 work to But also present a number of Really interesting environmental factors to the work that you do so we're incredibly appreciative of the way you do it And that's that's certainly not been something that's come up during those conversations So if I if I could before we get too too far into the conversation I just want to make sure I get a few points out there On the Vermont criminal justice training council website they posted a message And I just think it's important to before we start our conversation to really grasp what it says So it says this fair and impartial policing policy was approved by the council at its regular meeting on December 7th of 2017 and Replaces all of the versions of this policy agencies are required by March 1st of 2018 to adopt every provision in this policy verbatim Agencies are free to add further language as long as it doesn't contradict any provision of this policy Agencies wishing to retain language in their current policy must submit that policy to the council and have it evaluated evaluated by the attorney general's office For a determination regarding its compliance with the provisions of this policy and then also in the actual statue To encourage consistent fair and impartial policing practices statewide. This is Skip ahead. So this is title 20 section 2366 subsection B To encourage consistent fair and impartial policing practices statewide the criminal justice training council in Consultation with the attorney general shall review the policies of law enforcement agencies and constables required to adopt a policy Pursuant to subsection A of this section to ensure those policies established each component of the model policy on or before April 15th 2018 If the council finds that a policy does not meet each component of the model policy It shall work with the law enforcement agency or constable to bring the policy into compliance If after consultation with its attorney or with the council or with both The law enforcement agency or constable fails to adopt a policy that meets each component of the model policy That agency or constable shall be deemed to have adopted and shall follow and enforce the model policy issued by the council Annually as part of their training report to the council every state county and municipal law enforcement agency and every constable who exercises law enforcement Authority pursuant to 24 vsa 1936 a and who is in trained in compliance with section 2358 of this title Shall report to the council whether the agency or officer has adopted a fair and impartial policing policy in accordance with subsections AB The criminal justice training council shall determine as part of the council's annual certification of training requirements Whether current officers have received training on fair and impartial policing has required under title 20 vsa 2358 And then it says the last section annually on April 1st The criminal justice training council shall report to the House and Senate committees on judiciary Regarding which departments and officers have adopted a fair and impartial policing policy And whether officers have received training on fair and impartial policing So I think those are just some some Important points for us operationally making sure that we're in compliance with the state statute And I'm welcome to open up the conversation Great. Thank you Yeah, that gives a little context as to where the impetus from this has come from Where it's going, um, okay, so Last it came up, um, all different items And one particular clause individually. So, um, when we left the last meeting, um, we had kind of talked about, um, as Lee is on to, uh, the Public safety area, um, and somebody who's sort of worked quite a bit with, um, chief and Jesse on this too Um, Eric was going to kind of work at some potential language, um, conversations in regards to Some concerns you expressed an interest in bringing forward some potential ideas around, um, Coming to a policy, I mean, so, you know, just before we go into that, let's let's be really clear that when We're getting to this level of conversation Uh, it's really a conversation about, uh, the council's interest in passing a policy that reflects the values of the community That's something, uh, thread that's consistently come up throughout this. I want to be really clear that operationally Um, we have nothing but evidence that, um, states that we are already policing in a manner that's very consistent with the, um, with the approach and I think the philosophy that's been explicitly expressed by Muskie Which is being a very welcoming community and a community that stands behind all of our residents regardless of their, um, Their background, their status, immigration status, um, and how they came to become a member of this community So, um, let's be really quick to bifurcate those two conversations is from an operational standpoint We're not really having a conversation. This is really about, uh, policy, um, that we've been asked to pass That has some language in it that perhaps not everybody agrees with, um, that we're going to discuss this evening Um, so with that, I kind of want to quickly turn it around just because we've done a lot of prep work on this conversation That councils or anything else from staff perspective want to come up So I want to turn this over pretty quickly to council to open up conversation about, um, kind of where we're at With specific points in the policy and see if there's Any proposals that folks want to make the change with the understanding of the potential ramifications of making any of those changes So I'll open up the floor council Yeah, I think with that you hit on some really important points that, um You know, we've talked a lot in this council about our values in regards to the diversity of our community Um, and I feel really proud to live in a community Um, that doesn't just break that but lifts it as a community asset I mean we have a lot of neighbors that come from many different walks of life And I feel like our fifth policy Is really where the rubber meets the road on how we are actually enshrining those values that we pay lip service to In the way city of wunewski Excuse me services are available to members of our community And I think one of the things it's important to know As we're discussing the model policy That is before us Is that there are a lot of elements That are absolutely a really important step in the right direction of ensuring that we're conducting policing in a non-biased way And that individuals in our community can feel comfortable accessing wunewski police department Resources and having contact with employees of the wunewski police department without fear That we are going to be participating in the enforcement of federal civil immigration law But I think it's really important to note in looking at the legislative intent for The state pulling together a model policy is that the model policy is really Intended to be a floor rather than a ceiling and I think like mentioned Rick mentioned um a lot of the language in statue Requires that as a municipality we shall adopt a fair and impartial policing policy that includes a minimum At a minimum the elements of the criminal justice training council model policy I think within that there are About five areas of significant concern that leave some pretty significant loopholes in potential issues or problems That due to those loopholes Don't set out clear guidance for wunewski police department Employee interaction with federal immigration enforcement authorities I've put together an email you should see you should have got an email from the city clerk with section Within an attachment to this section of our agenda tonight That kind of outlines those five areas that i'm sure we will talk about i'm happy to kind of walk through What some of those areas of concern are And I think in addition to those it's really important that as a community and as the most diverse community in romamp We draw like we've talked about in prior council meetings a really bright clear red line between federal civil immigration law and our functions in carrying out public safety Through the way policing is done in wunewski I think that there's a tremendous public safety benefit to all community members And I also think it's really important to keep in mind that the enforcement of federal civil immigration law Wunewski police department members don't have the authority to enforce So I think you'll see in the information that I that was passed along to you prior Those five areas of concern that we can talk through in addition to my recommendation that We draw that really bright red line and say our the members of our wunewski police department Will not participate in or assist With the investigation or enforcement of federal civil immigration law And those recommendations in that language is also available to members of the public So it's been posted in the public folder on the website, but for folks who aren't like us and sitting up here with laptops I do have a printouts of that, but I'm happy to you can do it on your phone. You can find on your phone This is going to be a safe place for people to live and it's going to be a place where people can come To their municipality for services across the board, whether it be at the parks window or the police department Or a parks and recreation program with an expectation that The service will be provided to each member of this community regardless of their immigration status and it's just not something that We we think about when we provide those services So just from a bills off the perspective I think we can argue about the details from the values perspective that's been really consistent from this body want to open up And I want to make that point because I think there can be disagreement about the process pieces and the specific points So there can still that that can still be a valid value of the community that's being represented So with that kind of I think it's probably pretty important that we open up And Eric if you want to walk through just kind of quickly and very quickly in these terms with the points are In case there's any specific Yeah, so if you see starting on page two of what got sent around to you, that's where we start to outline the five sections first before we get into some of those sections is where we discuss that right by the line between Um either the investigation enforcement of federal civil immigration law and policing so the proposal is to strike you'll see throughout the policy itself um, it's you know savings clause references the federal statue 1373 and 1644 those govern essentially those provisions and federal statutes say that more states must share information related to immigration Or immigration with federal immigration enforcement authorities There's Oh, there's a lot of thought at a national level In regards to whether or not 1373 in of itself Is constitutional it has not been enforced by any administration prior to the administration But there are some currently some mounting constitutional challenges to certain portions of section 1373 But after closing we draw that clear right red line and say now we will not be assisting or participating in immigration enforcement By striking those savings clause references because if you read the actual policy essentially the earliest section that says when you speak to this department And for you don't communicate information to federal immigration authorities except under the provisions of section 1373 so I'm saying we strike that and You know creates that right red line and says you won't communicate that that information to federal immigration authorities If you move down section eight at the D there are some concerns in this section Because immigration was not included alongside personal characteristics For reasons by which a women's police department employee Would determine whether or not to cite release somebody or hold them in custody And I think from an IU standpoint immigration status should not all be used as criteria for whether or not we release somebody or Decide to obtain them or seek additional detainment Or additional you know seek to hold them in custody longer that should be on The issue of the criminal violation that you might be interacting with that individual for So I think that that's pretty self-explanatory In section nine There are some concerns around this section because the enforcement of federal civil immigration violation Music police department employees do not have the authority to enforce Being in the country unlawfully is a civil violation however Crossing the border unlawfully For some individuals may be a federal criminal violation, which means to please the permanent employees do have the authority to enforce however The way the section is written there it creates as such an environment by which Pretext to be used in some pretty significant ways To detain somebody who may have thought To have crossed the border and really have been at the end of the day It's not relevant to the public safety responsibility of When it was the police department employees. So the findings that I propose create closes kind of that problematic loophole and makes it pretty clear that unless the suspect is actually apprehended in that process of crossing a border unlawfully Subsection 10 subsection D There are some concerns here in regards to information being shared about victims and witnesses of crime and I think that that's absolutely Something we should not give any grounds on somebody is a victim or a witness of crime. They should feel As comfortable as possible to operating with the investigation or being able to give Their information to our Winooski police department employees without fear that We are going to transmit that information to federal immigration control authorities Um, so the language in this section was a little bit weak and doesn't really provide that assurance Section 11 subsection a There were some concern here because There may be circumstances where it is appropriate for You know a host of reasons for Winooski police department employees to Have some level of cooperation with federal immigration enforcement authorities However, the language that was included in the model policy Creates exceptions for the ability to cooperate or share information with those authorities That are so broad essentially they could be any even a number of inappropriate Reasons could be used to share information with immigration control authorities based on What those carve outs were in the proposed policy? So the language I've provided just tightens that up and makes it really clear that Unless it's necessary to the ongoing investigation of a felony. So let's say for instance If there was an investigation related to human trafficking That is an area where ice for instance might need some information or being involved in that investigation and it would be Appropriate to have that level of collaboration and information sharing Those types of situations would have would rise to a criminal felony level And so this still allows us to have that carve out so that we can be nimble and respond in those extreme and important circumstances And then the last section is really self-explanatory and really easy In the model policy, it sets really clear provisions that Winooski police department employees will not propose Granting access to individuals we have in our custody to immigration enforcement authorities However, that creates a pretty substantial loophole where if the reverse is true where in immigration enforcement Authority seems that we have somebody in our custody through, you know, federal database systems Or for whatever reason if they just happen to have that knowledge on their own They could still call and request access and there's nothing barring that access from being granted So it's a really simple language change that just changes from proposing granting access to granting access Which I think much better encapsulates what the intent of that section is which is saying that We are not going to utilize city of Winooski resources When we have somebody in our custody to be able to grant access to those individuals who are in our custody to immigration enforcement authorities So that about that wraps up those sections. I'm happy to take any questions So you guys have had sort of a limited amount of time to look at those and In no way should I perform I'm asking for any kind of legal analysis because that's a Long rabbit hole and we'll try to make the question To make it so it can be a very simple answer too and that Is there anything from these I've stated time and again, you can operate with any policy From a perspective Right now Who would potentially put JAG funds? the Department of Justice funding for Special initiatives in a lot of cases and equipment Most recently about $10,000 for the city of Winooski So Moving forward outside that policy Could put those at risk. I want to point out that there's a lot of different There's a lot of different conversations going on as in regards to what potential Hypothetical repercussions could or could not come from any specific action related to this policy or anything to do with really any of this And that's a maddening place to be but it's where we are So I want to acknowledge that Those that would put us there So I want to open it up for comments questions concerns Or together some thoughts share them with everybody And a proposal and this is the time where we need to have a conversation about whether or not Folks are open to string from the proposed model policy I'm sure we we make that decision and then take any specifics In regards to the proposal that's here available And given the turnout I'm guessing I'm guessing that everybody's not here for the National Recreation Parks Association grant application No offense, right? We'll also because of the item give folks a chance to speak I'm gonna ask that everybody try to keep their comments if possible two minutes or less and after council has a chance to Discuss this briefly. We'll come back to that. So just want folks to know there will be an opportunity For public comment ahead Okay So with that I turn back towards council. I think the first question is You know, number one Is the body comfortable with the string from the model policy that's present to us Can I ask a preliminary question? Are we sure that it's just a $10,000 gag? One of the seven hanging in a balance at this stage So I that has not been tested yet. So we don't know those are that's our understanding What we know is the the prohibition if Call into question would be specifically around funds to public safety. So that's a jack grant we have From a process perspective, I do think it's important to call out two other things that we would ask you If you consider string from this policy to think about in the next months and years one is Is the appropriation of funds for those In place of those jack funds that could be used from another pot of money to Protect our officer's safety. So that's what would use those funds for report. We have funds. We could pull from to fund that Two is we are unclear what our legal obligation would be in the future So it's an acknowledgement that there is a potential unfunded requirement there And then three is our relationship with our federal partners. We partner with federal agencies I wouldn't say extensively but periodically in the interest of protecting the public safety So thinking about how we Partner with the individuals who are working with not necessarily the agencies but the individual law enforcement officers Who are hearing from on at the federal level how we best partner with them and make them still feel a part of our public safety team So those are operationally from a process perspective as the mayor and eric and the chief have said Value-wise, I think where I'm not stuck. It's really how we implement A change to ensure that we can continue to maintain the public safety And we have some unnoticed this partner and to that point. I think the discussion was had last week in that Um, and I'll stand strong behind this. I think investing a lot of money in legal review That's proposed or otherwise unless something really just looks way off Is not a good use of resources I think there's what we're aware of is the potential from an interpretation of an interpretation of interpretation that jack funds are the only exposed funds I think the reality is if there was any other news to that effect Then you're sitting down and having a competition about this Again, that's that's the reality of it. Um, but I think trying to Substantiate standing one way or another On an interpretation of federal law Is overly onerous for us. And I think that there's a decision to deviate from that policy I think there just needs to be acknowledgement on this party's behalf if that's a risk that's being taken And to Jesse's point that there needs to be a reaction should there be some kind of extensive response or action on behalf of us I think it's interesting to note to that to date no municipalities have had their jack funding even taken away Um, so I think and within that thing there's no predicting what the current administration might throw down the pipe works But by adopting a policy that we feel strongly about we're also not saying, you know, there's a military hypotheticals We could run through it as well If any of those hypotheticals were to ever actualize in the future We have the opportunity to open a discussion back up and have that as a group Mayor that's that's partially correct But I will tell you that the four years that I've been applying for Jack grant funds if they were rewarded by september and the application's been in process since july and To my knowledge no money has been released to remand and it won't be until policies have been provided to the department of justice Okay And it's a it's a four-year running cycle from a funding perspective. It's every year every single year So this is the fourth application. I've never had it not approved within 20 days This was the one and only year and I spoke with director got here and he advised It was in direct relation to the letter that the department of justice sent to The department of public safety with their concerns about the current fair and partial policing policy So none of the Vermont money has been released Well, uh, yeah, and I think the secretary I turn journals reaction and also So normally if it was just like implementing the motorcycle things like that I'd be happy to wait this particular year I wanted to put me to keep officers safe one of the things The majority about 65 percent of the money was to buy ceramic rifle plates for the officers Vests that they can wear that keeps them safe from rifle rounds And that was built into the 10,000 great other carriers for those plates and then the plates themselves. Okay So something tells me they will be great at this on this body's behalf to ensure that that's covered through another means Um, and we'd probably recommend that we talk about earmark and portion of fund balance for that purpose Should this conversation I had a comments question for Sharon and thoughts on doing the policy He were um, you said that uh, any deviations from the model of policies that's passed together to the agency's office for review Yes And then what? So are they accountable to the federal defense in terms of how they were viewing the policy Is it are they solely looking through state law filters? So that's one question I have and the other question is Are the JAG funds the only Funds So the answer to your first question is the attorney general's office is supposed to work with municipalities to ensure compliance If we just cannot reach a point where we provide a policy to them that they're happy with and they say that it's compliant They will forward that along to the Department of Justice for them to review We're just finishing up a COPS grant, which was a substantial grant For three years. We're in our retention year now So we're not technically spending federal dollars anymore. That was a substantial grant of 250 with our match with our match 250,000 We allowed to it allowed us to increase our police force by one And that the source of that not just blanket was Department of Justice or was just federal Um, oh jakey, uh, it's the justice programs. Okay So i'm just i'm interested in the link between the attorney general's office their obligations to the federal government And their obligations to the force for month loss and there's there's multiple layers to this issue that i'm not Sure, i will be understand in terms of what happens Next it's complicated but my my understanding from multiple conversations of director got here is is that The attorney's general general's office was specifically Sighted in the statute to review policies So they will review and their job is to try and ensure compliance for vermont vermont law or vermont and federal law vermont municipalities I understand but is the attorney general's responsibility to also review those policies in life i mean vermont law references federal law Yes, it's for federal law possible. What could be conceived as violations of federal law, right? So not legal advice But my understanding is that the attorney general's office is responsible for reviewing and ensuring compliance with With state statute, which says that of a lot of Model code use of policy for law enforcement agencies and concepts to adopt as a part of the agency or possible to unfairly partial policing policy Some of that lines are earlier. My understanding is that they have to review any policy We submit to ensure that it at least has those minimum Minimal elements and those minimum protections that are contained within the model of policy Right and they're also I don't think it says though in statute that they're responsible for ensuring that each municipalities model the policy is compliant with federal law only that the model policy is compliant with federal law and that Each municipality must have a policy that at least meets the minimum essential elements So it's collective bargaining like the the idea is they're trying to go forward Something that if a smaller community especially adopts then they have substantial sense that they're covered and won't have an issue If you go if you go off Um, then you I'm sure they'll kind of be like you're you're on your own That's then you're not involved in effective collective bargaining any longer. You do not have that representation I don't know that they I mean I haven't seen that spell now But that would be my assumption is the attorney general's office is going to go back for the model policy Do something else on your own and don't substantiate to them that it's in compliance You're probably too I know that in other agencies that receive federal funds, they have oversight function That is basically for your federal function within the state I don't know anything about the firm of justice and attorney general's offices and the Responsibilities that go back and forth, but I I'm I need I'm interested in receiving more information about The implications of this beyond Jack funds. Well, I think that that's part of the next step So let's say we pass a policy request to submit that policy to the training council the attorney general's office for review And then if the attorney general's office takes a major and substantive issue with the policy, then that's a discussion They begin to have with us But if there's not like a lever or if They determine we don't we don't like the policy and some switches flapped in you know, when you speak separates off I just want to really think that what we're doing is knowingly violating federal law and what we're saying is We don't need a legal review. What some have said is we don't need a legal review We know what every profession is. I'm not sure we do know what three professions are um I have um Any other municipalities? Well, I guess where did the language come from? And how other municipalities considering this language that you know in terms of Attorneys that have developed it. Is this being promoted in other municipalities? So I don't know the answer to the second question in other municipalities I know that this is language that's been discussed through Some of the groups that have that were a part of the process to create the model policy that were cited in statute as The room whereas being brought in a consultation for the policy and that language has been reviewed by The ACLU as well as that we're going to be for resource center and attorneys at both of those organizations And so that was language that was kind of arrived at through those groups that were referenced in statute as being a part of the process by which to create this little policy and I think I've heard from members of the legislature as well Frustration around the policy that emerges in all of policy not being a consensus policy that Cudes language that addresses these concerns that were brought forward by those groups specifically named in statute But part of the Barrier to consensus was a need to include the savings clauses, which the department of justice told The attorney general's office That we need to have in the policy Consensus wasn't was it preached because that's So I guess my my point is I'm not sure attorneys that Work through some of the implications around this if I have I'd love to know more about that it it feels From a process standpoint Like not in good process to take language and not have a legal view Understand that there's a lot of complexity with respect to this the state has spoken offensive spoken and knowingly violating federal law Irrespective of our views on how federal law is being implemented at the moment It needs to be I think really thoroughly vetted and use the timing of this is a challenge Now we're under a lot of pressure to pass this When we've got a deadline of March 1st, so That's how I'm feeling Well, I don't think there's any any progress on the The request to delay the implementation date that I'm aware of So I spoke with director got here on Friday. He said that he was told that the letter had been mailed to him He had of course he's trying to get an opinion From his from the lawyers that represent the training council on a document. They're not reading and holding So it was pretty impossible for them to give an opinion He didn't feel that even if they asked for an extension that unless the statute itself was changed with the due date for the final document that his lawyer would would ever sign off on agreeing to that request Although there are components of this discussion that have come up really rapidly At the same time this is a discussion from a community values perspective that began here Well before I was even on the council And I think it's just kind of for us We personally this time for us to stand up and take back to your community position and say We're drawing that red line between having police and winners We did have this discussion around sanctuary cities and I think one of the big issues that came up that we Grappled with was are there going to be unintended consequences of essentially taking a cortical Stand and one of the concerns um at the time and that I continue to have is by um Knowingly violating federal law are we Inviting increased federal intervention in our community now it doesn't make people safer I mean, I think that that is a valid concern. I don't think that The policy and these recommended changes to the policy is an out taking of political stand I think it's about operationally how we carry out the functions of policing here in wintersky But I appreciate that concern. I agree with it. I don't think that that's something we're seeing actualized And I think if we're looking at priorities of immigration enforcement nationally Is areas that that the organizations for students for that enforcement would likely consider a lot more target rich If they're also having that political disagreement with like San Francisco and Philadelphia I would not envision when you ski pink high up on the target list The small community we have here But that's not the same When we spoke about this earlier You would reference San Francisco and Philadelphia, but you also said that they have not gone as far as this proposal Which would be to eliminate references to the savings clause There are sections that don't do not have the savings costs from what I would have to go back and read But I believe that Philadelphia's for instance doesn't have a savings clause around communicating information for victims and witnesses This recommendation that you're presenting would strike all references to savings clauses throughout the policy So I'm not sure they might love you there might be smaller municipalities as well You know, I feel the difference in a lot of the arguments that Places like Philadelphia or San Francisco are making are saying that their policies They're walking that tightrope of saying their policies are a fact compliant with federal law Which would differentiate The decision that we might make here as a body smaller municipalities, but also wouldn't do as much as so we likely might not know about them We might go farther than those. It might not be trying to walk that tightrope They might be saying no, we're not going to create a law that we think expresses, you know, that Meets an interpretation of how federal laws being carried out. Whereas, you know, Burlington Philadelphia, San Francisco have a different perspective by which they're coming to that discussion That's a resource allocation decision. I think there's there's there's not an interest on anybody's behalf in not having attorneys to look at things you know, if it were a If it were a resource that didn't have a cap we have attorneys looking at everything all day and make sure that we were Absolutely crossing our eyes and construct the best argument from a legal perspective that we possibly Those other cities have taken those resources invested them and taken their stand Using those legal arguments. I my perception when I say it's not reasonable for us to undertake a large A legal unearthing and argument development in this case in places I think there just needs to be acknowledgement of what we're doing and call out what it is And if we do that we need to understand the risk repercussions of that and we need to understand what subsequent actions we might have to take Because I don't think it's reasonable for us to ask our resources staff or our legal budget to Take the time to construct What is a very complex legal argument with No real clear boundaries right now and no clear rails. So It again, I understand that that can be perceived as even reckless In some measure, I think it's acknowledging the fact that if we're going on this path, let's say what it is And I understand that we're not going to construct that that complex legal argument to say Oh, we actually think that we are full compliance. I think the advice we're receiving is if we take the steps that we Very likely will be found out to be Right, and what I I guess my point is not to have an attorney Advises on a complicated legal argument, but it buys us on the risk Well, we submit to be trying to get another one to advise us I think that's one of the things you know, we're not saying we're going to pass this policy And then it gets put under some block where it can never be reopened again And if there is a trigger where one of those hypothetical crazy situations Yeah, I would just say from a from a value standpoint I think we should put our best foot forward on the policy that we think represents our community And I think that if it was Eric does that, I Expect there to be some difficult conversations if that's the way we move forward and I'm totally appreciating your points there But I think we will get some legal advice. Like I said, we would submit What are we submitting to the attorney general That will open up some we'll give us some clarity on What happens next? So and and I really appreciate Eric you saying that this isn't Showed in a lock box and never touched again Last last week or two weeks ago when we were in the original discussion, I had some real concerns around process for all this stuff And you know what to keep coming back to over the past couple weeks thinking about this is that We will have an opportunity to have some discussion around it. This isn't just a spigot that gets turned off and all of a sudden everything is shut down I mean that may happen still everything A certain number of spigots shut off to us, but But I think we can have communication and conversation around this As those issues arise, I think I'm not just saying that because I'm not going to be sitting there for a couple of weeks I'm sure But as a community member, I really appreciate that, you know, this is a policy that in my opinion Helps our police department make the best decision for For the people in our community, you know, I look at this a lot from the perspective of Um, what if I am a witness with a questionable integration status? How how are people interacting with me? If I can I'm that person and I can have the police department telling me that we have policies in place to just so you know that we will not Be communicating this information. We're in connection to federal agency that makes me more open to speaking to our world Um, I think this is the right move We never pretend to be a lawyer and know that all this is fully vetted We hope that there is some peace. I'm sure we'll get plenty of feedback. Um, but that we Just have some thoughtful conversations around that at a certain point There we need to be some legal advice that we pay for And then I'm going to switch, I don't know, isn't the conversation from them, but at a certain point, you know, they kind of would think have to happen. So People sitting up here are going to have to make that decision too. Um That being said, I do want to make sure too that we find a way to Support those safety leaders that the chief's department was, you know, relying on It's not a huge left. I don't think, I mean every every dollar is huge, right? Like that by the process we went through was What seemed like pens. So $10,000 is not insignificant, but in the broad scope of things it's it's it's pretty minor But you know that has been provided a major asset to the department to have this as the actual safety measures So, uh, what hope is that conversation will be happening simultaneously and how to how to find that? I don't need to make up for that So that is necessarily if that Is taken Um, so I open up for public comment now, um If it's not an inconvenience for you, we would appreciate Mike, especially would appreciate If you could come up just kind of Up to the front here if that's not onerous for you from a physical standpoint, please feel free to speak from your seat We do ask that you please just identify yourself by name. We would appreciate that And if Folks want to raise their hand i'll call them up and like I said, let me keep public comment just because they're crowd-sized today We do have more of an agenda to about two minutes So I appreciate you being respectful of that. I'm just going to do this for a few seconds and everybody's We'll keep that even a little flexible. So, um, with that, uh, we'll entertain public comment And just want to remind folks too we always do in the um situations where we have a crowd that when you address, um, This body that's what you're doing is you're talking to the city council Um, so not to the other people in crowds. We're going to end up with conversations going back and forth. They're an awesome Huffing lot out there and it's not too cool Okay, and so with that we'll open it up. Yes, ma'am Myself, so Great, um, so, uh I'm But I am here because I'm part of the sponsors for activity for which was part of very partial And so in that of really intent was to support and encourage local municipalities to have police and policies that protected all citizens that across the month have very inconsistent Police interactions And at the state level really meaning to have a uniform policy Floor a policy that these companies could adopt That means college we're not coming up with that on their own So that was the intent of it And in the process of it some of the previous very impartial policing model Key points were lost and so a lot of that was around immigration status and perceived And during conversations I was part of around with the training council around how they got to the policy that they got to Part of what they shared was that it was actually a trained capacity issue that they were having A difficulty of not possibly of finding trainers who are willing to train on the issue of immigration immigration status and so the mystical level You all have done above and beyond police training With the state required and have the ability and have already done that additional training And already been able to provide officers with the skills that they need and so I wanted to put that perspective as well That it was I had a lot to do with training Which is the municipality of Lordy Mall And dressed So that's my time and thank you all so much for taking up this issue and thank you for your service Thank you. Thanks for your service Yes ma'am My name is Kim Jordan and I am a board member of the ACLU of Vermont And the national board representative from the Montreal ACLU for And months ago April I met you cheese and Hello, Jesse. I think it was maybe one of your first weeks on the job about the ACLU's model city policy that was put forth on a national level in response to Trump's proposed immigration laws into the partition plan And it was looked at sort of a safety measure that Regardless of what various states institute of a fair and partial police although that wasn't the reason that they use various cities could adopt particular measures and When you see has again just to the language above and beyond what was recommended So I have here A copy of the document that we explored when we met months ago I just want to bring up a note about federal law um from the ACLU And the statement is the trump administration has asserted falsely that localities do not help advance The deportation agenda. They're violating federal law. So the following rule would be applicable The only applicable federal law in this area, which would help ensure our city establishes its clear intent not to violate federal law So there's particular phrasing that is when you see so chose and adopting these policy could add Specific phrasing that there is not intent to violate federal law and there's particular language here that i'm happy to share with you um It's the 1373 rule. So we all know that one There are all these acronyms under eight usc sub paragraph 13 73 la la la essentially federal law prohibits um, the when you see When you see officials from imposing limits on maintaining exchanging sending or receiving information Regarding citizenship and immigration status with any federal state or local government entity Nothing in when you see policies is intended to violate this sub paragraph in sub order. So I just want to offer that there is um proposed language vetted by ACLU Legal staff that might be Relevant here if you want to say that there's no intent to violate federal law Thank you. Thank you very much Yes sir My name is uh, pain morgan and i'm a resident here in monoski um And there's usually not many issues outside My day job, which is a project developer for a solar company that gets me into town hall meetings because I spend enough time with them I'm at the other side of the table, which is great. That's fun And what comes up a lot in those conversations is always, uh, not my backyard kind of we don't want to see this here um, and You know always there's valid arguments in those types of feelings and I feel like With an issue like this when it's something that is tangible and I remember we used the road so to speak that it's really important to to take a stand and Speaking as someone who is an american citizen who's a white man I don't really get directly affected by the police officers in this community. Um, I don't think I've ever Seen a monoski police officer directly or engaged with them. Um, yet, uh, which is good But others don't have that luxury so, um, I feel safer in a community where Everyone in my community can have that and we see has such a cool Vibrant culture which stems from our diversity and so I think I don't know the nuance of the bill or the law but We're in a position where it's unknown and we know we can take A tangible step that is really, you know, above and beyond what the status quo is for this piece of legislation and I think as a community that has that kind of intrinsic value That's really it's really important with what I would want as a resident here Um, my name is Moran Simpson. Um, and I Thoughts on my support the language there for those from three different perspectives. Um, firstly, I'm interning a practice about practices in immigration law And I wanted to say that I think Strengthening the language of a policy will provide clarity not just for residents But for those who in the future are implementing that law and make there are ways I think have been expressed to sort of comply with federal law as well as to express support for this community in a way that is clear and fair and more protected communities at all Secondly, um, as a volunteer with the musky community justice center, which serves a lot of members of the community see them how What the impact of that has been and he's sort of ensuring people feel welcome supported that they support or spread their interactions with the police department, which of course is the What can we just in their operates through them and it's important to make sure people feel that they can talk to you and be honest with police officers Which is part of that sort of process and the last thing on myself and Immigrant on a visa that many people have never heard of and it doesn't come with a card with a picture but instead is a Piece of paper in the past which I rarely carry and as a result there are moments where you feel uncertain much like being your interactions with local law enforcement or when you come to something like city hall and know that I can stand up here and make a statement about what is a Some fires from the political issue outfield like I'm going to be deported is important to me and I hope is a benefit to this community Yes, sir Good evening. My name is will and I'm a staff member of the organization mind and justice We're a statewide organization founded by immigrant farm workers in the state of Vermont And we've been a named stakeholder in several success that a success of statutes that have created statutory guidelines for the model fair and impartial police and policy So I can give a little bit of context and background on this sort of question about state statutory compliance and if when you speak and step away from the model policy And and the short answer is that echo what Eric said is the state statute sets a floor but not a ceiling And in 2012 We helped to craft and pass act 132 which sort of set up a voluntary system for departments should Adopt what was then called bias free policing policies many didn't so in 2014 We went back to the state house and helped to craft and pass act 193 which said okay departments must adopt the policy and created a process for creating the first model policy which was ratified in 2016 But what happened was that many departments didn't fully implement the model policy So that's why the language in act 54 which was passed last year Seems to be saying like verbatim We have to adopt that amendment on the elements. But what that's really saying is What it says is adopt at a minimum of the elements, but you can go beyond that So our our reading the statute is that it would get sent to the attorney general But that there would not be any problem with the policy being statutorily compliant because it would Have the minimum protections included in the state model policy and then go significantly beyond those protections Um, so that's our reading the the statutory guidelines And that in making that determination the attorney general wouldn't have to be were a view of Federal statutory compliance because that's not that's not what's in the the state statute It's just saying you have to have the protections in the model policy, but you can go beyond them Um As a matter of public policy I heard you all say that there's not a debate here around the values So I won't spend much time on that. I'm sure you'll hear from other folks some of those values But this is much sounder public policy than the state model policy And we've worked extensively as a stakeholder With law enforcement and a number of others And at the end of the day we have this sort of mishmash compromise language That to be honest, it is really quite confusing for officers themselves and in my interaction speaking with officers who've read the model policy Because it's trying to walk this complicated line saying don't enforce immigration except for these loopholes and these carve outs and these savings classes By cutting through all that red tape what used to be would create a Much clearer and easier to implement policy. Just basically telling officers. It's not your job Don't get involved with federal immigration enforcement For some public safety And so I think having a clear policy is vastly to the benefit of when you And Finally Our reading is The similar to what's been said that when you ski by taking out the 1373 and 1644 savings clause would put itself into somewhat uncharted territory However Of the court that have looked at the trump administration's attempts to defund cities Particularly federal district court in pezzalvania in chicago and federal appeals court the ninth circuit and the california case They've all sided with municipalities And against the trump administration on the key elements of these legal debates Those are obviously still wending their way through the courts Who knows what will happen if it gets to the supreme court and who knows how the department of justice Will respond to that. But as eric and others have said this doesn't shut the door on the debate It sets a clear statement of values And then the council can respond at circumstances shift So that my remarks there, but my justice fully supports the the letter that eric put forward We think it will result in a vastly superior policy And that will be an alternative model frankly for other municipalities who are looking to go above and beyond What the state model policy has ended up as Thank you very much. Thank you Just want to pause really quickly Thank you for the clarification And then I during our conversations too at no point have we advocated that we That any of these concepts or ideas are knowingly acting and blatant Blatant disregard of federal law When we talk about knowingly and it and acknowledging the steps that we're taking it's it's Acknowledging the fact that we're going outside of the parameters and that there could be some Reprocussions for that and some additional action taken It's really a important point of clarification And those come up a couple different times here that we're not actively seeking to to To not be in compliance, right? Our argument would be that hey, we've we've done our best here to comply with the values Really along with the foundation basis that we're given from the model policy standpoint Just want to put that on tape Okay, yes sir Dana rusher Concerned tax pay and business owning the citizen And my concern is you just you just had a presentation about Public safety prior to this and now You know and listening to the discussion that you've got amongst yourselves. It sounds like you're going into this people line me and you know taking the risk of defying federal law for the first starters and Just wanted to say that you know that I'm more concerned about the public safety. I mean we don't really have you know as of yet. Thank god. We don't have a problem with With, you know, public safety outside of the Illegals that That may be here or may not be here But I'm like running the risk of not Communicating with With the federal agencies, you don't know if you don't have you know the future maybe that that you have Of that device is looking for or whatnot. You don't know that this person is wanted in texas for whatever for crossing the border Bringing drugs in coming up in New York City. You just don't know why uh, what's keeping me on Communicating with the federal agencies, and I just think it's very irresponsible First of all, I just want to say my name is Jenny Dower. Um, people are now legal I think protecting our community members means protecting the safety of everyone We're seeing in the 100 mile enforcement boundary, um, which when you see as part of people being detained from great home buses being ripped from medical appointments and everyone of all ages and life circumstances being at risk to Who would be in the situation of Of having their status questioned Um, so I think this represents a real opportunity for our community to make a statement and show where our values lie And support our neighbors and community members. Um, I think uh, we should lead by example And rather than be concerned about repercussions, I think there are support systems the attorney general will look at this And that we should really band together and have a lot of faith in our community as um, as a strong and supportive resource and And Thank you. My name is david the first team and I am the resident of woody ski vermont I am a member of the vermont worker center byron justice and vermont four people's campaign I have been an instruction leader for most of my life and I have always lived in poverty At times I have had no choice but to work under the table And I had even lived in france for a year in an effort to start bicycle racing training camp as a so-called illegal immigrant Life has not always uh been easy for me while trying to rise from poverty by working many many hours to no avail Despite my story of struggle here in america and in france. I deserve respect and human rights Today I went to a protest in rickford for jose luis cordova. He has a husband and a father of three He works on a local dairy farm and sends his money back home to support his wife and kids He was arrested when he went to a dentist appointment To have his teeth clean Excuse me I went to this protest to support a hard-working family man Who was just trying to make a better life for his family? I have much respect for him and a great understanding of just how difficult it is in this world to rise from poverty Not only that I appreciate the dairy products that are created by his work This evening we are to discuss fair and partial policing or fip So I simply ask fair and partial policing What are you kidding me? Is this not what police are paid to do? Is it not their job to be fair and impartial? Hasn't it always been this way where it's fair and partial policing now illegal? I hear that when this police department aren't supports support of the fip and why wouldn't they Uh be because their leaders and respect the working class and human rights The problem arises because of Trump's rather fascist led threats of cutting funding uh to the department Simply put morality and Trump's legality Please respect human rights. The lost funding is unconstitutional and the funding can be found from other sources If the woodus hevermont police department Can take uh lead other departments will be sure to follow. Thank you Yes, sir Hello, uh, my name is Enrique Valdcasa. I don't speak English really well. I'm learning but I I'm living I has been in Vermont for seven years. I don't have document Uh, I really sat because I'm a gentleman Working I was working in on a in a very far for three years milking cows and for different farms Around the state and I love Vermont. Vermont is uh, my second Here today because we want to be able to express our beliefs and not them in the shadows not them in fear but To be able to walk the streets of this town and say our piece Is Uh, currently I'm a resident in Burlington But my girlfriend Sully and I are are looking for a new apartment and are thinking about moving to winewski And it's a time, you know, well because we live close by and they're always coming through here And And we want to be able to Live in safety as I said before we're a community that's often forced to live in the shadows That's never had the luxury of trusting in police because we've seen the repercussions Of deportations and family members being our families being torn apart Family members being separated and that's what we want to do away with And I saw a news report recently and this didn't happen in Vermont, uh, but a young man, uh, called the police because somebody was breaking into his family's home And because of that call to the police, he ended up in detention himself and is now in the process of being deported Uh Well I I And when I'm thinking about moving to winewski, I I want to be able to do so knowing that I'll be safe and trusting the police and knowing that I can tell my friends when you come to visit me You aren't going to be putting yourself at risk And I want to live in a community where I know that there's a resource if if I need If I need support and and public safety Thank you very much Good evening. My name is Aaron Loughman. I'm here tonight out of concern for our undocumented neighbors and their families Asks the council to Ask the proposed changes to this area in partial policing policy These amendments will build trust between our community and their police department And on that note, I'd like to thank the new ski police department for their work to our community safe and secure Um, this will help create a safer community for everyone As someone who's hoping to purchase a house in winewski in the near future I understand that these efforts could put us in the trump administration's targets to Threaten sanctuary cities around the country by the folding phones We may need to find other ways to allocate resources to make sure that our officers have the protective gear that needs to do their job And ultimately, um, there's no price that we can put on the safety of our neighbors in our community About strengthen our fair and partial policing policy is about for a safer winewski and thank you for your consideration on this very important issue Yeah, I really don't want to be laughed so I hope somebody else talk But it's gonna be a big moment. I know right? Uh, so I'm a new winewski resident at first, but I'm not supposed to do that But I thought it was really nice that uh that uh young man whose name I don't remember Came up and spoke with an undocumented immigrant and I'm really glad that um He's able to do that here um and feel like that's something you can do as part of a community I think it's great that as you were saying in the beginning, I think um That these are values that we're policing with already I think it was really well said by two other people who i'm not motioning to or living at uh in In Eric's policy It sounded to me like they were saying when I was hoping to say as well Which is it can provide some cover for our officers, right? So there isn't a question of should I be doing this or shouldn't I um, and I think having an unclear policy Uh, if it were me that I wouldn't want that I'm sure you're gonna have that conversation with our police and I don't want to speak for you But um, I've had that issue with my boss before with bosses before and I think In codifying what your values are You're expressing them and if you don't do that In some ways you're saying they're not really my values. So I think you know making sure they're they're presented in a way that The job description lines up with the values, right or the the codes line up with the value Important so thank you for Makes some clarifications that make that here Happy to be in a window seat, especially when this type of conversation is happening. It's happening Sorry about the audience We'll see that every other meeting going forward to Oh, I'm sorry. I'm like fine. I'll be in every other Any other comments questions concerns? Yes, ma'am Thank you I've lived here all my life I worked for the music community justice center for 17 years And I don't think that anybody tonight questions what our values are There is not a question My concern is the slippery slope that we may be on And I just want to make sure that we're doing the right thing and when we sit here and we talk about Well, we'll get the $10,000 from somewhere else. I've been here a long time. It's hard to raise that $10,000 So just ask you to be cautious about that Our values are are here to work together and to welcome everyone, but I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you Thank you Yes, ma'am My name is Heather Carrington. I'm speaking as a resident of the city I would just like to remind council that when we have a conversation about sanctuary cities We had some of our foreign war residents come and warn us about unintended consequences and I mean consequences way beyond $10,000 for the debt So while I think there's obviously we have common values here I think it's really important to consider what those consequences could be on the people that we are most trying to protect Thank you. Any other questions, comments, concerns? Thank you all very much So we'll now turn backwards council. This is on this evening as an discussion such as the web We're dealing with the state deadline so An ideal way shape or form that I would be able to show sometimes reported that one of the kind of affirmative action to put so many forth to comply with that deadline So I appreciate everybody taking the time to speak and want to remind folks that council that loseqbt.org to www.gnusqbt.org you can find all of the contact information for all of us here in paola the talks You want to share every email of these two are on the way out to do where there are no candidates up and you can also Reach out to Okay, so I'll I'll turn it back towards council now and See if there's any Additional thoughts comments for accepting a motion anybody want to address anything else Yes, ma'am. To me there's two separate issues Say gay or they do a whole package so The work that Eric did to type up some of the language that Proceed to be unclear or create loophole I think I agree with some of the folks that spoke would not necessarily constitute the deviation from state law because it is the model policy is something that Is intended to provide base level protection So I think that's one set of issues that typing up language and making it clearer Makes a lot of sense to me The other issue is are we going to State law also said the model policy needs to be rewritten to be consistent with federal law and the proposal that we have would Not be consistent with federal law or at least with what the department of justice has said to the state of law so I'm very appreciative of the comment about Language of the ACLU attorneys have developed that says this is not intended in any way to violate federal law because to me I could not support something that didn't have that at least that statement in there Because I do believe the risks are very unknown and Both to the people who live here who would be most impacted and to the fiscal situations status of the city So that's a workaround in terms of Eliminating the references throughout the policy but beginning the policy with that statement I'm interested in exploring that a little bit further, but I could not support just eliminating all references When we know that the current version was written in response to a director from the department of justice So we can say we're not doing anything for a lot, but we also have a lot of information that suggests that references to those federal statutes have meaning Yeah, I was you know, and I think what I was trying to say in the conversation is we know we're leaving the safe zone right And it's important that we acknowledge that that it's not open It's not about open defiance. It's about doing what you think is right and writing the policy and reflective of which community values are and By saying not spending a huge upfront legal budget on it. I think substantiating that From anything that I've seen has waffled back and forth and there's been nothing Inclusive from any of these conversations and other policy reviews So I just worry you would endlessly spiral down that one hole with trying to create a case law that it is done and Substantiary argument that just hasn't had enough time to be vetted yet from a legal perspective So I would completely concur and I don't know where A statement of that might be appropriate. Maybe it's just a preamble To the policy that states You know, it's it's produce these intent to comply with all state and all's required state and federal law In this policy For sure That legislative intent statement this is not intended to you know intentionally violate a portion of federal law And I am really appreciative of all that community members that came out to speak in the public hearing tonight and I think Really what resonated with me is that you know, these are the values that we keep talking about and This policy is how we ensure end those values And so I would be interested in making a motion to adopt the state's fair and impartial policing moral policy with my English changes That I have included in my letter that was circulated In those five sections in addition to striking all savings clause references the federal statutes around 1373 and 1644 unmanable to an inclusion of legislative intent statement the policy is not in was not intended to violate a federal law And I'll let set the master personally words about Yeah, I think you can I think you can get that language into the purpose statement Which is basically saying Is required to adopt each component of the mock criminal justice training with a moral fair impartial policing policy? Um, I think what we may adopt additional components. I think we can just add a sentence that says Um I mean have you not seen that language? I mean we don't need to we need to sign No exact the exact language that I was in or that we will have something go in that mirrors the intent I would say that you can pass it with that condition on there Um, and in in doing so to meet the deadline It's accepting the fact that we're going to do the the best we can to comply with that language This group would have to acknowledge Acknowledge that my only concern that what I would want to make really clear is that That nothing in that language having not seen that language Um, I would not want us to add any additional language that changes the actual substance of her policy Only language that provides an indication of our legislative intent through the passage of her policy How about that Angelo? You're on how to ink? This is the final due date again March 1st March 1 Okay So the recommendation I think we have eric's five points clearly online. I think those changes the two cannot understand how to make I think if you pass the motion as presented or voted on motion that's presented by eric It would be helpful to staff to have one of you to vet a final draft with to make sure it was the intention that you heard from the body With that I'll do it Okay, um, so we have a um, a long winding motion forward. Um, that includes Adopting the policy with the insertions and deletions as noted in the memo shared by councillor cubby in addition to adding Gimbal language in the purpose section that reflects the intent of the council to pass the policy That complies with um, federal law second Motion by eric second by bernie corgan for the discussion I just Our intent is to take the feedback from the attorney general's office and come back and have the discussion Whatever feedback do you see? I would I would just add to that that I think that um, we had discussed previously the concept of potentially taking an advocacy route Um, and I think that this will naturally places in a position where we will be we will be in and out of this In terms of communicating the directors of this And that it will absolutely cause I think this to come back Um, so I don't think we can put a nice deadline on that But I think we'll be having this conversation from how it was received concept and Probably pretty quickly So it'll be a new body new council right I would not want to um promote this action on this new city resources to promote the fact that this action was taken because I think again because of concerns for folks who live here not wanting to sort of say Look what we've done Okay, that to me increases the risk of ice hanging out outside the community just the community center or whatever so I would just I want to make sure that we're not planning a press release About this because to me that that actually is counterproductive And makes it more of a political action than a policy Um direction of this body is said noted Thank you to a standing motion Uh by eric with a second by brane corgan any further discussions comments All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye And those opposed abstains Motion carries I want to extend sincere and grateful appreciation for some foremost for the way you're already doing business and for Um, absolutely, you're patient with this body as we have to get this And um and the professionalism with Exuded and input and exemplified overstep the way. Thank you very much Chief we appreciate it to jesse. Thank you very much. We appreciate all your work Thank you very much Uh, let's take uh, let's take a two minute resource. We'll read to me that All right Oh, thank you I I'm shocked So I'm coming to you in a little bit of a strange order here in part because The duty for this application of the downtown transportation grant fund is march 19 Um, so But anyway, I wanted to let you know that we are eligible for a downtown transportation grant fund and I spoke with theory And so I will never receive that actually so I think this is an opportunity for us It's up to a hundred thousand dollars with a 50 50 grand mansion In kind matching is allowed Um, so we as staff are looking at a couple of different options for the way that we can utilize these funds based on our previous conversations about The main street project There's been a lot of talks about bike infrastructure for the city and um What I am posing and have spoken to you about is that we use these funds in part to Support a bike share program with gacha bikes that is being proposed by katmah for in the first phase We use ski burlington and south burlington that will be made up of a hundred bikes 15 bikes and they're smart bike fights So what they'll do is they will catalog where the trips are and how many hours are used and where the trips are initiated Etc. So that'd be useful information for us to have. It will also involve 25 bikes that are e-assist bikes So they're electric bikes when necessary. So that will help people with things like the hill University Yeah, so it seems like this would be a good match Because I've been speaking with gary and trying to figure out a way For us to make this work with the grant program I'm waiting to come back on whether we can cover bikes that will be new moving throughout and multi-messages So that may not be possible in the case that that's not possible What we would propose to do would be to go forward with doing pedestrian improvements for the downtown including Improving the three pips sidewalks brick papers So while I don't yet have an estimate because I don't know which one we're going for I kind of wanted to get some guidance for you I don't know what the advocate is. I believe that what we're going to do is a combination of in-kind match With the labor of D.P.W. Europe and putting in some of these things And also we're going to have to have some cash Take that So our intention in the conversations today was really to lay out the concepts that haven't yet been fully approved by the funder So when we hear back in the next few days, and if there is that special meeting Kind of meaning that we just put it on an approval agenda then to get approval before the deadline So just want to see if there are any red flags with either of those concepts I think it's both concepts are substantially supportive of everybody and everybody we're going to take into increase multiple modes of transportation in the city Awesome, I'm sure they're so cool that it was just important that I'm going to use more of myself The color who's I'd love to hear more about that They tend to be like bright orange with a little basket That's okay, it was just all of them I should add one of those things In this phase one what was intended was for there to be one white cobb and musky Down on the musky causeway If we were to go for these funds what I would advocate and I've spoken with Some of you are from CCRPC about this We'll be to go for but one at the top of main street and one down Or up under the top of weaver street and one downtown just so we have the ability to travel within Not just from to and from I just have a question about the weaver street Work that's That cc rpc We've applied but that literally we don't know We have to put this engineering on the weaver street project. We have put in every What they call UPWP the unified work plan request request for that To CCRPC for the FY19 work plan process And thus far we've got some questions about other applications, but not on that one So we believe it is it is well in a vacuum. Okay. I'm just wondering if there's a way to leverage those two activities with this type of It's well, it's something that we just I discussed with Gary a little bit and also Jonathan Rousher and one of the problems is because Weaver it's mostly for capital improvements here And because weaver is going to be a pilot project over the next couple years I don't know that we can make capital improvements with that Which is the purpose of this project But we could match So given that Could I recommend that we stack those three options? And understand look at the terms see the in kind without looks like Understand it's a great opportunity And let staff make the final call on either three of those things I think you're all aware how important the weaver street bike facility is from From a priority standpoint for us But with that being said if the application better suits one of those other two items that we allow some flexibility to go for those Does that sound okay? I think it's a great point Which hemisphere All right, so with that other questions or concerns from council Questions or concerns from the public so Discussion I was just looking for guidance on what the appetite was Thank you I I hope you get approval national recreational recreation and parks association grant application. Heather. Thank you very much Hello, this isn't approval. Hopefully so So we uh, we came across this recently at least time to travel through grant search in the world It is a $40,000 opportunity through the national parks association To support their initiative the 10 minute walk initiative So basic premise of that is that everybody in urban areas or cities in the united states is within the 10 minute walk of a park or green space As you'll see in the map. I included in the packet. Um, we have achieved that already. Thank you Nothing There's been a lot of work over the years just out of the park system that we have We're looking at a couple things in this one How do we codifier work around maintaining those parks improving connectivity and access to those parks? And also exploring some concepts of universal accessibility and perhaps a few key facilities in our community right now I think while it's great that we have that 10 minute coverage That doesn't mean there's a playground within 10 minutes of everybody or a natural area We have kind of a mishmash and so I think trying to look at that How things are scattered and how that responds to the the community is important So really using this funding opportunity to do some more intentional planning and Being a little bit more thoughtful about how we're cultivating our park system in the city Um, it's competitive. It's 12 to 13 grants nationally So I know we're in false solutions that this is going to be a slim dunk But I think given where we are with our municipal planning process and how the timing of this opportunity overlays with that I think we have a really a good chance to be competitive here by kind of Highlighting the opportunities to get some of the work that this funds codified in the master plan that we're working on so We're excited as a quick turnaround. It's due March 9th We would find out by April 1st So the other good thing is that we're not going to be waiting on this funding source for months and months We'll know in pretty short order if we've got it or not And then we can pivot accordingly to to kind of approach the master plan with or without the funding Preparing plan B. If this doesn't come through so Yeah So the one thing that isn't here from a short-term perspective is having The mayor sign on to this initiative nationally So as I mentioned the cover sheet they're brought in and not clear the other two or not cities that have signed on But that is one of the prerequisites to applying to the grant is that the The mayor and city doesn't need to sign on so that's included in there that campaign cover sheet So I just wanted to call that out specifically As kind of an immediate action item and then From there we Depending on your decision My pin only has ink in it if you give it to me folks Um It's a Brian's have never been shy Yeah Any questions concerns comments from the public? So sitting here now I would entertain a motion for approval of the national recreation parks association grant applications for 10 minute walk So Motion by brian corgan second I'm sorry, motion by brian. It's only a second by brian for any further discussion Seeing here now all those in favor please say aye. Aye and those opposed motion cares Thank you very much. I appreciate it. That's a great opportunity to Discussion item for the chicken county regional planning commission eco straff regional plan Um, so There's so eco the eco plan is that a countywide According to the municipal master plan, they're updating it. They have asked us for feedback Staff spent some time at leader 15 recently reviewing these documents and providing some Concepts for feedback to ccrpc This is not required But we wanted to provide you the documents the great summary documents that ccrpc provided us and Here if you had any feedback you'd like us to include the staff's feedback as well And And finally these documents have also been shared with the planning commission and the intention is to ensure that our municipal plan Kind of marries up to the eco's plan as well to Again, and not only in that shared vision work plan for the region But also in the attempt to leverage future funding opportunities Will be as we believe most competitive for those two plans online Yeah, I think the sets is under the Community economic development plans under strategy is under But we're in a really good place. I think from a cohesion with the plan standpoint and We've worked so closely with ccrpc on all of our planning We really almost you know by By residue of all that right we've fallen into compliance because of the the philosophical connection Between us and their organization and all the tremendous support that they provide us can't say enough how important ccrpc is And bringing resources technical expertise that it's not reasonable to expect any town in Vermont really to sustain our own so Really wonderful resource So, you know the question kind of came up what should we do with this when this came about and just send us Throw it out and see if anybody has any questions concerns comments about any of the items that you've read In here from a prioritization standpoint This little summary document if you want to read the fully toast we have the link to that too. It's it's actually a pretty interesting read And encourage people to do so It takes a really obviously regional look At everything which I think you know, we get so focused on what we're doing we're new ski and How how we're trying to achieve our goals that it puts in a lot of probably you think you feel pretty good about Where we're planning and our conversations Whereas you read it a couple years ago and then made you anxious Now it's kind of like ways that we're on top of that Any questions that we would like to send back from a feedback perspective Um, big thanks to jesse for monitoring this big thanks to michael brimes are represented to the result planning commission Do they're also working at this thing follow up? I'm sure he's got comments questions I don't have any feedback. I'm interested in do you guys have any concerns The concerns there were a few areas we will send back to them just to make sure that they are That they are emphasizing pushing the the boundaries of their company emphasizing that is making sure that our priorities around Main street and affordable housing main street where revitalization that is a priority project Affordable housing are really highlighted. They are what we want to just underpin that Heather brought up the good point of ensuring that the public transportation goals speak to the equity of public transportation across the region So we have pretty good public transportation here in when you ski but I was the or the are those Truly extending to our partners in cold chester and farther out in the county to allow our residents to get to employment opportunities and other communities and by source of And then the They talked in the economic development section about child care affordability We believe that we need to be the great rock point up that there really needs to be an undermining about child care hats that you can access and access so Wanting to add a few Comments to that section as well again nothing that that's first shattering that they haven't thought of but really trying to underline some points that they Questions comments concerns for staff to take Any questions concerns comments from the public So largely a housekeeping item here as folks may remember we had a driver for our senior center program for As long as i've been here until october of jim ward We had hoped to backfill this position when he retired with some volunteer drivers And had not had any tears. So we're gonna basically leverage funds that had already been allocated for that position But i'm going to post and hire for that job because there was no job description So we are working on developing that but as part of our policy work money with a basic Purpose and title and the allocate for the funding and expenditure sources. This might be the most straightforward one we've ever seen Very specific task Questions concerns Any additional questions comments concerns any questions concerns comments from the public Very good. So sitting here now Eric in a motion for approval the position description for the community service services transport drivers Motion by Brian and Corey second by Eric any further discussion Seeing here now all those in favor please say aye And those opposed motion carries I should have mentioned we are now hiring for a community service Uh Goal updates safe healthy connected people So this I believe is our second or third update on this second update on this goal As always we provided Relatively comprehensive update before you have any answer any questions about this tonight already we've talked about Um, they're in partial policing The community outreach program Several of the items already on here. So we general this batch life without Open space we talked about tonight child care briefly Having to answer any questions don't need to read read them out for you Um specific checking questions for council in regards to reports. So first of all, I just want to reiterate These are really great and really helpful. Thank you There are wonderful bench parking opportunities for us to Have a follow What's going on and and make sure that we're aligning back and forth on What's happening that Goes after those sort of larger goals that we have behind us that we've set as a council And as a city jointly with staff and we've built those goals together. That's really important Um Can I just suggest going forward? Going forward, we're going to continue council seats up here as a progressive step for these particular grids. It might be I've been taking this to put in columns for where you were the last time you reported out on this Just so that they know how you're progressing From that history as opposed to where they're going right now Yeah For a narrative as well as the status bars or I think the status bar specifically because I think that's probably where we'll ground Day two No Is true, we will get an update In March on the childcare. That's the goal. So the operator The operator Yeah, the operator we've been negotiating with. Um, we have set a meeting date for March 12th and About a month and a half ago established with our goal of kind of middle of that week in March 13th Is the or 14th is the Wednesday of that week Prior to the council meeting to at that point either have a letter of intent to bring the council on March 19th or No, thanks. We can't do this Decision point. So we are we have a big set on the calendar that we're moving toward. It's it's a big It's a big deal for them to to expand and I think especially in the environment that childcare is operating There's a lot of factors at play financing big part staffing being a bigger part, I think So they are very smartly doing the diligence and I think Remember I think Eric said about like let's not establish something that we can't sustain and so I do appreciate that I think Yeah, we've had our discussions Exactly. So we set that date We too will be sure as we start to get our brains around final orientation and All those steps come up. We'll make sure there's a comprehensive pool update that comes forward For example on progress report on that to update the council the new the new council Yeah, and we should be fairly close by that the march meeting to have a final report from an Engineer, so it's right around the goal. I can't remember the exact date of that completion, but we're right around there. So I think this is slightly off topic this but for The continuing council the new council. I think we should think a little strategically about those march meetings But because we're now hopping a month between meetings and we have the pool. We have main street. We have orientation We have some big agenda items coming up Do I want to think about a special meeting for orientation or two meetings in March? Well, we're already we already have a special meeting in March That we're going to talk about in just a second Yeah You're from the meeting Okay, thank you guys very much for this The short question so please make sure to check in with staff directly So for tonight's final two items, we have uh warrant Executive session we have two items going on in regards to a personnel issue The first is the in review to take place the executive session Again protected under lots of the meeting law because it's a personal action I want to make it clear that once we complete the review There will be a public document that has or there will be a proposal that there's a public document that summarizes A portion summary of that review from an outcome and process perspective As a reminder, you can find a memo there in regards to what the review process looked like In previous council packages We're going to review the results tonight with the city manager and talk about some of the summary pieces Also as disclosed in another memo that was submitted in previous meetings We've also been engaged in contract negotiations With the city manager There will be several Points discussed that to do so in public would put the city at a contractual negotiation disadvantage It would also bring up a personnel issue in a public format that would not be appropriate What will happen is the council will submit a contract that will be available to the public prior to final approval We will be Considering both of these items and not taking any formal action or vote in executive session We are going to propose that a special meeting be held to address both issues Prior to the expiration of this council And we will use the very last day available, which will be the monday prior to town meeting day, which is monday march the fifth At five or five thirty p.m To be determined for both these items will be heard in that public session and voted for final approval If they progress to that point this evening. Are there other questions concerns or comments? As a reminder, we will Commit for executive session and only come back from executive session to adjourn We will not take any additional votes meaning that the public portion of tonight's meeting Meetings business would be included. We will only be reconvened Any questions concerning the council? Any questions or concerns from the public? I don't can't motion the way in terms of executive session bringing jesse baker for Its proportions at least of the two executive session items this evening Motion by Eric seconded by Brian Corgan for the discussion Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye And those opposed, motion carries