, Council President Tracey. Sorry, I couldn't stay in the meeting. I'm recovering from a concussion and it's difficult for me to be in a brightly lit room. I just wanna speak in favor of the plan put forward to follow the recommendations from the CNA report, which I was happy to have some of our members speak to when they were gathering input, which they could have taken more from the business community, but they did at least let us have a couple of people speak. And I do think that that's a valuable piece of data. And I think raising the cap right away is critical. I mean, the problem that we have right now is there's a lot of unchecked behavior going around downtown and we've had a person show up dead in a local parking garage. I've heard from countless businesses about how their female, mainly, but not just female employees feel threatened. They feel unsafe. And I think it's the responsibility of the city and the city council to address that very real concern. We've been talking to the city about that. We had a merchants meeting with the Church Street Marketplace over a year ago. Council President Tracy was nice enough to join us and women talked about it then. They've talked about it more recently and they continue to talk about it, how it just feels like the harassment that they receive, the physical harassment just does not feel okay. The last time that we had this issue come before, so it was a statement from the Street Outreach team, I asked them today if they could reconsider this letter that they sent then as being part of the testimony. So if you could do that and here's just a quick read from that. The Street Outreach team is finding it increasingly difficult to respond to both the nature and the number of calls we are receiving. We see this as a direct result of the uptick in behavioral problems downtown and the reduction of the number of officers responding. That's directly from the Street Outreach team. I talked to Tammy this morning. She said she broke up three fights this week. Please help our downtown safety system and vote for this tonight. Thank you. Thank you, our next speaker. We have two more speakers. We didn't start right at 9.30, so I'm gonna allow the last two non-Berlington speakers to go and then we'll wrap things up. Then that speaker is, the next one is Dana Key's Gibbons. Dana, I've enabled your microphone. Hi, thank you, Max. My name is Dana. I use she or her pronouns and I'm a healthcare worker in Burlington and a former resident. Like many others, I moved out of Burlington because of the lack of decent and affordable housing in the city, but I still work there and wanted to speak on this tonight. I'm against the eviction of the people who are living in Sears Lane and the destruction of their homes. Doesn't matter if it were happening tomorrow or in two weeks, it shouldn't happen. It's cruel and unnecessary as cold weather is upon us in the middle of a pandemic and with social service resources and housing programs already spread thin. The Sears Lane community is being held to an unequal standard and being targeted because the elites of Burlington would prefer to criminalize poverty and to try to make the people that you view as lesser disappear instead of offering resources or care. I'm also feeling really disgusted by the way that white women's fragility is being weaponized in these conversations about imaginary tipping points and just want to reiterate what Harmony said earlier that about the study that found that 40% of police officers are perpetrators of domestic violence. We must care for the health and safety of all people and that doesn't mean hiring more police officers or giving them $10,000 bonuses. The city's money needs to go to those who are actually taking care of our communities and healthcare, including resources for people struggling with addiction or mental health and making sure that everyone in Burlington has enough food to eat, warm clothes and shelter. And I also oppose 7.09 and 7.10 and support the charter change that really had already been laid out for y'all on how to set up a system for community control of police. Thank you, good night. Thank you. I cannot locate Susan McNamara. So that concludes our public forum for this evening. Thank you everyone for bearing with me as we've tried to get through the transition to having both online and in-person commenting. So we'll transition back into our agendas and having completed public forum that brings us to item number five, which are climate emergency reports. Did any councilor have a climate emergency report that they'd like to offer this evening? Okay, seeing none, we'll move to the consent agenda. Councilor Stromberg, may I please have a motion on the consent agenda? I move to adopt the consent agenda as amended and take the actions indicated. We have a motion on the consent agenda. Is there a second? Seconded by Councilor Hansen. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of adopting the consent agenda, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. It brings us into our deliberative agenda for this evening. However, before we get into the deliberative agenda, I would like to recess this meeting because we do have one other meeting that we need to get to in our structure, which is that of the city council with mayor presiding. So I will recess the city council meeting at 9.37 and turn it over to Mayor Weinberger. I'll give folks a chance to just flip over to that meeting. And a call, excuse me, I'm gonna call into order the city council with mayor presiding at 9.37 p.m. First item on the agenda is the agenda. I would welcome a motion to accept it. Thank you. Any discussion of the agenda? We'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. The next item is 2.01, a motion to adopt the consent agenda. Take the actions indicated. Councilor Mason. So move Mayor Weinberger. Is there a second? Seconded by Councilor Hansen. Any discussion on the consent agenda? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. This brings us to two appointments. 3.01, the first of the appointments is for the Design Advisory Board, an alternate position for the term expiring June 30th, 2023. The floor is open for nominations. Councilor Shannon. I nominate Robert Brewer. Thank you. Are there any additional nominations? Are there any additional nominations? Seeing none, I will close the floor. The nominations is Robert Brewer in attendance and interested in speaking to the City Council Mayor presenting. We do typically allow that if the nominations of the applicants are here. I don't see Robert. So we will go back to the Council. Is there any discussion on this nomination? Don't see any hands, so we will go to a vote. All those in favor of appointing Robert Brewer to as the Design Advisory Board alternate for term expiring June 30th, 2023. Please say aye. Aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? That's unanimous. Congratulations, Robert. Thank you for your interest in serving the city and on this important board. We will move then to the second appointment. It's a Development Review Board appointment for term expiring June 30th, 2023. And I turn to the Council now. The floor is open for nominations. President Tracey. I nominate Leo Sprintson. Thank you. Are there any additional nominations? Are there any additional nominations? Seeing none, we'll close the floor. The new nominations is Leo Sprintson in attendance and speaking to the Council. I am not seeing Mr. Sprintson, so we will turn back to the Council. Is there any desire for any discussion on this nomination? Seeing none, we will go to a vote. All those in favor of appointing Leo Sprintson to the DRB for term expiring June 30th, 2023. Please say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Congratulations, Leo. And thank you too for serving on this keyboard. We now go to item 4.01, which is section four is for youth appointments. We have two appointments, one to the Conservation Board and one to the Board of Health. Floor is open for nominations to the Conservation Board. Councilor Paul. I would nominate Elizabeth Cunningham for that position. Great. Is there any additional nominations? Seeing none, we will close the floor. Is Elizabeth Cunningham here and interested in speaking to the city council? I am not seeing Elizabeth, so we will go to the Council for discussion. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we will go to a vote. All those in favor of the appointment of Elizabeth Cunningham as a youth member on the Conservation Board, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? The motion carries, the appointment is unanimous. Congratulations, Elizabeth. Thank you for your interest in serving as a youth member of the Conservation Board. It's exciting to see interest in these positions. It's been a while since we have seen a youth applicant. The Board of Health is our next appointment and the floor is open to nominations. Councilor Paul. I would make a motion to appoint Hannah Cunningham as the youth member of the Board of Health. Great. Is there any, are there any additional nominations? Seeing none, we will close the floor to nominations. If Hannah Cunningham is here, she's welcome to address the city council. I'm not seeing Hannah, so we will go to the council again. Is there any desire for any discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations, Hannah Cunningham. You have been appointed unanimously to serve as the youth member of the Board of Health. And with that, President Tracey, if there's no objection, we will adjourn the city council with mayor presiding at 9.43 p.m. Thank you, mayor. I will reconvene the city council meeting at 9.44 p.m. Get folks with chance to just switch over to that screen and we will continue on our deliberative agenda this evening. We have our first item, which is an appointment regarding the Church Street Marketplace Commission. Are there any nominations? Yeah, yes. Councillor Stromberg. I would like to appoint Kara Tobin to the Church Street Marketplace Commission. Thank you. Are there any other nominations? Are there any other nominations? Kara, are you with us this evening? I don't believe I see Kara not seeing them and having no other nominations. I will take us to a vote. All those in favor of appointing Kara Tobin to the Church Street Marketplace Commission, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Brings us to item 7.02, a motion regarding the Board of Tax Appeals. Councillor Carpenter. Thank you. I, as you may remember, volunteered and I've been serving on the Board of Tax Appeals and find it very interesting. I really do. But next week, I have to have eye surgery and two weeks after that eye surgery again and just decided it was more than I could manage and Councillor McGee offered to step into my place and I appreciate that and he actually comes with experience having served on the Board last year. So I'd like to nominate him to sit on the Board of Tax Appeals. Okay, thank you for that. Are there any other nominations? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of appointing Councillor McGee to the Board of Tax Appeals, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. That brings us to item 7.03, a presentation regarding Burlington's Racial Equity Strategic Roadmap from the REIB team who I believe will be joining us virtually or remotely, I'm sorry. Yes, I'm here, Max, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Go ahead, Dr. Green. And you can see me, I'm assuming. Yep, we can see you, we got you up on the big screen. Yay, all right. I'm gonna ask Blaine Antensay to share her screen and once she does that, we'll get started. Wanna turn my head so that I can see on my other screen here. I'm not ignoring you, I'm just gonna be looking on a different screen. All right, so again, my name is Tayisha Green, I'm the director of the REIB. I have with me my colleague Blaine Antensay, she is the strategy and innovation manager for the REIB. And we are here to talk about our Racial Equity Strategic Roadmap. Next screen, Blaine. So everyone, I think everyone knows that I am trying to shift the culture here at the city of Burlington, Big C and Little C. And this is because Burlington is heralded as progressive and egalitarian, egalitarian. Burlington is also a dominant civic and institutional culture of whiteness. This roadmap commits to that cultural shift and it does that by targeted universalism. Next slide, Blaine. With the group Grayscale and All Aces, we used several documents, as you can see here, one of which being the city of Burlington's 2019 Equity Report, Operation Phoenix Rise and the Community Declaration of Racism as a Public Health Emergency, just to name a few. All of these documents gave us a foundational grounding in what you see in the report that you all should have received a copy of and what we're gonna talk about tonight. Next slide. I believe this is you, Blaine. Yeah, sorry I was muted. Hi, everyone. Thank you, Tayshia, for introducing me. A big part of this roadmap is starting with the documents that Tayshia talked about, as well as establishing other groundwork, which would be a lot of community engagement with the BIPOC community so that this strategic roadmap is led and designed by the people that it will impact the most. It involved identifying the key stakeholders in those groups, data gathering and a gap analysis, as well as case studies of what other areas of their cities, other states have done and then reconvening this group of BIPOC stakeholders in another listening session to kind of go over what we took from that and refine the goals. There we go. Like Tayshia said, as well, we're working with Operations Phoenix Rise as a foundational document and kind of a North Star for us in this. It was also guided by five of what we're calling the racial equity domains for the city of Burlington. These are kind of pulled from the 2019 equity report, but they are Education, Economy, Health, Housing and Justice, and these are meant to encompass five sectors of society that we can kind of categorize our goals into. And as we'll see, we came up with these three main themes. And the themes are grounding values, which are community power, identity and representation in safety and freedom. These themes were developed from the first listening session itself based on what we heard, gathering all the qualitative data and then with Grayscale, figuring out what are the three bins these fall into and what is going to guide us in this process. Then with Grayscale, we were able to develop an eight step kind of process to change in culture and disrupting oppression, which is what we're trying to do with this racial equity strategic plan. All of this is outlined in the plan itself, but what I guess what we'd like to note here today is that step one through three have already begun through this analysis, through the listening sessions, as well as the work we've been doing in the RAIB to start creating an iterative process so that we can go through these eight steps each year at a time and keep building on the goals that we set with the community. Important parts of this are not only that it's data and community engagement base, but that there is specific ways to repeatedly identify our short-term wins, make sustained progress, reflect on the progress that we've made, recenter our goals if they've changed over time. We know in the last few years the kind of national and local narrative around racial equity and racial justice has changed and therefore we want us our work to evolve with that and then kind of reset, recommit, create new urgency and keep working with the BIPOC coalition that we built up through the listening sessions and other engagement that our department and the rest of the community has done. So in the strategic plan near the end, you'll see that each of those five domains, the racial equity domains that we laid out before, they're kind of then fleshed out a little bit more. There's a vision for each domain, the main challenges that we heard from the community. Some baseline metrics that we'll use, but really we'll just be a starting point, as well as three or four main goal categories for this domain. So economy, you see these four main categories, some of them might not be surprising and some of them might be surprising as you read them out. And then there are national models that we can learn from, build off of tweak and apply to our city or just figure out how they might come into play here. The last thing that Taysha will go into is obviously this all requires funding and resources. So Taysha, take it away. Thank you, Blaine. So as you can see here, this number isn't small. I would say it was probably around $2.5 million yearly to fund the, not just the REIB team, but this roadmap, this strategic roadmap to make the changes that we need to make in our community to make us a more racially just community. And I'm sure we're gonna come back to this slide. So once we're done, we'll come back to it because I know you're gonna have questions about what each section means. The only thing that I'll say before we move on to the next slide is that these numbers were, the recommendations made by the consultant team, Grayscale and Allaces. So foundationally, they came from all the research that they did the qualitative and quantitative analysis of the Burlington specifically of the listening sessions that went into creating these recommendations. Yes. So I think just before we go into any more conversations, something that's important to know is that we have a few commitments we've made to ourselves and to our community in this process. And I think that they're important to stay here. So there will be sustained community engagement that centers BIPOC voices. The listening session was the first way to do that. But in this racial equity strategic plan, there's no other path forward without centering and powering and prioritizing the voices of the people of color in our community. The second one is sharing decision-making and resource allocation with the community and partners. There are partners who do the work in our community that have been doing the work since before we were here, even before the city decided to have a more acute focus on racial equity before our department existed. And there are even more experts in the community than we are. Our goal is to work with them, share that decision-making and those resources. The third is creating high impact systemic change. And this is even when that may require a more challenging or lengthy process. The REIB is focused on not only culture change, but systemic change. And the important part here is that this racial equity strategic plan was designed by our department, but will be implemented by the entire city of Burlington. And we welcome all the departments to come with us on this process. And we will create a system that will make it a cohesive way to all work on these domains as they apply to each department. And then the last one is that measuring and evaluating the process through disaggregated metrics. This part is a little hard because we know that disaggregated metrics by race are hard to come by in our community. But again, that is something that we're committing to is making disaggregated data more available in the city of Burlington, both Little C and Big C. So with that, we invite everyone who's listening, everyone in the city, the capital C and the lower KC city to join us in this process. Thank you. Thank you. So President Tracy, do you want us to stop sharing our screen so we can see the council? Whatever your preference is, Director Green. Okay. And we can always come back to it. All right. Great, awesome. So would you like to take questions now or do you have more to share? No, I would like to take questions now with you if there are any questions to be had. Okay, great. So we'll open it up to the council. Are there any questions or comments from counselors? Councilor Hanson. Yeah, thanks so much to both of you and to the whole team that worked on this. This is really incredible. And it's also great for, you know, we appreciate getting an update and getting the chance to hear about it. I guess my two questions would be, one is obviously this is a longer conversation but maybe some initial high level thoughts on how the council can better support this effort specifically and my other question is around the community engagement and input and just how that's gone so far. Like, have you seen a lot of turnout and engagement from a lot of folks and just thoughts on, you know, how turnout's been and why that may be the case? I'm gonna take the second one first if you don't mind, Councilor Hanson. So the community engagement piece, we had a really big turnout for both listening sessions and it was amazing. People didn't even wanna leave. So we just turned some music on and just had people just sitting around talking on Zoom and just communicating with each other because they had never been in a space that had that many black and brown folks. So it was amazing. It was an amazing space. We're trying to figure out a way to continue on with that in some way to bring the community together. And Blaine, do you wanna talk about the, what we need from council specifically as far as helping us through this work? Yeah, before I do, I will say one more thing about turnout to these listening sessions was huge, but I will say that the turnout from those listening sessions then kind of spewed even more. There were so many different ways that engagement continued after that through all the other work we've done or other community events that happened after that. So it was kind of just a jumping off point and it was really successful. How council can help? I would say that obviously you, the most glaring thing is you saw that this plan means a financial commitment. There's no way that we will ameliorate or amend any of the harm that's been done thus far without committing actual funds to it. So I think that that's something that we need to take seriously when we see the strategic plan. The other thing that I will say is, obviously you all represent different sectors of the city and our leaders in your sectors of the city. So each one of you doing your part in your individual awards is obviously what your roles are but specifically here with making racial justice change it all starts with leadership. So I would say those two things. Yeah, and I just to add onto what Blaine was saying, this is a yearly commitment from council. This is a five year plan that we have created that we paid for to have created for us. And so these numbers that we showed you earlier are a yearly number, not a in totalitarian number. Thank you so much, really appreciate it. Okay, do we have any other Councillors in the queue? Any further questions or comments? Councilor Shannon. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the presentation. It really was a lot to digest and I have to be honest, I had trouble reading some of the slides, particularly the eight steps to changing culture and disrupting oppression. But it's also just kind of me and my learning and processing style, I find it easier to actually read reports. And I wondered if I thought it might be helpful to me if there's actually, there is a report. This is your summarizing and presentation to give us a synopsis of a report, which I appreciate, but I wondered if we could have the report that this is based on. Yes, Councillor Shannon, I sent that report out when it was finished. So back in at the end of June or beginning of July, City Councilor should have received the report. Thank you. I will go back and now connect those dots, which is gonna be helpful to me. Thank you. Awesome, thank you. Okay, any other, any further comments or questions from Councillors? Councillor Jain, go ahead. Thank you, President Tracey. And this is more for you and maybe then this item was placed in the deliverable and what does it mean for the Council? I'm sorry, can you repeat? This was under deliverable as an item. What motion is needed? Just accept the communication, place it on file or? I believe, Director Green, were you looking for us to take action to formally adopt the strategic roadmap this evening or were you just looking to make the presentation? I was looking to make the presentation because we have had it for a few months and we were supposed to make the presentation back in July, but it got pushed back a couple of times. So however, Council typically accepts this type of document, puts it in motion as fact and what we intend to do as a city is what I intend for tonight. Okay, so Councillor Jain, I believe that it would be to accept the communication. Councillor Shannon? I move to accept the communication and place it on file. Thank you, Councillor Shannon. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Hightower. Any further discussion? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Thank you so much, Director Green and Belen for all your work on this plan, absolutely incredible. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is, our next speaker, our next item is item 7.04, which is a communication from CAO Shad and Manager of Strategy and Innovation, Emily Stebbins-Wheelach regarding use of ARPA funds to clear BED customer arrearages. Councillor Paul may please have a motion on this. Do you want the motion before the presentation? Yes, please. Okay. So I would make a motion to approve and authorize the utilization of ARPA funds to Burlington Electric Department for $1.3 million to eliminate customer arrearages and fund the temporary energy assistance program as stated above. Thank you, we have a motion. Is there a second? Second. And Councillor Stromberg, Councillor Paul, did you want the floor back? No, but I know that we did have a presentation by the CAO at the Board of Finance and I think it would be helpful to hear that one more time. Sure, CAO Shad, go right ahead. Sure, and I know I have my colleagues from BED here in case there's any more questions, but I think it's pretty straightforward. So the reason this is before you on the agenda, again, is essentially a request from our auditors. You should recognize this request for $1.3 million for the use of ARPA funds, for arrearages, for our BED customers, because you already approved it in the FY22 budget. Like I mentioned, our auditors would like to see a separate approval and that's what this request is for. As the memo mentions, there are up to $1.5 million in arrearages for BED. They are dutifully working with their customers to take advantage of the existing state of Vermont arrearage assistance programs, but because of limits on funding, that's only been able to support about $600,000 worth of funding. So this additional money from ARPA will be used to supplement those funds. Anything else from my BED colleagues or any questions? Okay, any questions from counselors? Counselor Hanson. Thanks. So if we're able to get more uptake on the state funding that's available and get more of the arrearages cleared through that and we don't need the full $1.3 million in order to clear out what happens with any excess. Would you like to handle that? Yeah. If you could just please join us here. I'm gonna invite GM Springer up because we have discussed this, but I think it's best if he speak to it. Thanks. Good evening, counselors. Counselor Hanson to your question. The major state program called VCAP, which is supporting customer arrearages is scheduled to end in a week. So we've been able to draw down about 500,000 with another 100,000 pending as the CAO mentioned from the state programs, but we currently have over 1.5 million. So we don't anticipate being able to utilize or we anticipate being able to utilize a full amount of city funding to help clear the arrearages that exist in combination with the state funding. The challenge is through the pandemic, even as the PUC has had a moratorium and then lifted the moratorium on disconnecting customers for non-payment, Burlington Electric has voluntarily continued that policy. We have not disconnected customers for non-payment because of that, we do have a significant number for arrearages. Other utilities have begun that policy again and our hope is using these funds, we can help every customer who fell behind on their bills during the pandemic catch up before we have to reinstate that policy. Okay, yeah, that's definitely helpful. So it sounds like you're saying that it probably won't happen, the scenario I'm describing. I guess I'm just wondering if it does what would then happen? My understanding is with the ARPA funds, we have to be able to demonstrate that we have customers with that arrearage level in order to utilize them. A portion of this will also go to help with our temporary energy assistance program, which is helping our low income and moderate income customers with assistance because we had a rate increase and it's offsetting that rate increase during the fiscal year. So there's a small portion that's going to support that program as well. But if we were unable to fully draw down the city funds for the purpose stated, then I imagine at the end of the fiscal year we would have to revert them to the city. All right, thanks so much. Thank you. Are there any further questions for counselors or comments? Counselor McGee. I just had a quick question regarding the state assistance and whether or not that is something that the governor is in charge with extending. It's my understanding that those pots of money are still pretty full, excuse me. So I'm just curious if this is something that we anticipate perhaps the state will extend so we can further draw down from that. And I should clarify, there are currently two funding programs that are supporting a rearage assistance. One is called VRAP and it's a assistance program specifically for low income renters and doesn't just cover utilities, covers a range of support. We anticipate that program will continue for a period of time. With the VCAP program, the latest communication that we have from the state is that we expect it to end within the next week. So although if there were more funds, perhaps they could extend it, we've been told that they expect it to end within the next week. Thank you. Okay, anything further, Counselor McGee? Okay, any other counselors? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. That brings us to item 7.05, which is a reclassification for the Church Street Marketplace Director. Counselor Stromberg, can I have a motion on that, please? Yes, I'd like to waive the reading and adopt the resolution. There was a second seconded by Counselor Paul. Any discussion, did you want the floor back? No, I'm all set. Thank you. Okay, CEO Shad, did you want to just describe what was happening here? Sure, this is a reclassification of the Church Street Marketplace Executive Director who has taken on significant responsibilities throughout COVID, and it was unanimously supported by the Board of Finance. Thank you very much. Any further discussion from the Council? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? That carries unanimously. Okay, brings us to item 7.06, and I was gonna have Counselor Hanson move that. Is someone able to just please make the motion? Counselor Hightower. Authorize the Director, I moved to authorize the Director of Public Works to execute a contract subject to city attorney approval with NS, Hengen, Brussels, and BHB in the amount of $1.2, $1,213,923 thousand dollars and further authorize the Director of Public Works to execute any necessary future amendments using up to 15% and available contingency funds for a total authorized amount of $1,396,023 for the development of the design of the Great Streets main project. And I moved to authorize the total project of $1,775,000, which includes design, contract, and contingency funds for lighting design costs to be used by BED and funds for public art procurement and design costs to be used by BCA. Thank you for that motion, Counselor Hightower. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Counselor Stromberg. If I could just invite the engineers, Wheelock and Darice up to the table. So if you could just please provide an overview of what it is that we're voting on this evening. Yeah. My name's Laura Wheelock. I'm a Senior Public Works Engineer with the city. My colleague. Go ahead. I'm Olivia Darice. I'm a Public Works Engineer with the city. If it's okay, can I share a brief presentation to kind of give everybody a little bit of a background where we are tonight and what we've done and then we can go into what we're working on. Nope. So going through Great Streets was a concept that the city brought through back in 2016. We hired a consultant to develop standards for the downtown. We advanced preliminary concepts for Main Street, St. Paul Street and City Hall Park. What Great Streets standards did is it took the piles of studies that we had for our downtown area at the time and brought them into a single document to make a cohesive plan for how we should lay out our streets and the opportunities that they can provide. The four pillars that we came out of the downtown standards with were walkable, bikeable streets made of high quality materials, pedestrian bike networks that were safe, convenient, shaded and protected. Sustainable infrastructure that benefits air, water, quality, stormwater, smart, energy efficient and transit friendly. And to make a street successful, we needed it to be vibrant, lively, attractive, diverse, accessible, inclusive and supports the adjacent economic activity. And lastly, at the heart of DPW Functional, that it really works for all users, vehicle types, emergencies, events, is affordable and maintainable. So here's the layout of Main Street. We're looking at six blocks between Battery Street and Union. We looked at all the various activities that occur along the corridor and really recognized the intersection where Main Street meets Church Street and City Hall Park. In this area, our consultant identified that there's a struggle point as people either end at the bottom of Church Street on Main Street and don't quite maybe know where to go next. But there's also a point that occurs on the block at College Street. This is why it was important at the time to advance both Main Street's concept, City Hall Park's concept and St. Paul Street is to really provide a cohesive network and the connectivity between the vibrant Church Street, Main Street and ultimately down to the waterfront. Main Street's not in good shape. We've hoped to do something with it for a few years now. There are green belts that show that we don't have a wide enough sidewalk. There's infrastructure that is in poor condition and we have very wide crosswalks. The predominant cross-section is a roadway designed to serve vehicles and parking. In many blocks, there's low street ecology or less functional street ecology. Stormwater is not managed or mitigated. What the Great Street's design standards did was take a look at rebalancing the right-of-way, making it functional for all users, starting at the boundary with the private interface and moving into the public roadway, creating space for retail frontage, clear walking zones, tree belts that will be successful at growing trees, buffered bike paths, stormwater areas, and also the parking and the roadway. This graphic is designed to show on the bottom two existing blocks of what's out on Main Street today versus a rebalanced cross-section of what Main Street's concept concluded with when the concept was paused back in 2018. Really, the goal is to rebalance this area and provide spaces for all of our users. A standard block, this image is from the concept plan that we had stopped, looks at Main Street, this being the downhill side, as a way to collect our stormwater and add in rain gardens, convert parking to be able to make space, provide bicycle facilities, large tree belts, and clear sidewalks, as well as at each intersection, look at narrowing the crossing distance to improve pedestrian safety and visibility. This is one of the renderings that was generated from the last effort, and this is where we need to pick up. The last effort really focused on the mid block and didn't get very specific with our intersections. And so there's work that needs to be done moving forward to get to an approved concept plan that considers where we were back in 2018 when this concluded, and where we are today with our newer standards, even our new department that is part of our city that needs to be included in the advancement of Main Street's concept. And why are we doing it? So in and amongst this timeframe, we were managed to advance St. Paul Street's construction, taking a look at what St. Paul Street used to be versus what it is today to provide the potential of the rebalance of the use of the space in our timeline. So we're here in front of you today looking to talk about approval of a concept designer. We also will be back next week to talk about some of our funding sources as we seek approval for expanding the TIF district to pay for all six blocks of Main Street and not just the two that we currently have voter authorization for. The project will collect information over this fall. Survey, utilities, water, sewer, you name it, if they can find it, they're gonna look for it. So that when we create a concept that we present back to the council, the public in January and February, it has good information in a concept that can be constructed. We will seek to go to the voters in March to approve the TIF district on all six blocks. Final concept back to the city council late April, early May. And after that, we would move into design and construction. That is kind of the spiel where we are at right now. As the communication provides, the funding for this is coming from downtown TIF. This is a resource that the city is already collecting. It is a separate funding source from some of the other bonding and funding sources that have been talked about recently. There is a time limit on the amount of time remaining that the city can incur the debt and spend this money. We have until March of 2023 to develop a project and know how much it's gonna cost and go for bonding. So that's why we are here today with one of the TIF projects, seeking authorization to move to a concept and get into design. Thank you. Appreciate that presentation. So let's open it up to our counselors. Councilor Shannon. Thank you so much for all of your work on this over a very, very long course of time. I am wondering if the, I understand the tight timeline and that your hope is to get TIF funding for this, that you will come back to the council if you don't get TIF funding. But I am wondering if any part of this was included in the plans for the capital bond that will be going before the voters if there's a contingency that was included in that bond or not? No, there's no contingency. Four of the six blocks have VEPC approval. So they're already authorized to spend TIF dollars on. It's the lower two blocks from pine to battery that we are seeking VEPC approval for. The voter authorization comes from the ability to incur the larger debt to go into construction. They need, we need their permission to go out to bond for it. The designer fees were able to handle internally with repayment from existing TIF funding that's been collected already. Thank you, Councilor Shannon. Councilor Mason. Thank you, President Tracy. So I was following you until you just said what you said and now I'm confused. I had heard you say earlier that we had voter approval for two of the six blocks and then I heard you just say we had VEPC approval for four of the six blocks. Yep, it is. Are they the same? What do we, what I think I just heard you say is we have VEPC approval for the four upper blocks, not the two lower blocks. What are the two blocks that we have voter approval for? The center two. Okay. It is certainly an interesting layer cake which also speaks to the fact that we only have council approval for the two center blocks as well. So when we went for the original filing of the TIF district, there was a much bigger project and there's still a much bigger project but we will be in front of you next week to explain how we want to revise that. And at a grander use, it looked at doing some projects on Winooski Avenue. We've done those projects but we didn't use TIF money. So we're looking to make use of the funding that we have available and apply it in the most logical way. Main Street, what we struggled with is while we had voter authorization for two blocks, council authorization for two blocks and VEPC authorization for four blocks, those last two blocks are really significant when it comes to the connectivity for bicycles, pedestrian and the street ecology. And we were struggling with a way to be able to fund that. We've had early conversations with VEPC. They seem very open and interested in the idea of this connecting project. And you'll hear more about that next week unless Catherine wants to divulge anything. No, we have other stuff to get to. So I'm certainly happy to wait until next week. Thank you. Okay, any other comments or questions from counselors? Counselor McGee. Thank you all for the presentation. I'm looking forward to hearing more about the project and hopefully moving it forward. My only concern is that it seems like this doesn't have a completion date until 2025 and the sidewalks on Main Street are pretty brutal right now. So I'm just curious if there are going to be efforts to address some of those serious concerns in some of the areas where they're really not accessible right now or if this is going to have to wait until this project is completed. Thank you. It's a great question. It's something that public work struggles with a lot of knowing that we have large capital work coming up but failing infrastructure. In recent years and having the outcome of tonight we'll know which direction that we're gonna go with the sidewalks for this area. There are interim measures that we can take. We can pull slabs and place asphalt. It's usually a five to eight year fix, but certainly would meet within the construction window and create a more accessible surface. We wouldn't be able to expand the width of the sidewalks but we can certainly bandage some areas to make them more walkable. If this is not successful tonight, bandaging them wouldn't be our approach. We would look more for a replacement and creating a more sustainable surface within investment there. Great, thank you. Any further, anything else, counselors? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. That carries unanimously. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, it brings us to item 7.07, an ordinance regarding use of buildings by disorderly persons, 21 to 23 prostitution and 21 through 34, keeping a house of prostitution. Councillor Mason. Thank you, President Tracey. I'd like to make a motion to, whoop, and I just lost one more. We have the second reading. Adopt the ordinance as amended and ask for the floor back briefly after a second. Okay, we have a motion from Councillor Mason. Seconded by Councillor Hanson. You have the floor, Councillor Mason. Thank you, President Tracey. The proposed amendments, I believe, are self-explanatory. This came out of Councillor Freeman's earlier work on sex workers. In essence, what it does is strikes the proposed offenses and miscellaneous provisions relating to prostitution, keeping house of prostitution. The Ordinance Committee also felt that removing penalty for vagrants, gamblers and common prostitutes was not being utilized and made no sense. So after two contentious hearings, this was, I'm kidding, was unanimously put forth by the Ordinance Committee. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Mason. Were there further comments from councillors? Councillor Barlow. Yes, thank you, President Tracey. I just had a question that maybe the city attorney could ask. If we make these ordinance changes, prostitution would still be subject to state law? Is that true? Would you just be? That is correct. The state statutes would still in regards to prostitution apply. Okay, thank you. Any further comments or questions from councillors? Okay, seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously as well. Brings us to what was item 7.1, 7.10 that was moved up, which is a resolution raising the authorized sworn head count of the Burlington Police Department. Councillor Shannon. Thank you, President Tracey. I'd like to move that we waive the reading, adopt the resolution and ask for the floor back after a second. Okay, we have a motion from Councillor Shannon. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Jang. Councillor Shannon, you have the floor. Thank you. I wanna start by especially thanking the members of the Joint Committee, Director Green, Mayor Weinberger and Acting Chief Murad for all of your efforts to bring this ENA report to us that is the basis for this resolution tonight. This council has been anxiously awaiting the functional and operational assessment. This council has been in agreement that reforms are needed and we need to address racism both in policing and in society. We have not been in full agreement as to what reforms are needed, how to implement them, and we hope to find guidance that would bring us together in the CNA report. The CNA report has provided us a range of recommended sworn officers outside those required at the airport. That recommended range acknowledges that the City of Burlington would like to reduce our police force to reduce our police force and provide non-police services in a variety of forms to address our community needs. Our police department has not increased in size as demands have continued to increase on them. They have been asked to meet the needs of people struggling with mental illness and addiction. They have learned to administer Narcan and saved many lives. When I say that the police department has not increased in size, I'm really not referencing anything in the last year but it's really what's happened in the last 15 years. We are in agreement that there is a better way to provide social services and that the police are not the best equipped to address these problems and we can do better for our community. We have shared hope that reducing the size of the police will help us fund needed social services that our community needs and deserves. Tonight, I am recommending to the council that we adopt a police headcount at the upper end of the recommendation given by CNA at 80 officers. The lower end of the range, which is 77 officers, assumes the elimination of the domestic violence officer and reducing our QZ detectives from three to one. These are services that are provided to victims. I am not hearing demands in our community that services for victims should be reduced. CNA's solution for eliminating these positions is an inferior solution for victims and may cause actual harm to these victims. While I appreciate the desire for the numbers to be as low as possible, I believe that the number of 80 officers is the lowest possible while still offering the services that victims need. I don't think, in the CNA report, it was referenced that they were not able to verify the fact that the city of Burlington needs to contribute officers to CUSI. And I was able today to speak with people at CUSI to find out that CNA had not actually contacted them. They had not actually had the discussions to really understand what's happening there and Burlington's relationship with them. And we heard some of that tonight in public forum and I think that that's really important to remember. I genuinely hope that we can reach agreement tonight for the best interests of all Burlingtonians. I think that my progressive colleagues care about all people in Burlington as do I and my other colleagues at the table. I believe that we share desire to protect victims of sexual domestic violence and child abuse. At the end of our discussion tonight, I hope we will be united in how best to provide police services that protect everyone. If I have misunderstood the CNA report and if there is a path forward that doesn't require sacrifices from our most vulnerable victims, I hope to learn what it is and we'll support it. I hope on the other hand, my colleagues will also consider how best to serve our community and be open to the possibility that there might be some information tonight that is different than what they thought. I look forward to this discussion. I also wanna recognize that there were 150 recommendations in this report that go far beyond anything related to what our policing head counter cap is and that we need to sort through these recommendations and start moving forward with many changes to our police department and how we provide public safety in our community. As I hope we can engage in a really meaningful discussion tonight, I'd ask my colleagues at the table to allow broad discussion of this resolution and share your thoughts and ideas generally before we go to amendments. And I understand that there is an interest in bringing forward amendments, but I think it'll be helpful to our discussion to just weigh a little bit on that part so that we can have a really engaging discussion here tonight. And I really hope for the sake of this city that we can move forward together. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Shannon. Before I move into that discussion, it is 1032, which means that we need a motion to suspend the rules for the city council. Councilor Hanson. Sure, I'll move that we suspend the rules to complete the deliberative agenda. Thank you. So under this motion, we would not be doing committee reports, council general affairs, city council president, mayor or mayor general affairs. Is everyone clear on the motion to suspend the rules? Is there a second? Seconded by councilor McGee. Any further discussion? Okay, hearing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries. We will complete the deliberative agenda this evening. Okay, the floor is now open for discussion. Councilor Hightower. Great, thank you. Oh my God. So a few thoughts. I think the first of which is, I'm sad that we moved through an agenda generally that didn't have this year's lightning campment in it. Not least because, and this is germane to some extent, that both as someone on the council who has been houseless and who has been houseless because of domestic violence that I regret that I voted yes on an agenda that didn't think that that was a priority issue that we should address today and all these other items were. And beyond that, I think I want to speak a little bit to the report and what I read the report as saying, and I want to say first of all, that it did not suggest a cap at any point of 88 officers contrary to what at least the mayor statement had said. So I want to be clear for the public because I think some of the media things also then said a cap of 88 that the report spoke to a number of deployable officers. It accepted the mayor's suggestion of having five to count for attrition, which was based on historical data of attrition rates at I think around the 105 level. And then it also spoke about having a difference between the airport and the officer count. I also want to highlight that in that, it wasn't quite as clear, but it was clear in the final report and even more so clear in the preliminary report that they recommended for officers at the airport instead of eight. And with the understanding that that would be something we would have to negotiate in the BPOA contract, which seems inappropriate, but that is the way that the contract is currently written. So an independent body of which I think we all agree did a great job and we're fortunate that we had the funding to ask for this report through the Joint Commission. I think did a solid job of trying to give us a great number of 150 recommendations. I think some of the things that are missing in this resolution is that full understanding of some of the officer numbers that I just said, including and then an understanding of timeline. I don't think we will be able to recruit 88 officers before the next time that we will be negotiating a contract. I don't see why we would be going for a number that assumes we will have eight officers at the airport when that is not the goal, even according to this independent body. So I do not support an understanding of having a cap of 80 with four or with some undefined amount at the airport. I think the second thing is we know we're going into negotiations, so going for the highest number doesn't make a lot of sense to me right now, especially given that we won't be able to recruit all those officers before the contract comes forward. So I definitely think that going for the lower range using it as part of letting the administration use that in negotiation is the better way forward. I will say that I also agree that the Domestic Violence Prevention Officer, and I've never called 911 through Domestic Violence, but I understand that that is an avenue that other people do need and desire. So I do think that preserving, I agree with the mayor's assessment and the assessment of this resolution that maintaining the Domestic Violence Prevention Officer is something that the city certainly could use and plenty of residents have asked for. And so by my understanding, I think there's a few changes that this resolution needs. Those are posted on board ducts as provided by Councillor Hansen. I do think we should be making those amendments. And second to that, I think another thing that I'd really like to see from the administration going forward and therefore another resolve clause that I think would be good to add as an understanding of the financial implications of having an officer cap of in the amended proposals, it's 81 in line with the CNA report, as well as the projected costs of the 10 additional CSOs that we have authorized in addition to the two that we already had, the three additional CSLs, in addition to the one rule that was similar to a CSL, and then of course the Kahootz model. And then I will just say that this has been that the last thing that I wanted, I guess the Joint Committee I think was a very, was an important process for us to go through, especially the Police Commission and the Public Safety Committee working together a little bit more closely. I think there was a lot of misunderstandings about what the Police Commission's role was. And I think it's been good that there's been a closer connection between those two bodies. I think that moving forward, it would probably best if the Public Safety Committee took on some of the responsibility of following up in line with the Police Commission, just because decision making with a body of 10 or more, as we all know, can be a difficult thing to do. So I would also ask as still the chair of the not yet disbanded joint committee that we seek to have just the Public Safety Committee being the one to report back to the Full City Council. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Hightower. I don't have others in the queue, Mayor Weinberger. Thank you, President Tracey. And I appreciate the engagement in the details of the report, grounding this conversation so far. We, this report that we've waited for for a long time. It is a report that we've invested a great deal in. And it's a report that the administration is prepared to embrace the decisions made grounded in the report. I do not, however, agree with some of the characterizations about the report that were just made, at least with respect to the airport. And I would like to clarify, and I did put together a PowerPoint that Amy, is it possible to bring that up so that we can look together at what my, what the points that was objected to before and that I get the opportunity to clarify and hopefully we can come to some kind of agreement. So if we could go to the next slide, the what I tried to say is precisely as I could and this is quoting from the prior press release with respect to the airport as the second bullet. There are presently seven officers and one sergeant deployed at the Burlington International Airport. These, this is CNA's language. These officers would need to be added to the sworn headcount to continue to provide this contracted service. The point I did say 85 to 88 is what the report suggests, but this is how we frame that. Until and unless a change in airport police staffing is made, the CNA report's findings in combination mean that an authorized headcount of 85 to 88 sworn officers is needed. I understand Councilor Hightower's point that there is a desire to change the eight that are currently there. I think there is an inaccuracy, however, in the statement. It is not the collective bargaining agreement that is driving the eight. The collective bargaining says only four need to be at the airport. What is driving the need for eight is our need to meet federal regulations and the CNA report did not directly opine on this. I've scoured the report and they quote airport staff, they do not make an opinion about the eight. They make an opinion as to whether the way in which federal regulations and what we've negotiated with the FAA is the minimum. They quote the airport director saying that perhaps the number could be reduced to seven or six. So again, this is not a collective bargaining issue. This is us meeting the rules of the federal government. We could go deeper into this debate and I guess we'll have to if the head count, authorized head count remains tied to the airport the way it is in current policy. The way it is in current policy since we feel we have no choice, but because of our commitments to the federal government to have eight officers there, the effect of the 74 cap currently, which is inclusive of the airport is that the number, the authorized head count for the rest of the city is only 66. One way and so if this is a very important point, if the airport remains part of the authorized head count, if we were to make a decision as was suggested a year ago and which I think is still available to us to separate out the airport and treat that as really a separate question that I think everyone, certainly the administration and the airport management and passengers are aligned and wanting to save money and have as few officers there as are needed to keep the airport safe. If that's separated out, that removes further going deeper into this debate, which I think is, so that is one thought I have about that evening. I'm happy to come back to this and others would like the administration to speak to this further, but I would like to, I welcome and I'm really encouraged to hear Councilor Hightower supporting the need for a domestic violent police officer. This is a relatively new position. It was created while many of us were together and I think the feedback we've always gotten from steps against domestic violence and other advocates is that it is a positive addition to this police department. If we could go to the next table, Amy, we, I want to be clear that the difference between the 72 and 75, this is a table on page 90 of the report, which shows what the precise makeup of the 72 person department and then the next table shows the 75. They are virtually identical and let's toggle back to the first one. There are only two differences. The first, they are on the bottom rows. Here you can see in this, in this table, CUSY has only one officer assigned to it and there is no domestic violence police officer. That's how we get to, that's how CNA gets to 72. If you toggle to the next, you see the only changes are on the bottom two rows. CUSY now is shown at the current three officers and the domestic violence police officer is added and that is, those are the only two differences between 72 and 75. I would welcome understanding where my, as we heard tonight from direct testimony, there will be a substantial impact on CUSY, which is the way in which we attempt to protect individuals from sexual assault, the way we attempt to hold the offenders of sexual assault and other serious offenses accountable. This is long, the city of Burlington's commitment to this has long been three. I support that as well and I'm hoping that the council will support that as well. I welcome, again, Councilor Hightower engaging directly in the details because I do think where we land between 72 and 75 plus the five as Councilor Hightower went through, there are policy choices involved in that and I appreciate the grounding of this decision in those policy choices. Thank you, President Tracey. Thank you, Mayor. Are there other councillors? Councilor Hightower. Thanks, not to make this too much of a back and forth but so first question is the federal policy as if we've had confirmation that it will cry our eight officers and if not, why we're going with that number? So happy to speak to this as best I can and again, here's my understanding of what we have negotiated with the FAA. The FAA essentially requires one AF officer per gate which would be three officers that would be on duty when the airport is in full operation. We have had secured special dispensation with the FAA to limit that to two and that is what we've been at for many years. I don't know how long ago that was secured but it was many years ago. Two officers on duty at any one time since it is an operation that operates virtually 24, it does operate 24 hours a day. The gates are not all open 24 hours a day and so when the gates are shut down, we do at some time per day drop down to just one officer but we have gates open generally speaking from five in the morning or earlier for people to get to the planes to midnight or beyond. So the airport is basically a 24 hour operation. You need to have those two individuals on at all times to meet the response times that the federal government expects police officers, the hired police officers to be able to provide. So where that has landed has been at those two people, two officers on duty at all times unless the gates are closed and when you multiply that out for the three shifts that are necessary to staff, that essentially means that you need six people and those shifts you need a person available for leave and replacement and then you need a supervisor. That's how we get to the eight. I'll tell you from almost 20 years of involvement in the airport, there's always been frustration at the airport from management, from the commission, from the leaders out there, from the past directors about how expensive the service was the airport pays for all of those costs and there's always been a desire to push that lower. This is as low as we've been able to get it. Perhaps in the wake of this report that has at least raised the possibility that efficiencies can be found there through changes in shift negotiations and that would need to be negotiated and that is an area where there is a nexus with the negotiation. If we can negotiate more efficient shifts, perhaps we could drop it down to the seven or the six. Again, I would see a lot of value in separating this debate. And then a follow up question if I may to Director Green, just because I think for better, we, most of the political folks in the room weren't involved in the actual management, including the mayor and I of the contract and so is Director Green still on? Director Green, are you, I'm fully, I see, yep. Am I on? Yeah, you're on. Okay, great, thanks. Yeah, just any follow up on terms of the airport and the specialized advocacy roles that you had with CNA, if any. I'm sorry, Councilor Hart, could you say that one more time? Yep, any discussion in your understanding of the airport roles and the specialized roles such as the Domestic Violence Prevention Officer that you had with CNA in terms of the total headcount? Yes, as far as I understood that the total headcount was different. Was that four for the airport? That was my understanding directly from CNA. Great, and then the specialized roles, did you have any discussion with them on the? The specialized roles, and as far as I understand, they can remain depending on which grouping you choose, but you don't have to stick to the 72 or the 75. You could still have CUSY and DVPO and still land at 72, 73, or even 74. Great, and then just thank you for that, Director Green. And then just my last follow up comment, especially as it comes to the amendments that I am about to propose, is I think that part of it is not just this one recommendation that we're spending a lot of time on discussing, but I think for the other 148 that we're hoping to implement, some of it is directly tied to the BPOA contract, and therefore I think coming in with an understanding of flexibility for what the cap will be in the future is better than going as high as possible now. Again, especially given that, I think we will hopefully have every negotiated contract before we move this forward. And the last thing, I think that I wanna, yeah, and then some of the amendments as, again, they're now on board docs that were sent by Councillor Hanson, I think around 8 p.m. Is, well, one, I think that this has been, a journey for all of us, a learning journey. I'm glad that there's so much movement happening with the administration on Cahoots, and then, you know, Burlington Police Department and how they've moved forward on hiring the CSLs and the CSOs. And even though maybe a lot of us are frustrated in this moment for various reasons, I think to some extent we've made a first step in re-imagining how we want to operate as a city, and that is very difficult to do in a political process, and we haven't done it very well, but we're doing it, and certainly encouraged by that. And with that, I would like to move the amendments posted by Councillor Hanson on board docs. And I'm happy to go through those, if that's helpful. Yes, please do. So the first amendment, and I'm gonna move these as a slate, is lines 12 through 15. It's just a simplification to make sure that it's accurate, kind of with the findings of the report. Tins did use the language that says, whereas the report made approximately 150 specific recommendations, offering suggestions to improve practices and standards they feel are incomplete or lacking. Deleting lines 27 through 29, particularly as, I'll just leave it there. Deleting lines 34 through 38, then in lines 48 through 49, removing the assumption, are changing it to say, Tins did read, policing me to begin the long process of hiring sworn officers up to an authorized head count of 81 officers, inclusive of the officers assigned to Burlington International, in line with the discussion that we just had. In lines 54 through 58, amending it to say, be it further resolved that the council's public safety committee in collaboration with the police commission and the administration engage in a collaborative and full review of the report over the course of the next several months that will include a stakeholder and by community input with an initial report back to the full council in January, 2022. Unbarc is made towards evaluating and offering recommendations to CNA's process and professional report. So changing that from the joint committee to the public safety committee, on line 60, again, eliminating the exclusive of officers at BAA to read safety transformation of sworn head count of 81 officers must. And then adding a new resolved clause stating be it further resolved that the city council requests that the administration provide a financial analysis comparing the costs of a fully staffed department with a sworn officer cap of 105 to fully staffed department with a sworn officer cap of 81, as well as the projected costs of CSO's that should read CSL's and the CAHOOTS model. Thank you, councilor Hightower. We have a motion. Is there a second? Seconded by councilor Hanson. Did you have anything further? Complete. Okay. Thank you, councilor Hightower. The floor is open. Point of information, President Tracey. Sure. I appreciate the attempt to do this, but it's pretty hard if going forward as we're doing amendments, if you can actually see a marked version of what's being changed, because now we're all on one screen, trying to throttle back and forth to actually understand what is being amended is a bit of a challenge. So to all of us, if there's a way to actually do it, which we all have skills to do a word mark version, that's much easier to read and for us to digest at 11 than throttling on a single screen back and forth. So, sorry. I was trying to track and I honestly, I'm not, I'm gonna need a little bit of time to try and understand exactly what's being proposed, particularly on the, not strike all, that's easy, I know that, but amendments are not shown here, so I can't really follow. Okay. Thank you, councilor Mason. Are there other councilors? Councilor Hanson. Yeah, just a quick response to that. Board docs wasn't updated until, you have to refresh it because it wasn't updated until like, I don't know, 10, 15, 10, 30, so. But the document that I sent around and that it is in board docs now, if you download it, it is, other than the straight deletions of lines, it is in the track changes format, so it should be easy enough to just look at that document and understand the changes. Not, no, I don't look at it, but whatever. Okay, what? Can I get in? You have to download it first. Sorry, sorry. Yeah, looks, it only works if I'm sorry. I don't work on my tech, please. Can we please just. Yep, may I get in the queue after? Are you all set, councilor Hanson? Well, I have a lot of thoughts overall on the resolution, but I can, I'll go after councilor Mason, because I think he was right at me. Okay, go ahead, councilor Mason. Thank you, president Tracey. Some of these I will be supporting, and some I will not, but I'd like to speak to the authorized head count. For those of us who have not been as intimately involved in the process, it's a little bit hard to actually track all of what's going on, but what I understand these changes, I'm reading these changes, it implies a little bit of magical thinking from my perspective. It's, there seems to be a recognition that we have eight at the airport. We have to have eight, but we think we might be able to get four. So it implies that magical thinking, but my concern is the practical reality is if that magical thinking doesn't happen, if we are not able to convince the FAA that four's the right number or bargain, if it is part of the bargaining process to get down to four, what then? We still have to have eight. We've now taken four detectives or four officers that were going to be available to render general public service, and now they're shifted to the airport. So I'm not fully understanding the logic behind the makers of the amendment on this. Generally speaking, I would also say, and I appreciate, we are just a sort of level set here, we're negotiating over two bands of the CNA report right now on authorized headcount, whether it's 77 or 80, those are recommendations that came from a consultant, we're not bound by them, but there seems to be at least a movement or a consolidation of support around 77 or 80. Where I'm coming from, based on what I'm hearing from my own constituents, what I'm personally experiencing in terms of the level of vandalism that's going on in my neighborhood, what I'm personally seeing at my workplace, I work, I have 45 employees that I work with in downtown Burlington. What we're experiencing in terms of drug use, vandalism, et cetera. In our parking garage, I'm dealing with it every single day. So from my perspective, I go to the high end of the three additional officers. If things turn around, we can revisit this, but it's a no-brainer based on what I'm hearing right now from my constituents and people that I work with in terms of a public safety issue that we need to deal with. So I will not be supporting this amendment, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Mason. Councillor Shannon. Okay, Councillor Hanson was actually in queue. I just have a quick clarification that I think might be helpful, which is that I wasn't clear when I made my motion that I was moving the revised version of the resolution, and I wanted to clarify that. And I can add detail if somebody wants. Thank you, appreciate that. Councillor Hanson. Thanks. Yeah, so I guess I'll start by saying I continue to be frustrated with, and I think we all probably are at this point, the cap taking so much of the focus when we're talking about comprehensive change that's needed across the board. And that was part of why I didn't vote to slide this agenda item ahead of the oversight agenda item that seemed another example of, you know, putting the cap as the priority above other issues and taking that up first. But that being said, I think when it comes to the cap, we need to keep in mind like this is a long-term decision. It's not an immediate decision. We've all, I think, agreed that it's gonna take quite a while to get up to this level of staffing. And so this is really not about an immediate change. It's about what future are we envisioning and planning for. And I think we should be planning for the sort of public safety future that we want. And that I think we're starting to really build here is that we're building out the CSOs and the CSOs and we're making progress on building out the CAHOOTS model for mental health response. And really what we're trying to build a safer, more just, more restorative response to issues that arise in the community. I think we should be proud of that work and continue down that path and really plan for this future where we're moving away from traditional policing and moving towards building out alternatives. So my vision would be that by the time that we would even get back up to this level of staffing that we're talking about, that the alternatives at that point will be working well enough that we would want, at that point we would decide to allocate additional resources to those alternatives rather than back into traditional policing. I think that's the future that we should be planning towards and heading towards. And also another thing I think important to emphasize is that we can't just only focus on response and because whether it's sworn officers or even CSOs or CSOs or even CAHOOTS, that's primarily a response model for the most part where you're responding to issues that arise but I think we need to talk more about the proactive prevention and addressing the underlying issues that lead to crime or addiction or mental health issues. And then we won't need as expansive and expensive apparatus to respond, whether that is sworn officers or whether that's other positions responding. And I think the, we have examples in our community that have worked like the Isgood model, the Isham Street Gardening and other optimistic doings which State Representative China has been talking about at NPA meetings recently and is working towards trying to expand within the community and that's a proven model where it did reduce issues that on that street and it prevented them from even arising in the first place and also allowed neighbors to solve problems without having to call on an external response. So I think we should be exploring expansion of that model and similar models that are proven and cost-effective and really build a healthy community. In terms of the cap, the report recommends between 77 and 80 sworn non-airport officers. And I do think we probably should focus on that because I think the airport aspect is pretty convoluted and might be getting in the way of what I think the core of the debate is, is the number of sworn officers actually policing Burlington, which is that range of 77 to 80. And I think 77 is a substantial increase from, you know, it's an increase from where we're at now and I think it's for those of us that want to build these other models, it's a concession that we haven't, we're not where we need to be yet and we haven't built these alternatives enough. And so for the time being, we need to trust, you know, CNA's recommendations of a minimum number. But I think we should start with that minimum number, focus there, continue to build and continue on this trajectory of alternatives. And it's possible that, you know, those alternatives won't work as well as I and others hope. And if that happens, then a future council, you know, can pivot back towards traditional policing and move the cap above 77, but I don't think we should plan for that to be the outcome and do that preventatively. I think we should plan for a better future and work together to build that future. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Hanson, Councillor Barlow. Thank you, President Tracy. The unfortunate reality is that we're gonna see continued attrition at Burlington Police Department, regardless of what we do here tonight. At our last meeting, we passed recruitment and retention bonuses. And I think what we really also need to focus on is the morale at the department right now. And we need to show that we'll support them. And so we all know that we won't be able to snap our fingers and get to whatever the number is, 77 or 80. But we'll send the right message to the department that we support them as a city department and we're behind them. By setting the number at 80. And I'll just take Councillor Hanson's argument and sort of turn it around and say, if we find that some of the alternatives that we're considering right now actually are effective and we don't need 80 officers, we have an opportunity later to reduce that number further. And I would welcome that. But right now, I agree. We have an overstretched department and a real bad attrition problem. And we need to improve the morale at Burlington Police Department as much as we need to do anything. So I won't be supporting a reduction from the 80 sworn head count for patrol. But I am open to taking the airfare out of the discussion. Thank you. I don't have anyone else in the queue. Councillor Paul. Thanks. I just wanted to add in mostly in agreement with Councillor Hanson and now with Councillor Barlow that back in last June, Councillor Carpenter and I worked pretty hard to try to get the officers at the airport out of the equation in that resolution. And the other sponsors didn't want to do that. But the reality is that the officers at the airport are not engaged in community policing. It's just plain and simple. And they should not be counted when we're talking about an authorized head count of the people that are actually doing active police work in the community. I would be in favor of eliminating a number in this resolution. I realize that this is something you want to move as a slate and that's fine. But I think that we should try to get away from that. We also passed a resolution a few months ago that talked about taking the officers that are at the airport and creating a separate division and a line item in the budget. And part of the reason for that was that they shouldn't be counted in the rest of the airport budget. Because first of all, the airport pays for them. And secondly, they're not actively policing in the community. So I hope that we can... I agree with you, Councillor Hanson. I think we should limit the discussion about the authorized head count to the numbers that are in the CNA report that do not involve any officers, whether there's four, eight, six, or 12 at the airport, that the number doesn't really matter at this point. What matters is that we need to pass a resolution, hopefully pass a resolution or not, that revolves around the number for the authorized head count. And I hope that that will happen. The other thing I just wanted to also mention is that I don't know that it happens very often, but Councillor Barlow sort of took the words out of my mouth. There was someone had said something about the fact that we know that it's gonna take time to hire officers. And that's true, we do. And so you could say that this is a longer term change, but I do think that this is an immediate change for the very reason that it does send a message not only to the department, but mostly to the community about where we as a council wanna be headed. And I think that's important. And also a sign that we support the findings of the CNA report that include continuing to have the three specialized positions that I think we all think are important. Thanks very much. Thank you. I don't have anyone else in the queue. Councillor Jain, go ahead. I think thank you, President Tracy, and thank you, Mayor, for that presentation. Thank you also, Chief Mirad, and all the officers actually of the city of Burlington, at least those who stayed. Thank you also for the city council, especially the progressive city councils. You have moved the needle, whether we want it or we don't want it, you have moved the needle. The question where we are right now is no longer about the cap itself. It is about time for the city to move away from a dark chapter of our city's history with the police department. It is this resolution in front of us is celebration, is the acceptance of our mistake and also put a plan that will address it and focus most importantly on the healing that we need. That was also recommended. Councillor Hanson did talk about proactive prevention. I think right now in front of us, what we need to focus on is proactive leadership, and that's exactly what I've lacked around this process. We need to foster retention like many people talked about and also focus on attracting new trained officers in the city of Burlington. Let's find the closure by voting on this resolution, leaving the eight officers at the airport outside of the mix and supporting the resolution as is. The amendments in front of us, one, they are complicated and two, I don't think I would be voting in support of them. Yes, let's move this forward and build back better our BPD. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Shannon, go ahead. Thank you. After talking to Coosie today, I am profoundly concerned about making sure that we can maintain those positions and I appreciate that Councillor Hightower asked Director Green about conversations with CNA, but I do think we have to rely on the report that CNA presented to us. And I wondered if Director Green can give us any reference in this report that explains how you could attain the lower number of the recommended headcount without eliminating Coosie and the domestic violence officer, what would be eliminated alternatively and where can I find that in the report? I would say, I would say look under the staffing section. I can't scroll through the report on a whim and say, oh yeah, page 28, paragraph three, that's unfair. But the staffing section will provide you with all the information that you need, Councillor Shannon. As far as what I meant when I said you can play with that range, it's a range, 72 to 75. So you can still in fact, within that range, still have Coosie, it still have your domestic violence police officer. But what would be eliminated in order to reach those numbers because something would have to be eliminated in order to have those officers, so what? Well, the report also says that the workload doesn't support Coosie or domestic violence. So if it doesn't support it, and they're saying that you can put other work to the 20 hours of work, because that's what it is, over to a detective and remove those positions, you can do that. But I understand that the community wants those positions. So if the workload doesn't support it, you can get by with one Coosie officer and then have your one DVPO officer. Or you can have two Coosie officers and have one DVPO officer, but you don't need three. The report is very clear about that. I would just say that talking to Coosie, that was absolutely not the case. They were really clear that they are completely dependent on Burlington's participation in that program. Burlington provides the director and it provides two detectives. 60%, I think that was the number they gave me, that's not quite right. 40 to 50% of the work that they do is focused on Burlington, done on behalf of Burlington. And 60% of the work that they do involves child abuse. We would be losing those services and we do need to fund Coosie in order for Coosie to function, not only for the benefit of our residents. And I really think that it is unfair, that's really not the right word. I fear that it is dangerous to be eliminating those positions without the benefit of having talked to Coosie. And what I was told today by the director who spoke with us, who came to public forum but unfortunately couldn't stay as late as to be here at this point in the night was that they weren't contacted by CNA. So I don't, just on that particular point, I don't have confidence that we have the full information to make that decision. I think that's inaccurate, Councilor Shannon. That's inaccurate. Sorry, Director Green wants. I also want to say that the airport, I am reporting what my conversation with Coosie and my conversation with Coosie is accurate. That's what was reported to me. With the airport funding, I don't object to eliminating that number from the report, but I want to point out just for everybody's understanding that the airport is an enterprise zone and the police are funded through the general fund. So if the airport only needed four officers, it wouldn't give us any money to be used for the other services that we all want. And that is because the funds within the airport can't be used for those things. So if the airport only needed four police officers, it would save the airport money, but it would not save any money out of the general fund and it wouldn't make available any money to do anything else. So I don't object to reducing the number of officers at the airport to whatever the number of officers is that's needed, but I just want to be clear that that's not accomplishing the other objectives that have been the base objectives of reducing the number of officers that's not accomplished with airport officers. I cannot support the changes that are proposed here in the case of the lower number because I do support the domestic violence officer and I do support CUSI. I also don't support removing acknowledgment of the good work that our police department has done that was recognized in the report. We are also pointing out the many things that need to change. And I think that it's fair to acknowledge good work as well as areas that need improvement. So I will not be supporting these amendments, but should it fail, I would be willing to consider the removal of the specific number with regards to the airport. Thank you. Don't have anyone else in the queue? Councillor Hanson. Yeah, I'm gonna move to further amend the amendment. To, so for lines 48, 49, it would be up to an authorized head count of 77 officers exclusive of the officers that are contractually assigned to Burlington International Airport as well as line 60, a sworn head count of 77 officers exclusive of officers at BIA. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor McGee. Point of information. Sorry, go ahead, Councillor. Can you hear me? This is an amendment to the amendment. Did I hear that correctly? Yes, you did. Okay, thanks for the clarification. Yeah, I mean, I have plenty of other thoughts, but I think we need to first figure out are we debating the airport issue or are we not? I guess I'm proposing that we're not right now. So that's my intention with the amendment to the amendment. Okay, we have an amendment to the amendment. Is there a discussion on that? I'm confused too. Councillor Carpenter. Could you, I guess we, are you just eliminating the airport? Are you also putting in 77 as the authorized head count? So the amendment before I just proposed to change it, the amendment is 81, including the airport. I'm saying 77 excluding the airport. That's the change that I'm proposing. You clear, Councillor Carpenter? Yes. Okay, is there further discussion of the amendment to the amendment? Councillor Zhang. Yes, I just wanted to understand the reasoning behind that change. Sure. Yeah, so the amendment right now, the 81 number is based on the CNA report lays out in a table that you get to 81 through four airport officers and it lays out in that table kind of the two extreme ends of the 81 and the 88 officers. That is a debate though that we've been having. Is it even possible to get to four? How would you get to four? Went on what timeline would that happen? We can have that debate. I'm saying we should have that debate later. We should stick to what is the authorized head count excluding the airport. So I'm saying 77, which is the low end of the range. 77 to 80 is the range. When you're not taking the airport in and I'm saying we should go with 77, we should leave this airport debate for another time is what I'm trying to do here. Councillor Zhang, do you have the floor? I wanted to understand the technicalities of this from the expert who is assigning the officers to do their job for patrol. And I was just wondering if I can call Chief Mirad here and ask him about your proposal right here. What does it mean really for the officers knowing that we're taking now the police officers at the airport out of the count? Can I respond? Yes, go ahead Councillor Hanson. Just to be clear, I'm not proposing doing anything to the airport officers. I'm just saying I'm proposing that we make that we make a decision tonight on the non airport officers. 77 or 80 is the debate or somewhere in between. I'm saying let's focus on that debate. We can have a later debate about the airport. That's really what I'm trying to get at. Thank you, we don't have anyone else in the queue. I want to make clear on perspective on behalf of the administration, I believe the sponsors, the resolution agree. I mean, as I understand what you're suggesting now, you're saying the edit that you had in there that you had removed this section that your amendment would remove what was in the original underlying resolution which says parentheses exclusive of officers at BIA and put that back in. And there, there's no disagreement. I think we, sounds like we have brought multiple people have expressed support tonight for the idea of separating the airport question. I certainly believe that. So welcome that no longer being part of the amendment. The key debate then of course is 80 versus 77. And I think I certainly am fine with us voting on that. I don't understand how you can be proposing that that be 77 when consistent with Councilor Hightower's point that the DVPO should remain, the report is clear that if you're going to do that, you need 78. And then effectively what you're recommending is the elimination of the two CUSY officers, which I do not support as a policy decision. I think we should be clear that's the policy decision being made if the reduction is made to 78. If that's a policy decision the council makes I would live with it, but I think it's something that should be done transparently. That's the only way to read the report without coming up with some whole new way of interpreting. If there is some other way to interpret it that should be stated transparently. Thank you mayor. Don't have anyone else in the queue. Sorry Max. Councilor Hightower. I'll go one more time. So one, I don't think that necessarily is what it's saying. Like we are, we do still have the five attrition folks, which I still think that based on the number of 105 original officers is like, it's an assumption that like that will, that 105 and 74 has the same amount of attrition needs. And I don't, and I think we're building ourselves a buffer there just with that. So I don't think it's fair to say that we are necessarily eliminating the other positions just by saying that this is the new is number one. So I don't, I'm not saying that when I say that. Number two is, I mean, CNI did interview Kuzy. So they must have had some understanding of the model and the importance. And I don't think that they made a completely uninformed decision based on the fact that they must have talked to them probably for the same amount of time that they interviewed other folks, which was an hour, I believe, again, I mean, maybe I'll defer to Director Green on that. Director Green, are you with us? Yes, I'm here. Okay. Yes, Kuzy was interviewed as was a lot of other people. I heard a comment earlier about Church Street not being interviewed. That's, that wasn't true as well. I don't have a list of all the people who were interviewed, but there were a couple of people not being interviewed. I circled back with what CNI and CNI confirmed that they had in fact been interviewed. I don't know for how long though, like what the timeframe was of those interviews. Okay, thank you, Director Green. And then I do agree. I think the underlying resolution attempted to take the airport out of the equation. I agree with that reasoning now and I hope that we move in that direction. I do also still think that there's so, I, which is just a conversation that we skipped altogether, but I understand the moral piece, but there's so much negotiation that needs to be done. And I think that this, we don't have a lot of leverage points for that. I think putting all of our cards on the table right away is not a good way to start negotiations. I think that I really hope that we can move forward today with 77 because I think we need to have a bridge to bargaining as President Tracy likes to say, but that's not, I don't, that's not a bridge. So I don't, I do not want us to stay at a cap of 74 officers, I hope that is not. And so I hope that we can come to some kind of agreement. Thank you. Councilor Shannon to be followed by Mayor Whiteberger. Thank you. I wanna say that I, this is being portrayed as there's a lot of flexibility within these numbers, but my read of that report is that these numbers were pretty much the bare minimum that they could come up with. They talked a lot about the community's desire to reduce the police force and we're offering these suggestions with that in mind. And one of their suggestions that they said that they relied on heavily for designing their staffing and coming up with the numbers that they came up with was reliant on a 12 hour shift for efficiency. Now, I think that that, so when they give us these charts of how the staffing can work, you can't work with numbers that small and have the 10 hour shift that we currently have. A 12 hour shift would have to be negotiated in bargaining. And I would question if a 12 hour shift meets the goals of any member of this council because I think that we all want better policing. And I think we want police officers that use better judgment and make better decisions. And if there is evidence that the 12 hour shift works against those goals, it's not meeting any of our goals. And I mean any of our collective goals. I understand that there was a presentation to the police commission at their last meeting with a police mental health specialist who had strong warnings against adopting a 12 hour shift. Now, despite saying all that, I don't think a 12 hour shift should be taken off the table. I have also heard some good things about a 12 hour shift. And we can consider that, but I don't think that we should take it as a foregone conclusion just because it's efficient in terms of how you structure staffing because of course they're human beings and we need them to function at a really high level. And there certainly is evidence that people do not function as well towards the end of a very long shift. So, I think that the, I appreciate that for some people at this table, the number 77 is still too high. But I would also say that the number 80 is actually they only come up with that entire range is based on a 12 hour shift. So, I don't see the flexibility that others see at this table to shuffle things around. I don't see it with the 12 hour shift. I don't see where it was reported that we have that flexibility. And I have read that report carefully and multiple times. So for that reason, I will not be supporting the amendments. Thank you, Mayor Weinberger. Thank you, President Tracy. I think Councilor Shannon just put her finger on it here. And this really goes to the heart of whether or not we have a way forward with this or not. It is challenging to sit here and be told that we're spending too much time on the officer count when the only reason that we are debating this for the fourth time is because by the Progressive Caucus insisted on pushing forward a 30% reduction before doing a report explicitly, make the cut first and then later do the analysis. And that same thinking has been used in the times that has come up to say, we're gonna make our decisions based on the recommendations of the report. The report was commissioned in a way that is unique in my nine years of experience. The administration has never had less of a role in the formulation of an RFP for professional consultant. This was something done by the Joint Committee. This was the Joint Committee's RFP. And before that reason, there is this strong thrust to the report, which as Councilor Shannon says, right, the whole basis behind this report is that we should be reducing officers wherever possible. That is said again and again in the report. And that is the whole context for where this report comes back. But you know what? Although I don't think there was a consensus on that being what the people of Burlington want. The administration is sitting here ready to accept this report. We are not debating, we're not quibbling over the recommendations of this functional and operational assessment. We are saying we will accept the recommendations of this report as it goes to officer staffing so that we can move on, so that we can focus on these other items. It is a progressive caucus that has brought us back to this debate again and again by first getting the number wrong, dramatically wrong, almost twice what this report says is is the appropriate level and then refusing to change it as months have gone by. We're willing to accept the report. The report's recommendations are very clear. If you start saying we're gonna quibble with this recommendation or that, then yes, we start looking at this incredibly, incredible assumption in the patrol officers, the 51, which is a 10 person reduction from currently, which assumes that we go to this maximally efficient 12 hour shift, people working 12 hours. I mean, it is remarkable that a pro union city is holding out there as what we should be aspiring for, people working 12 hour days and doing, but we're willing to accept that as the basis of the math here. We're not arguing over that because we do agree with you, Councilor Hanson, that these other supports that we are creating and are committed to and are making progress on will mean that even though that is an unrealistic recommendation, we will be able to make it work. If we start this debate of projecting the report, the parts of the report we don't like, accepting the others, I think we're never gonna get to an agreement on this. So the administration, the Democratic caucus is sitting here willing to accept the recommendations of the functional and operational assessment and we're willing to accept the recommendations on its terms. And what those recommendations say is, if you want a domestic violence officer, if you want a CUSY department, you need 80. That is what the vote should be on tonight. If you vote for that, you are voting for a functional police department. If you voting against that, I think you're voting against a functional police department and I don't think we're ever gonna get an agreement until there's a change in this council. Thank you, Mayor. Any other councilors? Okay, so, all right, Councillor Paul, sorry. That's okay, that's all right, it's late. I feel badly asking, but could we have five minutes, please? Sure, we will reconvene at 11.44. Is it that late? Yeah. Yeah, so the amendment to the amendments 48 and 49, hiring sworn officers up to an authorized head count of 77 officers exclusive of the officers that are assigned to the Burlington International Airport. Line 60 would be a sworn head count of 77 officers exclusive of officers at BIA. If I free you, Councillor Paul. Any further comments? Will the city clerk please call the roll? Councillor Barlow. No. Councillor Freeman. Yes. Councillor Hanson. Yes. Councillor McGee. No. Councillor Shannon. Councillor Strongberg. Yes. City Council President Tracy. No. The amendment to the amendment fails and we're back to debate on the original slate of amendments that was proposed. Is there further discussion on that? Are we ready to go to vote? Councillor Hightower. Councillor Tracy, President Tracy, if I could potentially start with dividing the question, and I'm not 100% sure if I'm doing this right, but between all of the amendments with the exception of lines 48 through 49 and line 60. So keeping the new resolve clause, keeping the change to the Public Safety Committee, keeping some of the whereas clause changes and only removing the head count essentially so that we're having two separate discussions. Okay, so you're moving to divide the question on the amendment. Attorney Richardson, are we allowed to divide the question on the amendment? Oh. That's not debatable. So we have a motion. Is there a second? Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Hanson. Point of information, if the intention is to keep out the authorized head count, there's a separate line in the new resolve clause that also has a head count number in it. Correct, but it's an analysis, so I assumed the, it doesn't bind them to having 80, 81 or 79 or whatever the, so yes, but it is not a, it is about the analysis, not about what it actually will be. Yep, so Councillor Hightower, can you just restate the? Yes, so dividing the questions to go through to change the whereas clauses, change the resolve clause that's line 54 to 58 and then still add the new resolve clause as one suite of amendments and then moving the ones that have the head count a some kind of binding statement on the head count, which is lines 48 through 49 and line 60 and a two separate amendment suites. Okay, I'm clear on that, thank you. Any further discussion, or there is no discussion on that. Are we ready to vote? Let's go to vote. All those in favor of dividing the question or well, will the city clerk please call the roll please? Councillor Varlo. No. Councillor Carpenter. This is a vote on dividing the question. Dividing the amendment, yes. Yes, I'm sorry. Yes. Councillor Jag. Yes. Councillor Freeman. Yes. Councillor Hanson. Yes. Councillor Hightower. Yes. Councillor Mason. No. Councillor Paul. Yes. Councillor McKee. Yes. Councillor Shannon. Yes. Councillor Strongberg. Yes. City Council President Tracy. Yes. Ten ayes, two nays. Okay, thank you. So the motion carries and the question will be divided. Is there further discussion on the underlying amendment? Councillor Appall. Thank you. I just have one other question and I apologize because it's probably just adding a layer of challenge here but I'm just wondering and I'll give you the reason why. It's not so simply an exercise. I understand the reason, I think I understand the reason behind Councillor Hightower's changes to lines 54 to 58 and I'm happy to support them. Is it possible to, after you've divided a question, to divide it again? Yes, the rule of thumb on dividing a question is that once the division occurs, each component must be able to independently stand. So in other words, because we're dealing with an amendment, if we divide this and lines 54 through 58 are approved or disapproved, the remaining amendments can be approved and disapproved and as long as they are independent of each other, which is to say that you came out with a function that wasn't dependent upon one, both passing than the division is acceptable under Robert's rules. Okay, then I would make a motion that of the, I'm not sure if it's the first or the second, but of the one that includes lines 54 to 58, that we would take lines 54 through 58 out and vote on them separately. So the divide, whichever, if it's the first question or the second and I'm not really sure which it is, but whichever one it is, would be to take out lines 54 to 58. So there would be three votes on amendments. Okay, we have a motion to further divide the question. So it would be a division between the numbers, lines 48 and 49 and then 54 and 58. That's a separate question, is that what you're saying now? No. I mean, I'm sorry, lines. 54 to 58 only. So that is part of the one that doesn't include 48, 49 and 60. And 60, okay, so that's a separate one. So you're breaking it off. Point of information. Yes, I'm sorry. Just wondering before we get a second, if the maker of the motion would be willing to add the other resolve clause. Understanding that you're might be, that's the number that's throwing you off. I would like to see line 54 to 58 pass. Okay. Okay, seconded by Councilor Carpenter. Yes. Okay. It's non-debatable. Are we clear on this? Okay, let's go to a vote. Will the city clerk please call the roll? Point of information. We're voting on a further division of the question. Yes. I'm sorry, can you, can you, I'm so sorry. Can you just wait? There's so many different things being voted on. Now I've lost the, I'm so sorry. It's okay. I've lost the original amendment to my tabs. Okay, found them. Oh my gosh, kind of good. So you're just dividing, point of information, we're just dividing out lines, the line 54 to 58 amendment. Is that what we're saying? I don't know if I followed this. I'm really, yes. It's just a standalone from the other warehouse clauses. Thank you. Yeah. And okay. Thanks. Sorry. Too many, too many things, but thank you. Vote on that. Will the city clerk please call the roll? Councilor Barlow. Yes. Councilor Carpenter. I'm sorry now. We're voting to divide this out. That's all. Yes. Councilor Jang. Yep. I'm sorry. Councilor Freeman. Yes. Councilor Hanson. Yes. Councilor Hightower. Yes. Councilor Mason. Yes. Councilor Paul. Yes. Councilor McGee. Yes. Councilor Shannon. Yes. Councilor Stromberg. Yes. City Council President Tracy. Yes. 12 ayes. Okay. That carries. So we are back to the original resolution as now divided three ways. The original amendment as divided three ways. I'm sorry. Point of order that reported on the vote was not consistent with the vote. I think Councilor Barlow voted no. It wasn't 12 ayes. It was yes. Oh, forgive me then. I'm sorry. I apologize. Okay. Further discussion on the amendment. Are we ready to vote on these three separate pieces of the amendment? Councilor Mason. I'm not sure which amendment or is it any of the amendments? It's, you can speak to all three because they're all. I have a question really more for the maker on the 54 to 58. I understood the report that the, it was clearer to me the report back if it had been from the joint committee. I'm not clear under the new framework what's envisioned in terms of the report and the involvement of the police commission. Is it just consultation or is it expected that the report back would be from the public safety commission and the police commission? I think the report back would be from the public safety commission and that we would invite members of the police commission into that discussion on a, which we've started to talk about doing either as a representative basis or as the full commission. So that is a change. Let me just to be clear that it's, I was under the mistaken assumption that what this was doing was relieving certain members of the public, the joint commission who, from this going forward, but the joint commission did include both committees. So in essence, you're removing the police commission from in essence, authorship over the report should it come back, which. I think especially because if I can answer, I think especially because it's a report writing anything as a group of 10 people is very difficult. So I think that the police commission is going to be in charge of implementing a lot of the 150 recommendations, which is not the same thing as reporting back on progress necessarily, but I'll let Councillor Paul as the chair. Councilor Paul, I mean, Councilor Mason, you end the floor, sorry. No, I'm just trying to, I guess my other question, maybe for the chair of public safety is whether January 2022 is an actual realistic deadline for 150 recommendations? I don't know if that is. The reason why I'm supporting this is two reasons. One is that, I've said this before, but I think it's worth saying again, there are very few people that get elected and then to the city council and then the first year take on a joint committee with the complexity and the time commitment that Councillor Hightower did and did it well. And I am happy to support this change because I think that it is probably time for the joint committee to not be as highly functional, perhaps as it has been and that we move back to probably a more traditional approach of a city council committee leading an effort. The other thing I will say is that we hopefully will get to this a little bit later is the oversight resolution. I can, I think all of us on public safety, the three of us on public safety can certainly attest that the police commission was incredibly actively and proactively engaged in that resolution and I have no doubt that they will be the same when it comes to this report. So I don't know if January 2022 is reasonable. I guess we'll find out and if it isn't by December, there will be a report from the public safety committee saying that we need until February or whatever is a reasonable amount. But I think January is a good way to go and I see the other two members of the committee shaking their head. So I hope this is something that we can, we can all agree to and support. Thank you. Councillor Jang. Yeah. I think I wanted to talk about the timeline here a little bit based on this amendment. It doesn't seem it asking for a full report but at least an initial report. So it doesn't mean you have to finish the whole recommendations but just maybe partially and bring something by January 2022. Is it my understanding? Yes. I mean, I shouldn't say it's not my amendment but I think it's yes. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Councillor Jang. Okay. Any further discussion? A point of information. Yes. I think one would be the best time for councillors who are looking to make comment on any of the amendments. Is this the best time now? I know we spent a lot of time procedurally with dividing the question, which I think at this point I've actually lost track of the first division of the question. If we could. I'll certainly go over that before we vote. So sorry. If you like. It's not been a good night for me procedurally unfortunately, actually not my best but here we are. But I actually don't have a comment. I just, I was guessing that a few councillors wanted to, at this time, but I just wanted to make sure that councillors had a chance to comment too. Yep. Okay. Any further discussion before we go to a vote on each of the different sections? Councillor Jang. Yes. I mean, I think it seems this item is just trying to take the commission out into reviewing. Is it? That's why they brought this amendment to take maybe the commission outside of the joint committee that will look into the details. Is it the only change? Councillor Hontower. Yes. So to have it be the public safety's responsibility and collaboration with the police commission instead of having it be a 10 member body to create, to be responsible. Thank you, Councillor Jang. Councillor Powell. Thank you. I just want to say as a member of the public safety committee that you can be rest assured that if you vote in support of this and this passes and the resolution passes that you have the word of at least mine and I imagine probably the other two that the police commission will be actively engaged in this process. In the end, what we're basically saying here, I believe is that we will take the lead as a city council committee and as opposed to having to have meetings with 10 people, we will have meetings that will eventually, any report that will be written will be written in collaboration with three with us eliciting information and feedback from both the administration and the police commission. I think this is an effective way to go forward. Thank you. Okay, further questions or further comments from Councillors? Okay, we're ready to vote on the different segments as we've separated them out. So as I understand it, the first thing, the first question we will vote on is lines 12 through 15, the change there, delete lines 27 and 29, delete lines 34 and 38 and then add the new resolve clause. That's at the bottom, is that correct? Let's please go to a vote on that. We're voting on. I'll reread it. So the section online, the changes on lines 12 through 15, delete lines 27 through 29, delete lines 34 through 38 and then the final piece, which is adding the new resolve clause that the council request that the administration provide a financial analysis. Councillor Carpenter. Are we beyond discussion on this or? I'm trying to take us to a vote here. I'm just gonna say I probably won't support it, but I think we can come back for an analysis at another time. Okay, thank you. All right, are we clear? Yes. We are not now voting on the language we've just had a lot of discussion about with regards to public safety. That is not what we're voting on, we're voting on the other items. Okay, thank you. Okay, so on those lines that I just stated, will the city clerk please call the roll? Councillor Barlow. No. Councillor Carpenter. No. Councillor Jenning. No. Councillor Freeman. Yes. Councillor Hanson. Yes. Councillor Hightower. Yes. Councillor Mason. No. Councillor Paul. No. Councillor McGee. Yes. Councillor Shannon. No. Councillor Strongberg. Yes. City Council President Tracy. Yes. Six ayes, six nays. Okay, the first portion of the amendment fails. So we'll now go to the next portion, which is on the lines 48 and 49. And line 60. So police immediately begin the long process of hiring sworn officers of turn authorized head count of 81. Inclusive. No. And then the line 60 safety transformation to sworn head count of 81 officers must. Is that clear? Point of information, I thought we had amended lines 48 through 49. Oh no, did that amendment fail? We had separated those from the other from. Okay, but that amendment failed. Sorry, there were just so many changes and I'm just doing a horrible job tracking them. I'm so sorry. Okay, I'm sorry. Okay, any further discussion? Are people clear on this? Lines 40 police immediately begin the long process of hiring sworn officers to an authorized head count of 81. Inclusive of the officers assigned at the Burlington Airport. And line 60 safety transformation to sworn head count of 81 officers. So these are the head count clauses and the head count of 81. Very clear. Will the city clerk please call the roll on this? Councillor Barlow. No. Councillor Carpenter. No. Councillor Jang. No. Councillor Freeman. Yes. Councillor Hanson. Yes. Councillor Hightower. Yes. Councillor Mason. No. Councillor Paul. No. Councillor McGee. Yes. Councillor Shannon. No. Councillor Strongberg. Yes. City Councillor President Tracy. Yes. Six eyes, six nays. That portion fails as well and we are now onto the, be it further resolved that the Public Safety Committee in collaboration with the Police Commission so lines 54 through 58, that section. We clear on that? Everybody clear? Okay, will the city clerk please call the roll? Councillor Barlow. Yes. Councillor Carpenter. Yes. Councillor Jang. Yes. Councillor Freeman. Yes. Councillor Hanson. Yes. Councillor Hightower. Yes. Councillor Mason. Yes. Councillor Paul. Yes. Councillor McGee. Yes. Councillor Shannon. Yes. Councillor Strongberg. Yes. City Councillor President Tracy. Yes. 12 eyes. That carries and is now a portion, those changes are now incorporated into the resolution. So we're back to the resolution as amended. Further discussion? Are we ready to go to a vote? Councillor McGee. I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the testimony that we heard from numerous folks identifying the serious safety concerns that marginalize people have if we make this move to raise the cap. I don't think we have seen from the police department a serious effort to change training practices. I don't think we've seen a serious effort to roll back the way the police department responds to the so-called low level crime that we heard folks talk about tonight. And I think it's always easiest for this body to make a decision to go back to the old strategy of over-resourcing the police department to a point where we're asking officers to deal with humanitarian crises that they're not trained or equipped to deal with. And I have serious concerns that if we vote on this resolution tonight as it stands, we're going to find ourselves in a position of not holding the promise of what the council voted on last summer in furthering racial equity and developing non-police alternatives that really get at safety for our entire community. And I think we heard numerous people state that the city has failed to provide for the basic needs of the most vulnerable among us. And for us to vote on this resolution shows that we haven't learned that lesson. And so for that reason, I will be voting no on this resolution. And I implore others to join me because I don't think this is the way forward. Thank you. Thank you. Don't have anyone else in the queue. Councilor Shannon to be followed by Councilor Carpenter. Thank you, President Tracy. I think that this is a difficult vote for many of us at the table. And I would just ask for one last five minute recess, lateness of the hour, but this is important to our city. Fine, five minutes. I'll give it until 12, 18. Back to the underlying resolution. Further discussion. Councilor Shannon. Thank you, President Tracy. And so as things have gotten amended, I am not sure exactly where everything is, but I would like to amend the number of authorized headcount of 80 to amend that number to 79 and 49. Thank you. I think it appears any place. 60. Okay. Change that number from 80 to 79. Okay. Okay, we have a second from Councilor Jang. Councilor Shannon, do you want the floor? Honestly, I think we've had enough discussion. Okay. Any further discussion on the amendment? Will the city clerk please call the roll? Councilor Barlow. Yes. Councilor Carpenter. Yes. Councilor Jang. Yes. Councilor Freeman. No. Councilor Hanson. Councilor Hightower. Yes. Councilor Mason. Yes. Councilor Paul. Yes. Councilor McGee. No. Councilor Shannon. Yes. Councilor Stromberg. Yes. City Council President Tracy. Yes. Three nays. Okay, so the motion carries and we are back to the underlying resolution as now twice amended. Are we ready for a debate? Are we ready for a discussion? I think we've had plenty of debate. Any further discussion? Just gonna say my piece. I will be voting yes on this. I think this is within the range of what CNI recommended. I think it is time for us to stop talking about numbers. And I think that this is a serious move from both where we are now, but it's also a serious move from where we were 18 months ago. And that is all. Thank you. Any further comments? Okay, will the city clerk please call the roll on the underlying resolution as twice amended? Councilor Barlow. Yes. Councilor Carpenter. Yes. Councilor Jang. Yes. Councilor Freeman. No. Councilor Hanson. No. Councilor Hightower. Yes. Councilor Mason. Yes. Councilor Paul. Yes. Councilor McGee. No. Councilor Shannon. Yes. Councilor Strongberg. Yes. City Councilor President Tracy. No. Eight ayes, four nays. The resolution carries. I have a couple other items of business on tonight's agenda. Let's keep it going. So the agenda was amended and we moved 7.10 up before 7.08. Councilor Paul. Thanks, President Tracy. So I would move the resolution. This is the resolution on the Mental Health Summit. Is that right? Yes. I believe so? Yes. With a slight amendment to add to the list of organizations that begin on line 30 and to add a line 52 with the words the State of Vermont Agency of Human Services. It's a minor change I hope will be acceptable to all. I would wave the reading and ask for the floor back ever so briefly after a second. Okay. Seconded by Councilor Hightower, you have the floor. Thanks, thanks President Tracy. So just very briefly because this was sponsored by 11 of us, I just would like to mention that we've spent a lot of time talking about the police commission this evening. They are I think a really great example of what we hope for in boards and commissions to be actively even proactively engaged in community challenges that they see and then they work to create processes to address them or to help address them. In the resolution you'll note that the Burlington Police Department has seen mental health related incidents double since 2012 and just this year alone for the year ending June 30 have seen 645 incidents that are mental health related. The police commission correctly realized that the problem is much larger and increasingly more serious that can then can be addressed by police response alone. So this resolution is our endorsement of the police commission which is proposing a mental health summit with the goal of developing and funding a system of care and then it would potentially morph into a series of collaboration that would be potentially modeled after the successful ComSTAP program. And as I say it's sponsored by 11 of us. I believe that all 12 of us are certainly all committed to improving the lives of our community members and addressing this critical need and would imagine that we'll have our unanimous support. But with a great thanks to the heavy lifting that was done by the police commission and as well the strong support from the administration. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Paul. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Brings us to our final item of the evening which is raising, which is now the police oversight 7.09 police oversight and accountability authorities to the police commission to alter the police disciplinary system. Councillor Paul. Thanks very much. So I would move the resolution, wave the reading and then ask for the floor back after a second please. Second. Seconded by Councillor Hightower. You have the floor, Councillor Paul. Thanks very much, Councillor Hightower. So this resolution has been on a fairly long journey. It was first drafted in mid January following the mayoral veto of the community, the charter change of the community control of police. And I think it's important to, for those of us that were there back in December and in January, to just remember that there was really one issue I think that united all of us. We may have been divided on the proposed charter change, but one thing that united us was that the council and the administration agreed that the current charter provisions on police discipline needed to be amended to better address complaints about police misconduct disciplinary decisions and the accountability of police officers. One of the other things that the police commission did recently was they spent a lot of time in did intensive training with the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, which is easily called NAICOL. They are the nation's leading authority on effective police oversight. And one of the things that they have said in study after study is that oversight can be a win-win for citizens, for police officers and for community leaders. If it's done right, independent oversight offers a safe space for citizens. And studies have shown that truly affected oversight improves police officers' relationship with the community. It assures the public that the process is fair and thorough and improves and studies have shown that it improves officer conduct. Effective oversight is a crucial investment in our community, mostly because it builds trust and confidence. The one of the things, as I said, the police commission has done a fair amount of work with NAICOL in training on oversight and best practices. And they've done a lot in the past year. They've questioned policy, they've questioned disciplinary decisions, they've hired their own legal counsel, and they're continuing to improve transparency as best they can. As we all know, there are limits by charter and union contract as to what we can do to delegate greater oversight authority to the commission. Until such time as we're able to bring forward a charter change, something that we hope to do as per the amendment that's posted on board docs to come. But we also know that charter changes take time. They have to garner voter approval. They then go through a long journey of getting legislative approval, the governor's signature, in order to become part of our charter. And that process can take, as we all know, a couple of years sometimes. And with something of this nature, probably a fair amount of time. In the meantime, we have a commission that is eager and qualified to have us delegate to the greatest extent possible, consistent with legal constraints, greater authority for oversight and accountability of our police. And supporting this resolution is about this delegation. There's seven broad items in the resolution. And what we're asking for is for the city attorney to review those broad items and offer us ordinance language on the items that we can affect change within legal constraints. Just for the record, the Public Safety Committee knew going into this evening that some of the items may or may not be able to be realized at this time. We do know that there are some that can be codified into ordinance. And as I said earlier, last December, we were all in agreement that we needed to transition to a more effective police oversight, which is necessary to rebuild broad community support. This resolution is a step towards that needed oversight. I do want to acknowledge that there was a lot of work that went into this resolution. I think we went through 11 different versions to get to what we have tonight. And there was a tremendous amount of partnership. And I am so grateful to Councillor Stromberg and Hightower who are cosponsoring this resolution with me. As well, I'd also like to acknowledge that Councillor Freeman saw earlier versions of this resolution and offered meaningful insight and suggested edits to it. I'd also like to acknowledge that we have a wonderful staff person that we're working with now, Assistant City Attorney Jared Pellerin, who has been incredibly responsive, helpful, and really great to work with. I hope that the resolution can get our full support. Many this evening, several hours ago, during public forum, spoke to the point that we need a charter change to effectively, to effect real and genuinely significant and comprehensive change. And I think we all know that. We all know that such a change is needed. At this time, I'd like to offer an amendment if you would allow me to do so. Yes, go ahead. So the amendment was posted on board docs this afternoon and it would be added at the end of the resolution at line 106. It would say that be it further resolved that the City Council tasks the Charter Change Committee to hold meetings allowing for community and stakeholder input with the question of moving disciplinary authority from the Chief of Police to a body that is independent from the Burlington Police Department and ask that language to do so be referred back to the council in time to allow the council to place such a Charter Change consideration on the March 22 ballot. If the council so chooses. With that, I'll close my comments and thank you very much for your time. So we have a motion to amend seconded by Councillor Hanson. Councillor Paul has closed the comments. So we're on the motion to amend. Councillor Shannon. Thank you. I have a question which is, does the amendment preclude the possibility that the police commission could become that independent body? Councillor Paul. I think the idea of the Charter Change would be that the body would be independent from the Burlington Police Department. I think it is, I don't believe that most would agree that the Burlington Police Commission is completely independent from the Burlington Police Department. Could it be the same body of people in a different sort of configuration or title? I suppose that's possible. That would have to be decided by the, during testimony and work by the Charter Change Committee. I don't know that I'm really answering your question, but I'm hopeful that maybe that, I guess the answer is it would not probably be the Burlington Police Commission and its current iteration given its Charter, its authority in the Charter. I am concerned in a city of our size and with the department of our size about the layers of oversight. I do appreciate the need for independence in whatever body is going to oversee the police department. I will support this going to committee, but I just kind of want to flag that concern at this point that we've gone through this before and the body that was, you know, there was some good work done, but the end result of that process, in my opinion and in the opinion of others, including the city attorney, was that we created a body that was independent, but it was also biased. And I will, I'm not going to amend anything tonight, but I think along with independence, we have to have an unbiased body that would review police oversight or not one that is at least, there's always some bias, but not one that's intentionally biased. So those are some of the things I'll be looking for when this comes back from committee. And I hope that we can create an independent body of some sort that is scaled to our city, that's scaled to our police department, that's scaled to kind of the number of issues that we have is affordable. And again, I will support this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Shannon. Any further discussion on the amendment? Councilor Hanson to be followed by High Tower. Okay. Yeah, I'm supporting this amendment as well. I think this amendment in my mind is really the most important part of the resolution because in order to have real, genuine oversight, we need to make this charter change. We need to take disciplinary decisions outside of the department and it should be an independent body doing that. And I'm tired, so I'll leave it there, but I hope that we can pass this amendment. I think it's critical to developing police oversight. Thank you. Councilor Barlow to be followed by Mayor Remberger. I'm glad Councilor Shannon asked for that clarification because I was under the assumption that a charter change would be to allow the police commission to have additional authority. I do view the police commission as being separate from the department. I also think they understand the business of the department and call me an incrementalist, but I think that these ordinances go part of the way and there may be some benefit that come from them and where they're short, I would think we could strengthen the charter to give the police commission additional authorities to have oversight over disciplinary actions in the department. So it sounds like the intention of this is to stand up a new body, not to invest that authority in the police commission. So I will not be supporting this amendment. Thank you. Any further comments? Councilor Hightower. Yeah, I'll just go. Actually, I'm sorry. Go ahead and be right there. We need a charter change. I have long supported a charter change to add some additional checks and balances and to properly allow the police commission to play the role that they are trying to play now and doing a very effective job in some ways, or at least I think are on a path towards the kind of body that we've long hoped we would have there. So I would welcome work happening at the charter change committee so long as we go in not prejudging what the outcome is going to be and that there be a genuine process that involves the administration as well as the community to sort that out. So if I had understood the language to be starting that process, it was it's imprecise as to what the meaning of moving disciplinary authority, I certainly don't, I would not support something that removed all discipline authority from the chief and I've been very consistent on that for a long time. I didn't read this to say that. So I would support getting into the charter change committee and having a discussion there and I think we can have our interpretations of what it means and have a debate in the committee to get to the right answer. If it is totally clear that what is expected by this is prejudging those questions and assuming we're going to a control board type model then I won't be able to support it. Thank you, Councillor Aitara. Great. Yeah, so I also didn't read it to necessarily determine and to some extent, well one, I guess I wanna start by saying that I think this in one of the versions, some version of this was or talking about the charter change needs was in there and I think I wanna say that for the public. I do support this amendment and the underlying resolution and I think part of the reason any language on charter change I've been taken out is because we were unclear when we started the process, what the parallel charter change processes would look like so I appreciate that we're putting that back in now that there's a little bit more clarity. I definitely think that any, I think it is so important to move ahead with some of the ordinances given both the duration and the uncertainty around charter changes but at the same time, this is I think a necessary change. I think that anyone who has, who saw what the police commission was a year and a half ago would not have called it independent by any stretch of the imagination and I think that now, I don't know if we would fully call it independent but I think the progress that has been made is significant and I think to try to even guess at how independent it would be by the time a charter change would actually pass is going to be difficult and so I definitely support this moving to the charter change committee, not precluding what that body would be. I think the police commission, like I said, has made tremendous changes in being an independent body, a more independent body and I think it might be part of this process to question or see if it could become a fully independent body and whether that makes more sense than having a new committee or having a committee that just works on policy, I think both NACL and CNA have stated that we do not have enough public input in our policy making and so if that becomes a different body that works in a different way or a smaller body or one that involves more of the administration, something along those lines that is less independent but generally supportive of this amendment as well as the underlying and thank folks who worked on it through the many iterations and changing circumstances. Thank you. Any for Councilor Brownlee, go ahead. I'd like to propose an amendment to the amendment not to delay our meeting too much but a very simple amendment to the amendment and I would say it would be in the moving disciplinary authority from the police chief to a body that is independent of the Burlington Police Department that may include the police commission. The words that may include the police commission. After the words from the Burlington Police Department, right now it's from the Burlington Police Department, calm I would say, from the Burlington Police Department. Police commission, I'm not exactly sure, my brain is starting to frizzle a little bit but you understand my intent. Is there a second? Councilor Shannon. Can you repeat the amendment to the amendment please? The amendment to the amendment would be, there's no numbers on this because it's just, I'm reading it in Lori Oberg's email but it's one, two, three of the third line down that starts that is independent from the Burlington Police Department. I want to add and that may include the Burlington Police Commission. Okay, are you clear now, Councilor Freeman? I, yes, I just, there's just so many tabs open on my, but yes, I will find it. Thank you for repeating it. It was hard to hear in the microphone. Okay, Councilor Jang, can you use your mic please? This is a question and that may include the police commission meaning that body could be the police commission. Correct. Then I won't be supporting that. I think what we need to talk about is an independent public body completely different from the police commission. I think that's what I would wanna ask to think about and find an alternative forward because we cannot concentrate power in just one specific department or one specific chief. Check and balances, I think it's what we need as we move forward. I won't support it. Thank you. Thank you. Further comment? Councilor Hanson. Yeah, I mean, I don't know that the amendment to the amendment really changes the underlying as I helped write it and it was meant to be open-ended whether or not it would be the police commission. The point is though that it needs to be independent. The police commission today is definitely not independent of the department. If they become independent then I think they are eligible but if not they don't. So I think it's a debate for a later day. I don't, I'm fine with the amendment I guess. I don't know. I think it's, we're gonna have that debate going forward. Thanks, anyone else? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to vote on the amendment to the amendment. Will the city clerk please call the roll? Councilor Barlow. Yes. Councilor Carpenter. Yes. Councilor Jang. Yes. Councilor Freeman. No. Councilor Hanson. Councilor Hightower. No. Councilor Mason. Yes. Councilor Paul. Yes. Yes. Councilor McGee. No. Councilor Shannon. Councilor Strongberg. No. City Council President Tracy. No. Aye's five, nay's. The amendment to the amendment carries and we are back to the amendment as amended. Any further discussion on that? Okay, seeing none, let's go to a vote on the amendment as amended. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye, any opposed? The amendment carries unanimously and we are back to the underlying resolution. Is there further discussion on the underlying? Okay, seeing none, will the city clerk please call the roll? I'm sorry, I want to, is this on the underlying resolution? Oh, I didn't want to comment. Sorry, I know it's really late, but. Okay, go ahead. I didn't want to comment on this. So I will not be supporting the underlying resolution. I do, you know, I, it's, you know, I, I appreciate how much, I think Councilor Paul and I share like a deep sort of interest in this topic, in this issue. And I really, frankly, I appreciate how much like Councilor Paul has put time into looking at oversight models. It's nice to just share that with someone else on the Council, it's something that I've spent a lot of time looking into. I, however, I just don't feel like this moves the city in the right direction. I think that this essentially becomes, essentially becomes, sorry, the camera is in a funny location and it's distracting me if it's moving around. So I think it, unfortunately, it just becomes this sort of feel good exercise. I mean, when we look at oversight models across the country and really study them, what we're moving towards, other than the charter change that frankly was proposed by myself through the charter change committee last year, essentially only all these other models that we've looked at only recreate models that we've seen across the country repeatedly fail to create any sort of real authority and any sort of real oversight. And I just, I don't understand why we continue to have this exercise of going through the illusion that we're changing the oversight structure. And I know that we're saying that we're moving the needle slightly with this, with a type of resolution like this. But when you look at the fact that even some of the models that were proposed that were not to the sort of level of authority and independence that was proposed on the charter change that got vetoed last year, that those, that was similar to the one that was used in Minneapolis where as we all know and was so publicly part of this huge movement was where George Floyd was killed by police brutality. And I just, I really think it's an effort in sort of like a futility and a mirage that we are changing things when we are not actually fundamentally changing anything. And I think that this issue is serious enough and important enough that we need to continue to really look at the actual policy and the actual material changes that we're making and talk about seriously moving to newer and better models instead of recycling old models that have shown time and time again that they are not working. So I will be voting no, I do appreciate. I know they're not just Councilor Powell but many Councilors care about this issue and have worked hard on it. I know we're gonna continue to discuss it not just probably over the next year but for years to come. So I do appreciate the time that folks spend on it but that is my position. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Councilor McGee. Thank you, President Tracy. I know it's late, so I'll keep it brief for many of the reasons that Councilor Freeman just outlined, I will also be voting against this resolution tonight. I believe that we need to speak strongly and firmly in when we're making these actions. I think we need to do it in a way that gets at the essence of addressing the serious concerns that we've all had around oversight and policing in general. And so I don't think this resolution does that. I think we need to move towards an independent community control model and for that reason I will be voting no on this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Hidalgo. Great, just wanted to reiterate that I'll be voting yes on this. I think that if I could depend on this body to try to move forward with the model as it was proposed by Councilor Freeman and activists in the community which I do think is best practice, I would go for that but unfortunately that is not the reality that we're dealing with with charter change processes and I have very little faith in the folks at the state level passing anything close to best practice. So I'm excited to pass this resolution and get moving on the oversight we can. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, will the city clerk please call the roll. Councilor Barlow. Yes. Councilor Carpenter. Yes. Councilor Jang. Yes. Councilor Freeman. No. Councilor Hanson. Yes. Councilor Hightower. Yes. Councilor Mason. Yes. Councilor Paul. Yes. Councilor McGee. No. Councilor Shannon. Yes. Councilor Strongberg. Yes. City Council President Tracy. Yes. The motion carries. We are now... Motion to adjourn is in order. Moved by Councilor Jang. Blackened by Councilor McGee. Any discussion? All those in favour please say aye. Aye. We are adjourned at 12.53.