 It doesn't sound like it's working, but I know all right hearing it. I'd like to call to order the special meeting for this South Burlington City Council of Monday, January 28th, 2019, and we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. This is due to the fire of the United States of America, and it's due to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible in the very beginning. Now it's on. Leah is still away. I believe she was going to call in tonight, or is there a change? Tomorrow night. Tomorrow night. Yeah, tonight she's tied up with something. So last Tuesday night or Wednesday night's weather report was bad. That's why the meeting was canceled last Wednesday, right? Right, right. Tomorrow night is worse. Is it? Yes, it is. I don't know what it is. We can do it. This is the season. This season is right. Yeah, I always happy spring semester to my students, yeah. So we're going to listen to Mr. Dorn. We all know these well, but the instructions on emergency exits. Yeah. No, if there's an emergency tonight, please go out when the side doors and gather in the parking lot to the south. If these doors are blocked, please go back out through the lobby, out the main entrance and around the corner and to the parking lot to the south. Tom Hubbard and I will make sure the building is cleared. And so please go expeditions. All right, very good. Can we leave in our cars if that ever occurs? That was the question I had. I prefer not, so we know you're out of the building. You have to do a checklist. I see. Yeah. All right. But probably after that, if it's going to be a while. It does not turn the place down, we'll be all right. Item number three is for us to consider entering into executive session to receive legal advice on matters relating to collective bargaining and contracts. I would like to move that the council make a specific finding that premature general public knowledge of labor relations agreements with employees collective bargaining and confidential attorney client communications made for the purpose of providing professional legal service to the council would clearly place the council in the city at a substantial disadvantage. Second. Very good. All those in favor? Aye. And having so found, I now move that the council enter into executive sessions for the purpose of discussing the matters identified in the previous motion, inviting in Kevin Doran, Tom Hubbard and Andrew Bullduck. All in favor? Aye. Very good. And we are scheduled to return just shortly before seven o'clock. Oh, is that? Would you like to be clerked in? No, that's all right. Are you going to read it again? No, I'm fine. Kevin, do you want to go to the meeting? I'll go for what you asked for. Yeah, yeah, I can. We're calling back to order here after our executive session. And we're up to, I don't think we need to have a motion to reenter, right? Okay. Item number four, the agenda review. Are there any additions, deletions or changes in order of the agenda items? All right. I do have one under other business. I would like us to discuss and request a kind of a long term request by a community member to look at the legal age for buying tobacco. That came before us last fall. Number five. We're going to convene the public hearing to receive comments related to the proposed charter amendments to be presented to South Burlington voters for consideration during the city annual meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 5th, 2019. And we are just a few minutes late. But could someone please move to enter the public hearing? I'll move that. Second. All in favor? Aye. Quick on discussion. Is this mandatory, the public hearing for these articles? Charter change. Okay. So this is, just to be consistent with my previous votes, I'm going to vote against going into this public meeting because I just don't support article three. No, that's not, that's not related. It is. Because we're improving this language. And I just want to be, it's difficult to be consistent on these things, but I still don't support article three. So I'm going to vote no to. No, because that's voting against having public input. It's different. I don't want to support moving forward with article three. He's allowed. He's allowed. Of course he's allowed. I'm trying to convince him otherwise. We could have a whole lesson on it, but it will be very efficient time-wise. It's still going to happen. All right. So all those in favor, please state. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. All right. Passes three to one, two. All right. We do see members of the public here. Are you here to discuss this agenda item? We were hoping. We worked on it pretty hard. So maybe we just want to come up and comment. Get everybody happy. Do you have something to comment on this? Come on up. Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. Doesn't appear so. Well, we can certainly as counselors, I think reiterate what this is bringing to the voters and our positions on it. I think that could be helpful. So shall we start with the quick review of it and then we can kind of do a one by one quick review is there were committees that brought forward public projects. There was a recreation center that has been a longstanding request from members of our recreation and parks committee. There was a request from our bike and ped committee for more infrastructure. And so there is the potential project to have a pedestrian and cycling bridge over I 89. And there was a local business whose owner headed up a nonprofit that has been discussing having performing arts and education center. And they came forward to the council. And of course, we love these projects. And as an idea, it came down to how we were going to pay for them. And we know that currently the school board is holding a master planning and visioning in order to determine future needs and how the public could potentially meet those needs in order to keep our schools up to date. And I think that the advantage for the school board means that they would need to go to the voters and look to property taxes as a source of revenue. Because the projects that were identified, which I just listed, would benefit the region, not just South Brillington. City staff came up with the idea of adding for a temporary time, 1% to the local option tax. We have a 1% local option tax in addition to the 6% sales tax. 9%. That was a 10% on alcoholic beverages in restaurants. And rooms and meals is 9% if I remember correctly. It is. And so that was out there for public discussion. We decided that we would go forward to let it be publicly discussed. And last time that we had a meeting, there were three of us who voted to move that forward. That was after our charter review committee came forward with recommended language for that charter change. It would require a charter change. There was also the charter review committee that came forward with new language on short-term car rental tax. Currently there is, I believe it's a 9% tax that the state imposes on short-term car rental, nothing on trucks or trailers. And currently there is no tax on that. There are other communities in the northeast and throughout the country. There are 15 cities that impose short-term rental car tax. And generally a half a percent seems to be a reasonable. That was then brought before us. We decided to put it out to the public. And in the interim we had our economic development committee review that short-term rental car tax. And they came forward again with more specifics to the language, again endorsing it and giving us more reason to give the public a say. So by the majority, and it was three to one, a past three to one with one member being out of town who supported it, but she couldn't be here to vote on it. We are trying to now put this up for public debate for the public to discuss the merits of it. And to determine on our town meeting day in March whether or not there is merit to these two taxes. The short-term rental car rental tax would give us, with that half percent, would give us funds to do improvements to our highway infrastructure as well as fund emergency services. I think those were the two services that the economic development committee had identified. I forgot to say that earlier. If the public passes these two charter amendments, and it's like our constitution for how the city is organized, city government is organized, it would go on to the legislature and the legislature will probably take a while. And there is no guarantee that it would be finalized in the session, or that it would be passed, either one of those items. So another impetus was to give the legislature some time to get the ball rolling, which is why three members voted to put it out there. That's a general overview. Is that sufficient? No, that's good. Do you have things to add to it? I think the most important pieces are that this is just to put this in front of our voters to get a feel for what the folks in the city see and feel about this. But that's barely out of the batter's box. I mean, we've got a long, long ways to go before anything would occur because it's got to go to the legislature. And as we come back to the city, then we have to identify projects. Projects have to be approved. It's a long process. But if we get approval from the voters in the city, then we can go to the legislature. But the legislature, having been there for many years, is very, very reluctant to give up its taxing power to municipalities. It does not like to do that. And with the pressures on the state budget every year, it would be a very hard sell. Could it work? Sure. But it could just easily not be approved by the legislature. But we don't even know if it's worth getting there, if we can get there, until we know what the voters of the city feel. And the voters of the city, I was just reading Vince Bulldoch's survey results. The top priorities, I think appropriately, are things like affordable housing and preservation of open land. It's very, very important to the voters of the city and good roads. We should put up our tolls and get all those folks that enter the city from south of us every single day. But recreation facility is about 8th out of 10. People, 53%, I think, the people said, yeah, we love this idea. But that's not quite as important to us as some of these other things. And it's all about money, heck. If we had a bottomless pocket, we could do it all and be happy about it. So just to get an idea what the voters think. And I think that doesn't necessarily reflect all of our own views either. I mean, Tom voted against it because he doesn't think that sales... Don't we go one by one? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, you go. Okay. I just want to chime in on three things. Go ahead. Just clarifying remarks on your opening statement there, Councillor Armoury. You were referred to the committees, which I definitely agree, bikes and pegs. They came forward with the bridge across the interstate. You referred to the rec center, which, again, longstanding demand. That's why it was polled by Vince Balduke. But I don't understand, maybe the public doesn't, the Committee for the Performing Arts Center. Was it a committee or did we charge them with... No, it was a non-profit. Did we pay for the... Just to be clear, did we put money down? I thought I heard something about $6,500 at one time to do the feasibility study. Is that correct? We've supported the feasibility study financially. Okay. But it's not a committee of the council. Okay. So it was not a committee for the Performing Arts Center. Just making clear on that. All right. And then recommended language from the City Charter. Did they endorse the language? Did they say... Or did they support and endorse the notion or did they just give us language that they passed? I just want to know if the City Charter Committee brought forward the language with their endorsement. We presented a draft that Andrew did and they considered it and actually made some pretty significant changes in it. Actually in the local option part of it made very significant changes in it. The whole focus of it changed. On the rental tax, rental car tax, they endorsed the notion of a rough proportionality to impact. And that's one of the reasons it came down and then we discovered a math error came down further. Did they go so far as to say we, the City Charter Committee, support this going to the voters or did they just support the language? They didn't see that as their view. Okay. They didn't see that as their role. Okay. They said that they view themselves as a neutral arbiter of the language. Yeah, and the council asked them to go and put this together and they did not have an official comment on whether or not they thought it was a good idea. Lastly, Economic Development Committee. Do they endorse this language? They're talking right now. Okay. They endorsed the rental fee and the proportionality. They did not endorse the local option tax at this time. They felt they needed more information. Okay. In the SBBA, all the hands went up when they were asked, you know, do you think this will negatively affect your business? They said yes. Got a local option tax. Yeah, an extra 1%. I wouldn't say everybody's hand. I was kind of surprised at how few, but... It was at least, I thought it was a majority, but you know, I don't know what businesses they had, whether they were all retailers. I think the question, was the question, Tim, will this affect your business as opposed to do you think this will hurt our... I think it was interpreted as it will negatively impact your business. And so the ones who had... Who would be affected with sales tax or rooms and meals would... Yeah, there were people who had their hands up. The last thing, I don't want to drag this out. We can move this forward. I just want to make clear that the other reasons why I'm not supporting of this is just the Performing Arts Center is so new to the city discussions. It wasn't even on Vince Bolduc's poll last November. So I just want to say the Recreation Center has been in the works for, I want to say, decades now. And I think it falls within the scope of the essential services that we have been providing, that we continue to provide. And I'm just concerned with the trajectory of the Performing Arts Center. I love the arts, and I want Memorial Auditorium to be that space. As a resident of this region, I'm just very hesitant and skeptical of getting the city of South Burlington in the Performing Arts business. So that's why I can't support it. And so I don't need to rehash all of my statements. It's on my Facebook page. I stated it at last time. But I would just say all of those points still rest as to why I can't support Article 3. I do support Article 4. So in your summary, you mentioned the 3 to 1 vote. I just want to say I did vote for Article 4. I think taxing the rental car companies, 75% of which are coming out of our city. These roads don't pay for themselves. So I fully support Article 4. And if there's a sign to vote yes on Article 4, you can put it in my yard. Just one point we should make is that these projects aren't a package. It's one by one by one. A rec center doesn't mean an arts center. Doesn't mean a bridge across the interstate. They're all separate. That the public would vote on. And Tom and I, you know, share the concern about the arts center. We both love the arts, but the skating arenas were built with no city money at all. And then we gave the arenas to the city and we manage it. I say we because I've been on the board since day one. We manage it as a not-for-profit entity and have been very successful. In my mind, an arts center quite possibly should proceed with that same public-private partnership, but where the advocates find the money to build the place. And so there's, you know, but it is, it's a one by one, whatever comes up. And the ones that are in front of us now, if the examples are those that we mentioned. I just thought I'd clarify that. Tim, did you want to? I'll pipe in just a couple of things. Our annual budget for the city covers things like salaries, health care, pension, contributions to other retirement funds, expenses the city has for commodities like, you know, the wastewater treatment plants need special chemicals to pretreat things before they're discharged, right, to achieve their low phosphorus rates, one of the lowest in the state. And we have a capital improvement plan that's part of that budget that every department furnishes to us every year to look at, which says that, you know, in two years we're going to need to do a fire truck. In three years we're going to need a significant upgrade to one of the wastewater treatment plants because it hasn't done in 20 years, whatever. So that's part of the annual budget system. We have this TIF district which enables us to take part of the cost of public infrastructure and devote some of the new property tax revenue that would have gone to the state for the education fund to be dedicated to pay down the debt there. That's what will happen to part of the cost of the library. But then we have this other bag of new projects that we think would be good investments for the future of the city. So the question is, where does that money come from? Well, the choice is we could either just give it to the property taxpayers and say, we're going to increase your property taxes by X to pay for the debt for these things going out 20 years. And we occasionally do that or we occasionally put in front of the voters a bond saying we need $1.8 million to build a new radio tower and move all the antennas off the water tank and put it on a new tower and get new radios for everybody in public safety because it has to be done, right? Or we say we want to bond vote a penny for pass in order to rehabilitate and create new connections in all the past in the city so people can bike and walk and jog in places they couldn't before or do it more safely where they were doing it today, right? But this other bag of things that we would like to do such as the recreation center which has been on the docket for a long time, a long time. And there are a lot of people that really want to see an indoor place where they can have recreation and there currently isn't a pass through payment structure for it like the capital improvement plan, like the TIF district because it's out of the TIF district at this point, where are we going to get the money? The possibility of using a 1% sales tax and or a 1% rooms and meals adder gives us that ability but it comes with a lot of gateways, right? So the first gateway is does it pass the voters? So the first thing you do is you ask the voters, hey, do you want to pay an extra 1%? And here's what it will be used for. It'll be used for specific things. And by the way, you have to pass those bond issues as well. So A, we're going to ask you, do you want it? Can you suffer it? And B, will you suffer the things that are going to come that we're going to ask you to pay for it with? We also have to ask the legislature to pass it. We also have to hope the governor will sign it as well. So it's got to go committee, Senate and House and then governor. So there are a lot of hurdles. And by the way, we don't get the full percent. We get 70% of that 1% and the state gets its 30. So maybe they'll look on that favorably because they're looking to get more money. And just keep in mind that Burlington is at 10% rooms and meals now. We would be matching that. So if you go out and you have meals in Burlington versus here, you might not even notice it. So that's that question about a recreation center. If it services more than just our city and it services the whole county, because it ends up being leased out space for different programs, then here's an opportunity to share that cost among not just the people that live in the city who are going to be buying things in the city, but people that come through our city and buy things as well. So I think putting this up to the taxpayers is the best way to vet it. Now, here's my fear. March isn't always the biggest turnout of all the elections, right? The biggest turnout is like presidential elections back in November. We had a huge turnout, right? So March is usually smaller. And sometimes people that are highly biased towards getting their projects pushed through will get a lot of people to go out and vote. And so you might not see a fair representation of who comes out to vote in March. That's a fear, right? So the question is, do you get equal representation across the whole population of voters in the city to give you an honest answer whether they're willing to tolerate a 1%? You won't know that until you actually have the election, right? So that's why we're having this second public hearing. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of people in the audience, so either they don't know or I guess they don't care, which case we'll find out in March whether they would like to have the 1%. So short story is these investments in the future will keep the city economically progressive and also help us achieve a higher quality of life, I think. But each unit itself will have to be approved by the taxpayers as well. So if it's a rec center, it's going to go with the voters. They're going to have to say yay or nay. And there will be a price tag associated with it. And we'll be able to see how much the 1% if it's passed at that point will help. I just want to say everything you just said was very reasonable and I support it. I just want to add a clarifying remark. So he mentioned how rooms and meals will now be parity with Burlington. I, too, in my statement, which you can refer back to, support that as well. But what this also does, which I don't support and why I'm so against it, is it will raise the local sales tax to be the highest in the state. And it's a regressive tax and I'm going to be here for the next 25, 30 years and I don't want to spend 1% more on everything I buy in South Burlington. So that's why I'm against this. I agree to your point, Maid. I'm all for the parity with Burlington on the 10%. It makes sense. I just don't like the local sales option. And I guarantee you, if we pass this and if the state okays it, you're going to see Wilson, Colchester, and everybody else that's got 7% today, they're going to dive right in because there isn't a community out there that doesn't want or need extra money to fund important projects that they think are assets to their community. I mean, I'm not making a prediction. I just say that once they see the spigot open up, they're going to go in there. To give you my point of view to those who are here, but also those who are out there, this is going live on Facebook, is initially I was opposed to the local option tax. I was very much like my counselor colleague here to my left, Tom, very concerned that we were setting a precedent. And then I heard from a legislator that, in fact, other communities are taking the dive. We're not the only one taking the dive to go for another 1% on the local option tax. And that was something I took into consideration. The other thing I took into consideration and that led me, swayed me to put this before the public, was that I truly felt that the case was made and these were community members and committee members who came here before us and who told us how these projects would benefit, not only the local community here in South Burlington, but the region. That these sports facilities would be used regionally, and not only by children, but also by adult leaps. They told us how our recreation programs are starved for space. That the school spaces where we traditionally have gone, are more and more taken for school activities. And so they truly do not have a space, which is handicapping them. I agree with Dave, and this was also a community member, who made the point that if we were to enter into a public-private partnership with the Performing Arts Center, that there should be a hefty private investment in that. And I agree with that. Yet I do also believe that the Flynn, which is a very different space, much larger than what the Performing Arts Center that's being studied here for South Burlington is, has been an economic boon for Burlington. If you go out to see a play, you tend to go out to dinner, you tend to go, you know, at least go window shopping if not actually enter into a store and actually purchase something. So I do see it as an economic development possibility. For the Podestrian Bridge, that too seems to me to really serve a need that would also lead to more movement from, you know, a pretty big community there at UVM and downtown Burlington to our part of the woods here, but also for people who are traveling from Williston or perhaps even south in Shelburne by bike to go into Burlington. So I do see it as a really useful infrastructure project. I think that pushed me in addition to the notion that there were other people coming, other communities coming forward with an additional 1%. The other thing I think that pushed me was I really think that this is a time in South Burlington when our city center is being developed and I think that, you know, there's something to building on, you know, on what is being, you know, taken, you know, we've taken initiative on thus far and I think that there is a synergy that's happening right now and by creating more energy is something that would I think really, you know, only encourage the success of our future city center. So I think all that just kind of came together and I do believe that it is for economic development, although it will be an additional expense for families and households and for businesses. I think in the long run it will really lead to economic development here in this region and in our city and we are constantly seeking to build that tax base. I think our economic tax base has been in need of growing for a long time. I've heard fellow counselors who now are no longer sitting here but who have long stated that we need to grow our economic tax base and I also believe that it's a quality of life issue. I think it's a performing arts center and recreation. These are things that our life, our vital source in our communities and we need good roads too so I'm certainly not abandoning that and that's why the short term car rental, which if, you know, you do the math, you have a car for $30 a day, that's 15 cents per day that someone would be paying towards our highway infrastructure, which is a modest contribution, I think. That I did not hesitate but I will say that I really had to debate with myself on the local option tax and at the end of the day I felt that it was worth, you know, taking that step and seeing what the public thought about it, making the case, letting the questions, letting there be pushback, letting us really think about it. This is not something to enter into lightly and as you heard, it won't be entered into lightly. There are several hurdles and even if it does get through the legislature and it gets passed, it will only be triggered if the public votes for a project, for a bond vote on a project and then it will sunset. Question on that? Yeah. So this might go to our little counsel, Andrew Balduke, but on that exact point for Section D, the current language of Article 3 where it says the such as we talked about last time for the voter-approved capital, which shall mean voter-approved debt for the construction improvement of municipal facilities and infrastructure that are intended to encourage economic growth and quality of life in the city and region such as, and then it goes on to list the four. My question is if it's five years from now, or within the time period, three years from now, something terrible happens and we need a new sewer facility. Could we justify that? That would generate economic growth and quality of life and fold into this a project outside the scope of these four, or let's say imagine a pool of some sort. Would those types of projects possibly be justifiable or are we scoped to limited to these four? Andrew Balduke, city attorney. Yeah, I would say that'd be a question for the council at that time and council has pretty broad discretion under the way it's written under this to kind of make those determinations. And I think the voters as well, when the, when that project came forward, you know, maybe a possibility would be to include that, you know, that this, the local option tax could be expended as part of it, a couple of options, but I do think the council has pretty broad discretion. You know, that's a big thing for me. I was going to buy some, no one article three signs, but now since it might fund a pool, I'll just go a little sign on this. It might, it might. What's important is that when the ballot item for a project hits the voters, it should say on there, this triggers the beginning of the 1% sales tax and rooms and meals tax. It should say that clearly on there. And I kind of wish that, let's say that we get all the way through this process and there is a project and it does pass that when they get their receipt at the store, it says 6% state sales tax, 1% local option sales tax, 0.7% recreation building tax, you know, and the 0.3 goes to the state because of that, but you know, it's like. That can go on your sign, Tim. Huh? That can go on your yard sign. No, but you know, it's like when you, when you get your, your little receipt, you know, it just says tax. You don't know where it goes, but if specifically for a thing, it said, and thank you for the, for the 28 cents that you just contributed to, you know, the rec center. And just also the sunset, once and if it gets triggered, we would have 10 years in order for further projects to be put forward to the voters. And once that 10 year window closes, no more projects can be put before the voters and it will only say an effect until the, the bond is paid off. So it would sunset in that way. Worst case, 35 years probably, right? 30 years? 30 years. Unless there's another charter change. I probably won't be in this job in 30 years. Maybe not even. I've moved to Florida in about 24 years. No income tax. 24 years? You won't have to worry about it. Florida is moving this way. Yeah. I was going to say. Unfortunately. That's not, that's not laughable though. They used to call it the moment. All right. Other comments that counselors want to make, we're glad you're here to hear. I think that's, that's what we would hope that our community would do. We hope that there are many more like you out there in TV land. We're also going to be having a public hearing, our second public hearing on this issue in a week. And we encourage you to speak to people you know, let them know that there is another chance to weigh in on this and let them know that if they don't want to leave the comfort of their homes they can look at CCTV's Facebook page and watch us live. And of course emails and phone calls are always welcome. So there'll be one more? Yeah. That means it'll be three total? Because we had, last week we had one. It wasn't a public hearing. It wasn't a public hearing? No. We had a public hearing on something last week. Allard Square. Allard Square, okay. How can we have a public hearing next week when the ballot's going to be pretty decisionally? That's my question about tonight. Required by the state on how you, how you amend a charter is in statute. And this is the requirement. So it's somewhat superfluous next week. We've got to do it anyway. Can they be withdrawn though, still? Not after the ballots printed, which is going to be on Wednesday. This Wednesday. Well, the ballot contents being sent Wednesday. Today after tomorrow. So they receive the order and they printed this Wednesday. So the public hearing isn't on the language for the ballot. That we've decided. The public hearings are just for the public to be heard. Correct. Okay. That makes sense. All right. On the charter change. Yeah. Other comments? Anything? I've just said, do I have to get up? If you would and state your name too for the record. Karen. I work for the wind chamber restaurant group. I would say we'd be more in support of the options tax. If it was going towards something that would drive tourism. I mean, we work in. In hospitality. So something like a multi-purpose facility. We were, I know that's somewhere. I think that's number four that nobody's talked about. But that would be something that would benefit people coming into this area and paying the tax, your local community paying the tax, but getting tourists to come. We have a lot of hotels in the area with a lot of restaurants and not just getting the community to come, but getting people from the outside to come to South Burlington to stay in our hotels and our restaurants would be beneficial. The nonprofit committee that put together the proposal for the performing arts center. They also presented information and data on how many visitors would be coming into, into our city. And we will hurt with higher ground leaving. We do well with higher ground being in this community as I think you all may know that. And I don't know how much longer they're planning on staying, but certainly a facility like that would benefit South Burlington and an arena or a ballpark or something in our area would certainly benefit to drive people to South Burlington. So the options tax is a little less scary if we have tourists coming in paying for that. I think that's how we feel. Absolutely, Karen. So the rinks, as you know, drive a tremendous amount of out of town business into town. And I know over the years you've hosted lots and lots of folks who've skated. And certainly an arts center, especially if it's in the city center area, which puts it in immediate proximity to you would be superbly beneficial. And a rec facility is primarily to meet the needs of town residents that don't, we have no indoor recreation space at all. But would that bring in people from outside for one thing or another? Maybe yes, maybe no. Certainly it wouldn't hurt the cause. And then the bridge over the interstate, the idea there is to connect that part of South Burlington and Burlington and campus to this side because as you all know and we all know all too well that massive bunch of pavement between the university and about where you are is horrendous. And the students don't want to, nobody wants to navigate it. And to me that's a top priority. But then it comes down to how we're going to pay for all this stuff. And so we'll see what the rest of the folks think and because I hate taxes. On the other hand, you see the wonderful benefits that we all might derive by being able to do these things. There's just no other place to get money. You know, unless we can magically think of some and I think, I think it was you just said Megan, there are a number of other communities that are looking at the same thing and that's going to make the legislature even more reluctant to let the local communities start to have all these local option taxes because it diminishes the taxing power of the state and they don't like to do that. So it's kind of an experiment and we'll see where it goes. Helen had the opposite viewpoint. She thought it would actually make it easier for us to state our case. Others are looking for the same. Well, Helen realized she's been there, she's there a lot longer than I was and realizes the legislature does not like to give up its taxing authority. And so it depends who votes for what. So as I said, this is kind of an experiment. We'll see where we go with it and we'll have a long ways to go and you'd have a lot more input coming down, you know, along the way before anything happened. Right. And also something that you, a question led to us understanding that the language also allows us to choose if we chose to only do sales tax and not rooms and meals, for instance, depending on the project. That would be within our power also to really specifically identify which taxing mechanisms would be triggered. Just curious while you're sitting at what percentage of your windjammer business is in state? 80. I would have guessed 80. Yeah. And what percent of your rooms? 78 or less. What? 70. 70 or less because I mean the hotel and all the people staying are... So about 70% on meals. 158 rooms right behind the hotel. And the percent of rooms that's in state is negligible. Yeah, definitely. And what percentage of our rooms and meals goes back to tourism? What? Yeah. And I don't know if we can take apart rooms and meals tax. Well, we need to ask the state whether we can do anything. I hate to put a bigger tax burden on our own residents. Well, with more hotels coming up in the area in the works too, we'll need something to fill the hotels for sure. And that will help. That will help drive that extra percentage. So you've got... We're for it, we're not for it. And we'll see where we go with it because certainly an art center and immediate proximity to city center will be wonderful for your property. Yeah, right. And probably well worth the extra pay. Yeah, definitely. So let's just see where we go. That's my goal. It's really helpful. Thanks. Thank you. What's really important to me is that money that's collected like this will not be wasted. Right. There's nothing worse than wasted tax money. And the ideas behind this are good ideas. And I don't think that they're wasteful. So that's why I generally support it. But I've seen in other situations other states where the money is collected. It just doesn't go for... Your projects are worthwhile. Not here. We only do good stuff. Remember? That's right. Excuse me. The point you just raised and this is somewhat on the topic. Is that at all moving forward? One of the long term, is there any recent discussions about a new secondary road to go back by the wind jammer? The Planning Commission has discussed that the planning staff certainly there's no definitive decision right now. I think it's on the official map. I think we discussed it at that, wasn't that the Williston Road business community meeting back in December. Right. That was that. It only goes along JC Park and then ends up back near the wind jammer. Right. If what it's worth you hearing I fully support a new Centennial Field, something to revitalize that program. So an arena or space, it doesn't have to be in South Burlington. I just think Centennial Field needs a lot of tender loving care. I don't know how to make that happen. Well it doesn't matter whether you think so. The baseball club has said one more year, two more years and they're done there anyway. So let's either get figured out or they're gone. So that's pretty serious. And that would hurt. Yeah. But that too takes money and location. That's county coordination. I like Centennial. All right. I feel like I stepped back in time a hundred years ago. You don't count on that one unfortunately. It's hard to say. You're okay. I like being in an old ballpark like that. Are we going to reminisce or shall we close the military? Reminiscing is good. Let's close this out. We're back in the day. Yeah. I move that we close the public here. Second. All those in favor, please. Aye. Aye. Aye. It doesn't matter. I don't know. I'm just trying to be consistent. So did you say nay? I will vote yes to close the public. All right. That's good. Very good. You're a man of contradictions, John. I'm trying. All right. Number six, comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. All right. We'll move on to number seven, which is our consent agenda. And we had a few disbursements, but someone liked to make a motion to have them approved. All those in favor? Aye. Very good. And finally, number eight, consider and possibly ratify a collective bargaining agreement between the city of South Burlington and the South Burlington Firefighters Association. We had an executive session earlier tonight in order to discuss the contract and we have all seen it and been able to ask questions because of their delicate nature we did behind closed doors. Are we prepared to vote on this? You have specific language? We were sent the specific language by Andrew. Oh, but for the motion you mean? Do we have specific language? I move to approve the contract as presented. Seconded. Any need for discussion? Okay. All those in favor? Please say aye. Aye. I believe that was unanimous. Thank you very much. Now item number nine, we have other business. And I just had one item. Alex McHenry, resident also a school board member, but as a resident came forward last fall asking us to consider putting before the voters a referendum item. Did we call it a referendum? It was non-binding. Non-binding referendum item to encourage the legislature to increase the age for purchasing tobacco products and vape products. And this has been passed in Burlington and he was hoping that we could, along with Burlington, put some more pressure, especially on local senators to have this age be changed. And we just heard from Kevin tonight that the ballots are going to be sent out on Wednesday, so I don't even know. I thought we approved doing this in an earlier meeting when Helen was here because she had the language and everything. And we voted on it. It didn't get into the hopper for Donna in time. Is that what happened? If it got voted. My remembrance was from Helen. You guys are probably right, but my remembrance was that he didn't. So we need a vote on it? We need a motion and then a vote? Well, Tom's saying we did vote on it. I recall voting on it. I do too. I was in the press since it was on the March ballot. Yeah. We approved the language. Because it wasn't in time for November. We voted on it a second time. And what's the difference? Do we have time to get it on the March ballot? Andrew, can we borrow you for a minute? About it? Yeah. Yeah. Is there time to get specific language related to smoking age on the ballot? I don't believe so for one reason. The warning has already been sent to the other paper for publishing for this Thursday. So that would be the only, that's actually our charter that requires it between 40 and 30 days. So that may be the one hurdle that we'd have on it. You're sure it's maybe? That would, I mean, there'd be no other time to get it in within that time. So you're sure we can't do this? Right. Well, I'll go back and look at that. And if I've made a mistake and let that drop, that's on me. But I will find out and get an email out to you guys right away. So the next possible one is August? Is there an August prime? There's no primary August. Nothing until the next one. Yeah. Unless there's a special election. And there's no November election either? No. There's nothing. One election a year. Darn it. One this year. I know you want more than that. Because you like staying up till 3 in the morning. Yeah, unless the budget does. That's true. When is our legislative breakfast? We haven't said it yet. But that is upcoming. And that would be a moment for us to advocate for something we voted for in chambers. And reaching out specifically to senators. I think that this is not an issue in the House as much as it is in the Senate. I see what you're saying. We've done formal letters like that before. If we as a city council unanimously vote to send a letter to our legislative body. Why don't we do that? Let's do that. Let's do that. Well, are they considering that? Is there a bill in front of the? I think there has been in the past. And it has stalled in the Senate. If I recall correctly. Right. Right. We have a request that there be a bill introduced as well. And we do have one senator from South Burlington. Yeah. Who sent me an email last week and said, let me know what I can do. So what the heck? Right. So should we pass as a city council. Something to this effect. We'd have to do it at our next meeting. We couldn't do it tonight, but I'd be open to that idea. Why can't we do it tonight? Because it's not warned. I'd like this to be in the form of a resolution. Yeah. I think there already is one. That's stronger. I think we already voted. I think we already, yeah. I mean. If we already voted, we could, we could have the letter. Right. We could give, you know, that authority to Kevin to draft something. I think that the movement, it would be disappointed because the voters didn't get a chance to weigh in and show how much they support, you know, raising. Well, I know what they would, how they would vote, but I'd probably be pretty similar to Burlington's voting. Burlington, you know, supported it. I mean, the state's going to go ahead and tax vaping products pretty soon here. Right. That's in their crosshairs right now. Pretty heavily. Yeah. Yeah. Recognizing that it's just another vehicle for nicotine delivery. So. Right. And higher than cigarettes. It's pretty. Oh yeah. Yeah. I mean, this thing from Alex McHenry where he says, Pat Birx said, I'd like to strangle the person who invented vaping. I can tell Pat's pretty frustrated by this situation. It must be causing a real challenge in the school. Kevin, do you need more directive to pull out together a resolution for us? Is that a draft you want us to come up with? I'll look and find out what was available before. I'll find out when the vote was, what was available before. If it is a resolution, if not, I can work with, find a way to work with somebody to draw something together and send it out to you and then present it to you on the fourth. And then you can. I'm sorry to respond to this guy, Alex McHenry, and tell him unfortunately. I can. Oh. I'll say right now, if Alex is watching, I'm sorry, it's not on the ballot. I recall us all supporting it, and we do something to correct it, but just know that my apologies, if I dropped the ball. How about our apologies? We all feel the same way. It's unfortunate that we couldn't get it on the ballot, but we got to do what's illegal, and we'll make every effort to let the legislature know our intent and get legislation passed that would do just what you suggested. I'll take it. I mean, as well. Helen was the one that brought it up at the meeting, back in October or whatever it was. Helen did. Because Alex had contacted her correctly, so. With the excitement to get out of here before eight, I moved to adjourn. We're not done with other business, are we? Madam Chair, are we? I think so. I was only that item. So I was just finding it here. Hold on. I would just like to shout out to the DPW and thank you to the crew on Sunday that did some throw-and-go filling of potholes on Dorset Street and probably Spear as well. They did. In the middle of a white-out snowstorm. So we appreciate that. There have been reports of damage from the moon crater that's next to John Wilkins' house on Dorset, and several people have hit that, including myself. I want to say, on that point, I heard a resident made a comment on Friday morning about craters on Spear Street, and then within two hours, DPW was out there filling the potholes. So I know they're working hard, and thank you guys very much for everything you're doing out there. Exactly. And just on an interesting note, before we run out of here, I took a class to Green Mountain Power last Wednesday evening on a field trip. And students were talking with Green Mountain Power about the impacts of weather and weather changes on the power company and their responsibilities. And they said, it's not our imagination. These cyclical warm, you know, it rains, then it freezes solid, then it cracks the pavement, or brings down power poles. Wind events are five, four times what they were several years ago. And since this is all real, and I think at some point, we probably have to, probably all communities are trying to figure out, as a public works department, how they deal with these increasing cycles because it's wreaking havoc on our roads statewide, and it's much worse than it ever was before and it's not likely to go away, according to the folks at Green Mountain Power who studied the weather long term. So, you know, what folks are experiencing is definitely pain, and somehow we're going to have to, over a pretty short period of time, figure out how to manage that because we can't control the weather. It was very interesting. I mean, you think last week we had the heavy rain, froze solid, and all that does is give us more potholes. I wonder if there is new technology, new, some new material that can be engineered. I don't know. I'm sure there will be snow as it comes down, and then we won't have that. Oh, you want to look up instead of down? That's interesting. We did pass it September 4th, by the way. September 4th, thank you. To be on the March Band. Oops. So that's our, we share that. We share that, Kevin. Move to adjourn. Aye. Aye. Thanks. Thanks for two good meetings. My pleasure. You'll have.