 post here where we prioritize people that want to speak to the agenda items that are on that night's agenda. I think I'm not sure that will, I'm not sure that's that friendly to the public because we do want to hear, if someone comes and has a pressing issue, I don't think they should have to wait all night to tell us about it. And I do think that procedurally the sequence of events here would require the council to motion on part of the council to suspend rules and amend the agenda to take up an agenda item at a different time than what we had in our original war and agenda. And so that may or may not happen. So I don't think that, I understand what we're trying to do there, but I don't think it's very friendly to the public. In terms of member responsibilities, I prefer the language about not impute improper motives. I think that was good language, I'd like to keep it in there. And I've always liked the friendly amendment, I think it helps the meeting move along, I'm not going to, to live or die on that when I just think it's, it's often, it's often helpful. Thank you, President. Thank you, Councillor Nodale. Other councillors who wished away and Councillor Buscher. Thank you very much. And I think that I have some information that I'd like to share with the, the chair of Charter Change to just be consistent regarding like committee assignments under 4A, there's language for the president that is stated and then under 4B it's different language. I think it should be the same language. I'm not going to be literate. Could you note, note that again? Excuse me? Yeah. It has to do with the president shall appoint all ad hoc committees unless the council shall designate the members. 4B says that members of the ad hoc committee shall be appointed by the president unless otherwise specified in the originating motion. So I think you want to have the language the same. It's the same topic, so you should have it the same. But that's not really the, the nitty gritty for me. I would prefer not to as, as Councillor Nodale said, I really think that to have an agenda that is so locked into times and we're so focused on times. I think we lose the cohesiveness of the, of the item that's under debate. The second thing is the language that says that the council president will ask whether any councilor wishes to address an item. And if so, whom? I don't always know I want to address an item until I hear from other councillors. So I think that that's not that beneficial. I guess anyway, so that's just my two cents. I agree with Councillor Nodale regarding the friendly amendment. I always thought that that was useful. I didn't see addressed the requirement regarding roll call if members are on the phone or not present and I thought that would be added as just, I know it's part of, of Robert's rules or somebody's rules. But anyways, I thought it would be helpful to have that commitment of that's how we're going to do business because that's how we do business. Maybe not, maybe it doesn't have to be there, but I'm just throwing that out. Under order of business, appointments are at the last, but to me appointments may be placed anywhere on the agenda because it depends on what the appointment is. Sometimes you put it at the beginning, sometimes you put in the middle, at the end. I'd like to have consistency about where, where information is going to be posted. Is it going to be posted in the city calendar? I know it says the web, but is it going to be under the meetings and is it going to be on board docs? I think that we have electronic means now and I think we should be specifying where people can find information. I know these are our rules, but people do look at them anyways. I also think that right now it says that if we have an executive session, it has to end at 11 PM. We can't commit to that, so that should come out. And I want to tell you that what I'm not saying is that a lot of the things you deleted, I thought were good spot on. And then the last thing, electronic devices, that needs to be amended because you all have computers and you're, and you've got them open. And so I think that needs to be amended. Councilor Bushier, can I just ask, you said you thought the deletions were good or you thought the items that were. I wanted to comment that there were a number of deletions that the committee recommended and made and those were good. I just not going to specify those. Okay, but you, you agreed with the deletions. I think I agreed with most of them, not all of them, not all of them, but most of them. I thought that, you know, they did a very good review of this and came back with something for us to chew on and we all have our opinion. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. No, I just wanted to be clear. I wasn't sure if you liked the deletions or I got it now. Thank you. Other councilors who want to weigh in? I'm going to have a few comments, but Councilor Hartnett. Thanks. And I've spoken to Councilor Shannon after I looked at the rules. And just for the record, I'm not one for rules. So I have to have them. We have to have them. That makes our job easy. But I just want to go on record. I'm not a big one to follow the rules and rules. So I've always said, you know, in my officiating days of sports that I throw the rule book away and I use common sense. And a lot of times that just falls into everyday day stuff and political stuff too, I think, you know, so. But anyways, I worry that a high priority on time, and I get it. I do understand these meetings go long, that we will suffer healthy debate because of it. And I'm worried about that. And I know at times they can get heated around this table. And a lot of Councilors don't like confrontation. And I can appreciate that. But at the end of the day, I think that really makes for a better democracy for all of us. And I know sometimes feelings get hurt and people think take it personally. But I think we're all adults here. And so I just don't want to have, you know, 12 choir boys come every Monday and sit around the table and, you know, all agree. And no, seriously, you can laugh while you walk. I'm not trying to be funny, but it's the truth, right? And that's just, it's democracy. And as long as we can at the end of the day get along and respect one other and move forward, then I think we're OK. And for the most part, I think we're able to do that. So, you know, I don't mind a few of these changes, but I would caution healthy debate being up here a little bit. And I'm worried about that. Thanks. Thank you, Councilor Hartnett. Councilor Mason. Thank you, President Wright. Just three comments. One, sort of turning to the decorum and the member responsibilities. I know the committee sort of added some language on impugning city staff. I might encourage them to go even broader. You know, we have their members of the public that I think have potentially been impugned. And the mayor or him or herself. So I might sort of, if the intent is to, from a decorum perspective, revisit, you know, that and see if it can be expanded. I will take a contrary position on friendly amendment. We sort of, I think I've been on the council eight years and we struggled for eight years. Like I think Robert's rules, there is no friendly amendment. Let's just, we can expeditiously, you know, get to the same place. Let's just stop the conversation about friendly amendments and pick a path. On time, I am sensitive to Council Hartnett and I don't relish whom, you know, whoever is in the role of Council President. But I would share we've all been, it's troubling when at 11 o'clock, you know, or 11 30, we're having to pick up something. And quite honestly, we're all so spent that we're not even able to participate. And I think, you know, it's never the intent, but I find, you know, more often than not, you know, it's very late at night where we're all tired and not able to devote sort of the energy and attention to something that I think merits it. And I appreciate it's a balancing act and I'm not sure how you solve that. I don't know that more meetings is the solution. But I respect that the Charter Change Committee was trying to get at that problem this way. I'm not sure it's the solution, but I do think it's something we should continue to look at. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Mason. Other Councilors who would like to weigh in. I will make a few comments because since we're in a work session, I think I'm allowed to do that. As opposed to I, and again, I appreciate all the work by the Charter Change Committee as we've all said and struggling through this. I also do not like the changes in the public forum, though I agree that I totally get what is being attempted to do here. But I can think of circumstances in the past where a citizen came in and I can think of specific times where they came in, they only had a certain amount of time, they got in there early, put their name in, and it was a particular item in their neighborhood. It wasn't on our agenda that night, but we've always been clear that we want to hear from the public. And in the circumstances that we're creating here, we would tell that person, you now have to wait through, let's say we had a F-35 debate or something really controversial. Now that person who wants to get in here and make their point about a neighborhood issue, whatever's got to wait through a really significant debate and the council president maybe can move the agenda to sometime move the rest of the public forum to later in the agenda. I really think that not just for me, but any council president, I would leave it to the discretion of the council president more. In terms of moving the meeting forward, totally get again what councilor Mason's saying, but there is a section in here which I'm not locating right this second. Councilor Nodell I think has it where we say, we actually change it a little bit but I think goes the wrong direction saying you can, each councilor can spend no more than five minutes on each, what's the actual length? In a single round to the same motion. In a single round to the same motion which I think that actually could add time. And I would also say that I, as other councilors have said, I actually don't think it would be helpful to on each item to, for the council president, whoever that may be, me or whoever else in the future to say on each item who wants to speak on this, take note of that and then change the timeframe. I think that again that there are counselors as councilor Busher noted that who don't know at the beginning of the agenda item that they want to speak, they don't, they react later to someone who says something that they need to react to. So I, I'm not, I'm not a fan of that. Councilor Nodell. Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. That's all right, Councilor Nodell. Okay, I mean, I totally support the effort for us to be more time effective. And I think it's really good that we're having this conversation. On the question of time limits for individual counselors, it has been my observation that sometimes a lot of time gets eaten up when a counselor is questioning, has a series of questions for somebody. And it can go on for quite some period of time. So are we counting their five minutes only the part of the time when they're speaking, but there's actually consuming much of the council's deliberative time. And I think if we could get some guidelines on that kind, that use of time, you know, and then there has to be a fight, some finite limit to the number of questions. The number of questions. When it is responsible for a count, you know, reasonable for a counselor to ask. I think that we can, we can always remind counselors that there are certain questions that can be explored outside the council meeting that can, you can get information from the department head outside of the actual council meeting. I recognize that there are times obviously that you have questions that you want the public to hear the answers to. So I know there's a fine line there. But Councillor Tracy. No, I just really want to thank all the counselors for having taken a look at this and really obviously taking some time to think about this. I think that you all have brought to the table some issues and some ideas that I didn't think about. And I'm certainly open to that question because I didn't think about that. That's totally true. The questions issue is, is a big one. And we take up a lot of time there and the public forum thing as well. So I just want to signal, at least from my perspective on the committee, I'm not completely attached to really any of this and certainly open to a lot of this feedback and really appreciate just the thoughtfulness that you've all brought to the table. Thank you, Councillor Tracy. Other city counselors want to weigh in on any of the rules, proposed rule changes. Councillor Dean. Thank you, President Wright. Just as the other member of the committee want to note that we did spend a significant amount of time talking about how we might be able to structure how we do our business so that we're more efficient because of the time that we do, those times that we do end up here late at night. And as Councillor Mason has pointed out, we are not as focused and effective in what we're thinking about. So if what we have proposed, which is at least establishing some structure, is not amenable. I mean, people are not amenable to that particular. We certainly, as a committee member, I would be looking for other suggestions as to how we might be able to structure our time. I think it's clear that the Council President has the opportunity and the discretion to control that but not having any structure I don't think is or very, very limited structure is not the way we want to go either. To me, we do need something. And I think also the Council can make clear to the Council President how tough they want him or her to be going forward in terms of, but Councilors also get very upset when they get cut off. We've experienced that before. Councillor Shannon. I think that's really the key, Councillor Wright, is to get buy-in from the full Council about how we think we should all be limited in time and where is the time maybe not effectively being used. So I appreciate that the full Council maybe isn't supportive of the direction that we've taken but I also think it would be very helpful to hear from Councillors about, and I appreciate the input from Councillor Nodell on the issue of questions. But the more input we could get on how we can wrestle this bear, I think that that's what we need. We need to put ourselves on a little bit of a speech diet at times. And we would like to officially give the Council President some tools to do that because Councillors are, when a Council President chooses to try and limit that discussion, the Council is often irritated and that's why I think it would be helpful to have it in the rules and spell out how a Council President is expected to limit Councillors' time. I also wanted to note that the change that we made to the five-minute limit, we actually expanded that. We gave Councillors more time because what it originally said was, no City Councilor shall speak longer than five minutes to the same motion and we added in a single round. And so you want, you're saying in total, I may have misunderstood. I took that to mean you didn't want a five-minute limit but you're saying you want it to be five minutes for the whole thing. I'm not sure that that's realistic because we do have debates about each amendment. I think we want to continue to debate each amendment and we can't always know what's coming down the pike or how many amendments there will be. So I'll continue to listen to the feedback and I do appreciate it. I would just say that, well, I'll just say that I'm gonna turn to Councillor Pine and then I'll harden it. That five-minute rule was created by yours truly because we had a City Councilor who would pontificate endlessly at Council meetings on every topic. I remember who that was. You were in the audience, Councillor, right? And Councillor Busher was here with me those nights and our meetings would go until two in the morning as a result. So that brought a little discipline and it may have been overreaching but it was needed to get us to remember that we're actually people who have families and lives and jobs and other things and we can't just sit here as though we're on stage acting out a play. And I would just add to that. I remember a decade ago when there was certain Councillors that were going on at length that I brought that up and there were two Councillors at the time who were livid that I would consider a five-minute rule. They didn't understand that that was actually already in our rules from your time back in the 90s, Councillor Pine. Councillor Hartnett. I was just wondering if there was ever any consideration of a 6.30 start time? It's in there. It's in there. And how about a hard cutoff? I agree with Councillor Mason that I think there's really no good decisions made after 11 o'clock on this Council floor, really. And I think that's where we get short with each other. I think that's where the decor goes a little wild and people start, you know, are a little tired, a little more, I don't know. I would consider a hard cutoff of our City Council meetings at a certain time. No business takes place after 11 o'clock. I don't really think that's that's way out there. I think that's something that we should consider. Thank you, Councillor Hartnett. And I think that the 6.30 idea is mentioned as a, it isn't here as a change, but that it was something to be considered, I think we might understand. Councillor Shannon. I think it was noted in the memo, not in the rules, the rules do not specify. So if the Council wanted to do that, we could do that. But to say that we have a hard stop time, I think we need some management tools on the way to the hard stop time. Because otherwise, we don't get to all of, then we're just, you know, we're left with not getting to some of our business and what about executive sessions? So I'm open to the idea, but I do think we need to decide, you know, is the only place we want to limit at the end? And I would just add to that that there is actually a hard stop time. If two thirds of the Council reject suspension of rules, or actually it requires a two thirds vote to suspend our rules. So if two thirds of the Council doesn't agree with the rule suspension, then that's the hard stop. That's true. And it has happened before. I vaguely remember. Councillor Shannon, you haven't been recognized. All right, anyone else? I think we have, we have Councillor Nodell. Just to wrap it up, it's like, as Pogo said, we have met the enemy and he is us. Yeah. Very, very... You agree with that? And you know, we have, we already have rules in place and we do need to follow the rules that we currently have. So, Councillor Shannon, do you feel you have gotten some more concerns? Yes. So if we are following the rules we currently have, I'm sure that tonight nobody will speak more than five minutes to each motion. That is correct. And if they do, they will be cut off because that's what the Council wants me to do. So everybody remember that. Don't get mad at me. As Councillor Nodell said, the enemy is us. We are the enemy. Okay, so we have identified some concerns from Councillors. Obviously there are other things that we did not mention and I think the Charter Change Committee can take that anything that was not mentioned, we are good with. And with that we will, if no one else has anything, we will close down the work session and the Charter Change Committee will report back to us again having taken in those considerations. And then we will come back to the full Council with whatever is the final product. We may actually end up having a couple of votes if we need to on particular items. So with that we will move to item number three, which is a expected executive session on City Attorney Blackwood. Yes, I believe we need a dual motion. The first one would be that to go into executive session to discuss an update on contract negotiations, the premature disclosure of which would put the City at a disadvantage. Councillor Mason. Thank you, President Wright. I'd like to make the motion to seek the finding as per City Attorney Blackwood's statement. Councillor Mason has made that motion. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Nodell. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in. Councillor Hartnett. So is this an executive session that will just continue into the other or are we gonna vote to go on an executive session on the others? I think there is another motion needed to actually go into executive session. Correct. No, I understand that. But once we're in executive session, are we gonna be taking up multiple items? No, it's City Place. City Place only. I thought it was, oh, I thought you said, okay, it's just City Place. Okay, got it. Okay, so any further discussion? President Wright, maybe I would take this opportunity just to note my need to professional, due to professional conflict, or accuse myself on this issue. Thank you. Is recusing himself from this issue for professional conflict. So all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. It was made by Councillor Mason, seconded by Councillor Nodell. Please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Councillor Tuna, no votes from Councillor Hartnett and Councillor Tracy. So the motion passes nine to two with the recusal by Councillor Dean. And the next motion, Councillor Mason. Based on the finding, I'd like to make a motion to go into executive session, noting who will be present outside Council, Jeremy Farkas, City Attorney Richard Hesler, Mr. Glasberg and Mr. Lonerville. Anyone else we're missing? Beth, that's CAO Anderson and City Attorney Blackwood. All right, motion is made by Councillor Mason, seconded by Councillor Nodell. Councillor Nodell, did you? I just wanted to, before we go to the vote, ask the administration to make just some public remarks so the public can understand where we are and in general terms, what we're gonna be doing and as I've just mentioned, if the dissent possible. Good point, Councillor Nodell. Mr. Mayor, can you tee that up for the public a little bit to at least let them know? Yeah, I'd be happy to, President Wright. And if I could ask, I'd like the mayor's office staff to be added to the motion as well so they can be part of the session. The reason that I do agree with the motion that an executive session is needed is because of what's led up until now. Council and the public will remember that at the end of August, an amendment was made to the agreement between the city and City Place, Burlington to allow construction on the foundation work to move forward even though the project had not yet met all of the conditions that had been anticipated that time. It was anticipated that with that approval from the council, the project would move forward. The project did not move forward subsequent from that. To this point, they have still not pulled the foundation permit and made the submissions that would be necessary for the project to proceed. The city has been in active conversation with the developer in the now more than two months since that vote and has made it clear that it is time for the developers to act and make good on the agreements that have, that they've made to the city and to the community. And that action has not yet taken place and the purpose of tonight's executive session is for us to update the council on communications that we've had with the developers in the month since we discussed it. And after giving that update to the council, confirm that the path in which we think we should proceed from here is consistent with councils, general sense of the council. And that is why I think it's important that there be some conversation before we, where that can happen in executive session so that we can get good guidance and a sense of where the council is before we take the next steps, next actions the city anticipates taking. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Can I address the mic? Councillor Hartnett. Just a question, was Don Sinek's invited to come in front of us tonight? And does he know about the communication that we're gonna have? And if he was invited, do you know why he didn't attend? There have been extensive communications between the city and the developers over the last month. And certainly the possibility that the developers appearing tonight was one that was discussed at certain points. We think most of the work that needs to take place in executive session is the city's team is able to update the council and have you take action from there. I don't think it would be, I think we're in position to give that update without the benefit of the developers. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hartnett. Councillor Nodell. Just real briefly, I think it's important that we do do this work in executive session. Otherwise we would be revealing our negotiating position. We're in sensitive negotiations and conversations and it would not be in the public's interest for us to do this in open session. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Nodell. And I think we all agree that what we wanna do is make sure that this project happens. So Mr. Mayor, did you have any further comment before we vote to go into executive session? I do not, President Wright. Thank you. Are we ready to vote? All those in favor of going into executive session, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Councillor Hartnett and Councillor Tracy. And so that is a, that is we will go into executive session by vote of 92. Thank you. And now we will move into item number four, which is the public forum. Time's starting at 7.30 and we've gone past that by about five minutes. So we will open the public forum. As of now, I have no one scheduled to speak. So I'll take a minute for, if anyone in the public wishes to speak to us, there are forums over here on the corner table, bring them up to Lori over here at the clerk's office, she'll get them to me. But if nobody's making any move, we're gonna shut down public forum. So going once, going twice, public forum is closed. And now item number five is the consent agenda. Councillor Nodell. President, I move to adopt the consent agenda and to take the actions as amended and to take the actions indicated. Councillor Nodell has moved the consent agenda, taking the actions indicated as amended. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councillor Pine. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the consent agenda, taking the actions indicated as amended, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. And with that, I am going to recess the city council meeting in order to let the mayor do the tax abatement committee meeting. So I am recessing the city council meeting at 737 and turning it over to the mayor. Thank you, President Wright. Like to call to order the full board of abatement of taxes at 738 and first item on the agenda is the agenda. I'd welcome motion on it. Move to approve the agenda. Thanks, President Wright. Is there a second? Second by Councillor Shannon. Discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. That brings us to the consent agenda. I would welcome a motion with respect to the consent agenda. Move to approve the consent agenda and take the actions indicated. Thank you, President Wright. Is there a second? Second by Councillor Dean. Any discussion of the consent agenda? Seeing none, we will go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. And this brings us to the deliberative agenda where we have three items and I would like to invite any of the appellants who have requested abatement, if they'd like to add anything to the public record, sharing any thoughts with the full board before action, now would be an opportunity to do that. So for Mr. Muir, Mr. Saffron, or Mr. Pakukar, if any of you are here and would like to speak to the board, we'd welcome you up to the microphone now. Okay, welcome. My name is Francis Muir. I live at 68 North Cove Road. Great, and as I just want to make clear, just we are going, we'd like to limit the public statements to three minutes at this point. And if there is a need for further questioning from the board afterwards, we can do that. But if you could keep your opening statements here concise, that'd be welcome. Thanks. Well, we had to submit some documents showing how we had arrived at the amount we were requesting and I submitted a spreadsheet and I wanted to make sure that the full council received that, showing how we had arrived at the amount that we had requested. Thank you. And that was about all. I didn't know if you had questions or how that works. Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to add, Mr. Muir? At this point, no. Okay, all right. Thank you. We'll let the board deliberate if there's a need for further questions we'll let you know. Is there any, the other two cases, is there anyone who'd like to come forward and share any verbal testimony? Okay, seeing not that, we will go to item 3.01, which is the request for abatement of taxes from Mr. Muir and the floor is open. I don't know, Mr. Vickery, is there anything you'd like to add? Since the last time we met on this case. Yes, last time we met, there was a request for how much penalties and interest were applied to this property. And I guess there was a little bit of confusion of outstanding penalties and interest or the penalties and interest going back to the beginning of when this issue occurred, which is the request. I think it went back as far as 2008. And so the petitioners, the Muir's, they, the original request was $3,702.05. The Treasurer's Office recalculated that number and said no, a more accurate number of penalties and interest is $3,050.71. And since that time, there's another $135 added to that for a total of $3,186.28. I think that's the appropriate request. The additional, the differences that the Muir's were adding in legal fees. And I'm not sure if the Board of Tax Abatement has the right to abate legal fees. I think I'm assuming it's just penalties and interest in taxes, correct? So the number has changed and we wanted to honor the request of, well, what are the penalties and interest from our office? I think that's all that I have. Okay, I'm Kessler Nordell. Mayor, would this be the time for questions on the information we just received? Yes. Thank you. We have a November 8th email from Mr. Herward to Lori Oberg and yourself with a new number that shows a total of $1,052.11. I would need to look at my notes. That doesn't sound like the right number. Okay, so I wasn't sure what to make of that number if anyone else has, Ken. Councilor Mason. Just according to what we received, that number is 17 and 18. That's my understanding, Councilor Nordell. Just 17. Correct. And the 3,000-ish number is cumulative since 2008, is everything. That is my understanding, correct. Thank you. And what I also found out tonight is the delta between the city treasurer's office and Mr. Mears number includes legal fees. What's what? Legal fees. Oh, sorry. Thank you. Councilor Shin. I'm not certain of that because I think what came out was that there were new and accruing unpaid taxes, interests and penalties and that what was being requested is actually already paid. So it would be, there was a request of a refund of what was paid and I'm not clear as to whether or not the $1,000 that Mr. Her would just tabulated if that was included in the 3,000 or not. So I just wanted to confirm that. What I have is for new penalties and interest is $135.57 since the last time it was calculated. And the prior to that from the time period that the Mayor's request was is $3,050.71. So it's taking, it's looking back and then from the point forward, I think July 1st to now. What was paid in terms of interest and penalties and tax at the 3,000? The $3,050.71 has been paid. It's basically the request that's being asked is a refund. Right, but the $1,000 plus has not been paid, correct? That's the current, what's owed currently. I can look that up if you give me a second. We're waiting one moment and we've got, I've got Councilor Pine, sorry I'm else was, so you can be recognized. Stick all the questions. If I may. Just like it was in the last one. $1,377.63 was paid through a tax sale. And I believe what is outstanding because payments have not been made is the $135.57. Mr. Mayor. All right, we're gonna take a five minute recess for them to figure this out. So we'll reconvene at 7.55. Not in this. I'm not sure you do. Just get them out. I'm not sure. Don't you have that? Yeah, I'm just saying. But you can get a fancy new thing. I'll see I got any more. You can recognize. So we are reconvened at 801. I'd like to recognize Councilor Mason. Thank you, Mayor. I'm not even sure what the question is anymore, but having spent some time with Mr. Muir's spreadsheet and with the city attorney's spreadsheet, there are a bunch of numbers floating around. And I think the difficulty is trying to interpret all of them. And quite honestly, I'm not able to connect the dots. I'm not sure it's entirely relevant for purposes of discussion. I know we'd all like to know, but what I do know is the city's calculation of penalties and interest for the property is 3,000, where's the number? 3,186 dollars and 28 cents. The requested abatement as of the time of the hearing from Mr. Muir was 3,702.05. Unfortunately, the spreadsheet we were given tonight is a request of $3,781.35. And I can't tie the numbers together. However, I would argue that what's before us and what we should be deciding on is the requested abatement of 37, 81, 35, which is what Mr. Muir is coming before us tonight, asking for an abatement of. The statement is that's just fees, I think an attorney's fees on top of that. So I think there's a procedurally, Mr. Muir, there was a request or the motion was to deny the abatement and I think that's the question that's on the floor for this body unless there are additional questions on these numbers. So, Councilor Muir, are you in the interest of moving this along, is that a motion to? I mean, I think procedurally the motion's on the floor. We've had questions and we, in essence, tabled the pending motion until this hearing. So I guess the floor is still open for additional questions, but if there are not any, I think there's a pending motion on the floor. Okay, thank you. To deny. Am I incorrect? I guess plain water city attorney, if it's more appropriate. I think it'd be an interest of clarity, why don't we reassert the motion just to make sure. I would make a motion to deny the requested abatement of taxes from Mr. Muir as it relates to 52 North Cove Road. The requested abatement was based on manifest on justice. I think the committee of its own initiative investigated whether there was a question relating to ability to pay, and at least the recommendation from the majority of the committee was that neither of those criteria were satisfied and the request to deny the abatement. Okay, thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Seconded by Councilor Shannon. All right, the floor is over for further discussion at this point. Councilor Pine, that has to be recognized before, then we'll go to Councilor. Oh, sure. I just wanted to clarify the issues that came up at the last hearing around outstanding zoning violations, not that that's what we're deciding tonight, but that those issues were raised, and I wanted to get clarity on that from Assistant Attorney Sturtavent and perhaps Code Director Ward if they could both join the table. Did the attorneys, did you hear the question? I didn't hear all of it. I've heard that you wanted some clarity. Councilor Pine has asked for clarity around the topics that came up last time with respect to outstanding zoning violations and how that potentially bears on this case. So what I prepared, just a timeline, a quick timeline over the zoning violations of the property. And to be clear, I focused on 52 North Cove because we're talking about 52 North Cove. The mirrors owned a property at 68 North Cove as well, which was their primary residence. I also prepared just a little map to show you the proximity of the two properties. 68 is right there, 52 is over here. So there are two separate parcels that we're talking about, and we're talking about 52. So for 52 North Cove Road, the violations go back to 2006 when we received complaints. We went through an enforcement notice of violation that was appealed to the DRB. It was cited for a contractor's yard. That was the violation. There was a lot of materials, different trucks. At the time, I believe Mr. Muir had a construction business. And then ultimately that went to a settlement agreement in 2007, which was then allowed for them to apply for permits at the property. They were denied permits at the property at that time. That was appealed. It was subsequently dismissed in 2010. After renewed complaints about the violations, there was more violations, more material to property. Another notice of violation was issued in 2012 that was not appealed, and an enforcement action was taken by the city. Ultimately, there was a decision by the court in January of 2015 to have the property cleared and a fee of $10,660. The property was not cured. We went back for contempt. The court gave a deadline of December of that year, or else to be more penalties. Director Ward and myself visited the property a number of times and did find substantial compliance in December of that year. After that time, we've now received more complaints about the property falling back out of compliance. And I can certainly let Director Ward speak to that, but he went out there in October. And there is vehicles parked at the property. But we had not been pursuing, we did an investigation on the complaints, but we're requested to hold off as the other property is under foreclosure and that we're working on trying to resolve that. Councillor Bynne. If either assistant attorney's sort of an or Director Ward could speak to why it's a violation to park a vehicle on a property that would be helpful. So it's a vacant lot, it has no approval. It was specifically denied for a parking lot back in 2008. So right now it has no approvals to basically be a contracted yard or a parking lot or not to say ultimately it can get some sort of approval but there's no pending application and there's no approvals for such. I would also say that it's right on the lake and that's part of the reason and it's my understanding of why it's, I mean it's right on the river that leads to the mouth of the river and the lake. So being right on that area, it makes it more sensitive. It's a watershed area. We have a picture that I took on October 18th, shows a dump truck, a contractor truck, similar to as it had been before, October 18th of 2018, as well as some other items that are stored on the property. So the significant compliance that Kim and I had found back at the end of 2015 and start of 2016, meant there was nothing on that lot. So it's back to some portion of the non-compliance that it was previously. So that's as fresh as just a couple of weeks ago. But as far as the connection between the Bateman and the zoning, I mean I'm not sure the connection, but this is an issue that could have been resolved, needs to be resolved. It's a matter of removing the material from the property or getting a zoning approval. Okay, thank you. Councillor Bushard, did you still wish to be recognized? So, Mr. Mayor, thank you. This has been incredibly challenging because there are so many moving parts with this. Abatement request and there are so many issues that may or may not be relevant to it, but some of them seem to speak to the ability of the appellant to pay. And for whatever reason, I did not see the letter that city attorney Sturdevant wrote regarding the issue that was raised regarding the FEMA application and the monies that were requested and then stated that planning and zoning Scott Gustin refused to discuss allocating the funds to us. And I just want to once again verify that according to the city, the city's position is that those funds were not really sent to the city for this appellant to be given to them, but there was some misunderstanding at least that I have from this. I feel like it suggested that monies were held withheld and then that further caused a financial challenge for the appellant and you're saying that that is not the case. So, I did bring extra copies of that letter, but no, that there was a process and it wasn't like there was money just sitting there and all you had to do was hand it over. There was a whole process that you had to go through and that process wasn't completed. Was not completed, is that what you said? There was, yes, there were property owners. I mean, there was a property owner down in the co-area that went through the whole process and it was a significant process and it was not for this property. The reason I'm bringing this up is that I am looking at the documentation I have in regards to the appellant's ability to pay and I understand that the monies that he's requesting have been paid but he's asking to be refunded these dollars. So that information is not, it does not agree with the city's position. Correct, that there was a process in that. All right, Mr. Mayor, I must admit that this has been incredibly challenging for me to work through. The dollar amounts seem to move all the time. I have never felt like I was uncertain about what to do. I feel that I try to look at the appellant and their ability to pay, which I think is one of the things with Manifestly Unjust is the ability for someone to pay. And I'm hoping other people will weigh in. I am considering that. I am considering abating or refunding these dollars because the information that I have shows evidence of loans being taken out to pay the fines and if I'm misinterpreting, I really wish that the city would help me get the information correct. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Bush. Councilor Nudeau. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanna go back to some ground that Councilor Bush recovered to make sure I understand. Mr. Rivet, you said there was some process that was not completed. What process are you referring to? So there was a grant program for properties that were affected by the 2011 flooding. And it was not a guaranteed process and it required a lot of process and that was not completed. There was, I think, one property in Burlington that I'm aware of that completed that process and it was a significant process. I mean, we went through different closings and so it wasn't like the city was just giving money to hand out or that money was sitting there for applicants. That was a city program. It was through the federal government. A federal program, that's what I expected. I'm gonna be supporting the majority position of the committee. I think that I have sat on cases where there was very clear evidence of hardship and there was a plan put in place to get even. And we're not really looking at that here. I just feel like their hardship cases have been historically few and far between many, many people struggle to pay their property taxes in the city of Burlington. We see them, those that I have seen be successful had better documentation and led to a plan for at least partial repayment. And I don't see that here. Thank you. Then are there counselors that we should recognize or are we ready to go to a vote? Councillor Jiang. Thank you, Mayor. And I think I have a question for you. Looks like this applicant is not asking abatement of his taxes. Is that correct? Is whoever can answer? It's just for the record here, okay? Is he asking an abatement of his taxes or fees, what is he asking for to be abated exactly? My understanding is asking for an abatement of the penalties and interest going back to 2008, which have been paid. It's more of a refund. And also you stated earlier here that this applicant has gone through litigation with the city about no compliance. Is that correct? Yes. And are those fees that been occurring, were they taking place during the litigation with the city or before or after? I think last time we asked that question if you can find out that exact answer. So the $10,000, $10,660 fee was paid at the end of 2015 is my recollection. No. And it was assessed in January, I wanna say January of 2015. So it was after quite a few of these by the sounds of the interest in penalties occurred. Okay. Can you repeat it again? Sorry. I didn't hear, sorry. Oh, okay, sorry. So the fine from the litigation of the $10,660 that was assessed, my recollection was paid in December of 2015. And it was assessed by the court, I believe in January of 2015. But now, how about those fees? The, yeah. Which fees? The tax fees? Yes. Okay. John can speak better to that, but it's my understanding from what he just, that it was like 2008 through... Their spreadsheet shows 2008 to 2015. Part of the request. And 2008 to 2015, the city was in court with the applicant. Is that correct? Correct, on and off correct, yes. But during most of that timeframe, well, during the initial here, the initial enforcement, there was most, majority of the timeframe was they were represented pro se. All right. Thank you. And I think this client definitely has this inability to pay because one, he was in litigation with the city. And the second thing is he did ask for a loan to be able to pay those 10,000, whatever that amount is. And reason why I did at the tax abatement committee requested for the city to abate his request. Thank you. And I feel like I still feel the same. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Jain. Councilor Tracy. So one of the questions that we discussed when it came to ability to pay was the assessment of additional properties that this individual holds around the state of Vermont. What were those other properties and what was the value of those particular properties that he holds around the state? I don't believe I had the value with me, but in my memo, when I wrote the memo back in May, I was aware of a 50.65 acres in Enesburg and another 0.67 acres in Colchester. Okay, but you don't know how much they were. I don't. Okay, thank you. Okay. Just one other point if I may, which is that we understand that Mr. Muir owns his property with his wife and that his wife is employed. So they do have an income. Councilor Nodell. Mayor, just briefly, I would just like to say that if someone is in litigation with the city, it doesn't mean that it's wise not to pay the penalties and interest accruing on property taxes that you have not paid. That is not wise. And so I don't know why that becomes grounds for abatement. If I could call the question. Excellent. Thank you, Councilor Nodell. Is there any objection to calling the question? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote on the underlying motion. So. Please restate the motion there. The motion is made by Councilor Mason is to deny the request for abatement of taxes. All right, so again, the motion is to deny the request. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed to the motion, please say nay. Okay, we'll do this with a show of hands. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Let me raise your hand. Those in opposition, please raise your hand. Motion carries by a, do you have the final, final? A, three. 10 to three. Laurie, do you have the final, Talia? I have three nays. Three nays and I believe it's 10 ayes. Motion carries. Okay, we will move to item 3.02, which is a request for abatement of taxes from Justin T. Safran at 127 Saratoga Avenue. Recognized Councilor Mason. Thank you, Mayor Weinberger. I'd like to, this was requested abatement of penalties in interest based on not one nonpayment in the amount of $183.36. The stated justification was because the fees were, you know, being escrowed by a bank and the bank didn't make the statement. The committee voted two to one to deny the abatement request, so I would make a motion to deny the abatement request for Mr. Safran. Thank you, is there a second for that motion? It's seconded by Councillor Shannon. Floor's open for discussion. Can I, Councilor Mason? Thank you, Mayor Weinberger. This is, you know, the committee has drawn a line, I think was consistent with past precedent than unless there's, you know, something that rises to the level of city's fault. Or some unique circumstance, which is the next one, you know, that the abatement has been denied. This was for us, for at least for the majority of the committee, a run of the mill. In fact, there were others where there was even more evidence of a bank admitting they screwed up. And even in that one, we voted to deny our position has been if the bank screwed up, your issue was with the bank, not with the city of Burlington. Thank you, Councilor Mason. Is there any further discussion? Okay, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We have one nay, and the motion carries by a vote of 12 to one. Finally, 3.03 is a request for abatement of taxes from Herman Hockwickar at 20 Oak Beach Drive. Oak Beach Drive. Councilor Mason, are you able to kick yourself on this one? Sure, thank you, Mayor Weinberger. This also a request to abate taxes in the amount of $19 and 19 cents. Unique set of facts here that the appellant here was waiting for a revised tax bill that was sent relatively close to when the payment was actually due. That tax bill, as we heard evidence from the treasurer's office, the tax bill actually went out. However, the taxpayer paid his taxes on time, but paid the lesser amount based on the uncorrected tax bill he had claimed to us that he never got the revised tax bill in time. This is similar to the one we dealt with at our last meeting two weeks ago. There was evidence from committee members that there had been a mail issue in the south end. So based upon similar reasoning to our decision two weeks ago, at least the majority of the committee voted in favor of granting the abatement request in the amount of $19 and 19 cents. Okay, thank you. Is that, I'll take that as a motion. On that, is there a second? Second from Councillor Shannon. I'll recognize Councillor Busher for discussion. Yes, the written findings of facts that he paid on the original amount, but he paid late. Is that accurate? I see no reason to question that. I don't recall that specific conversation. John, do you wanna fill that? Yeah, I believe he paid either a day or too late so he received that minor interest penalty. And I think in testimony he was saying that he was waiting for the bill, was anticipating it, knew that they came out and didn't receive it. And then he immediately paid the higher, the original tax bill, which was a higher amount. If you'll allow me. So if I was told that, I mean, how would I, did he request, how did it come to pass that he needed a revised tax bill, first of all? And then how would he be aware of that? And then I guess that's a question. And I'm not, I understand the issues with the mail, but I'm not supportive of saying that that is acceptable. We've never, I know that was stated a couple of weeks ago, but we have always put the responsibility on the person unless they could show us it was stamped on time, whatever, whatever. So can you just tell me how he knew he was getting a revised tax bill? Yes, there was a larger number of taxpayers that did not receive their state payment adjustment on their tax bill for the reduction. So they had larger bills. They looked at them and said, this is wrong. They notified the city of this error. The city talked to the state, city treasurer's office talked to the state and the state says, yes, you'll be receiving a download about July 30th, I think I believe that's when we received the download that made the correction. Then bills went out and I think this person, this taxpayer, was anticipating the bill and he said he didn't receive it and then realized that he was a day late and made the full payment on the bill. But the bill was due on August 12th. Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you for the information. I appreciate it. Any further? Councilor Nidell. Thank you, Mayor. Applying the rule of we abate when there's one, one ground is there's evidence of a city error. I don't see evidence of a city error in this case. And so I am not supporting the motion to grant the abate, the request. Councilor Shannon. Either. I think that that a major part of the thinking on part of the committee was that there was a city error, that there was a, the wrong tax bill went out. This taxpayer didn't pay that tax bill that he had because it was more than what he actually owed. So ultimately, not receiving the reduced bill, he overpaid the city. So that was also part of the consideration is that there was an overpayment to the city and now he is being charged interest and penalties. I'll also remind the council this, this is $19 and 19 cents. And with that, I will call the question. We'll have, is there a second to call on the question? Okay, requires a two thirds vote for calling the question to pass. All those in favor of calling the question. Point of information. Mr. Mayor, I think I raise my hand to speak before you make the call. No, I believe the question had been called before you raised your hand. And this is calling the questions a non-debatable item is my understanding. So we'll have a vote on calling the question. Needs a two thirds vote to pass. All those in favor of calling the question, please raise your hand. Be John. John, your question, your voter on this just to be clear. So the call, the question's been called and you want to raise your hand or not. Okay. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. And all those opposed, four opposed. On the math right, I think the question passes. 10. Two. All the more so if it's 10. I think it's only nine. Nine forward to it. Still passes either way. So the question's been called. We'll now have a vote on the underlying motion to grant the $19 abatement. All those in favor of the question, please raise your hand. Eyes, if you're opposed, please raise your hand. Nays, and five nays. The motion passes. And with that, I believe, thankfully, we have completed the agenda. And we will, without objection adjourn, the full board of abatement of taxes at 833 p.m. And return the gavel to you, President Wright. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We will reconvene the regular city council meeting at 833. And just in light of the discussion earlier about rules, I would like to note to the council that that last hour is not on me. That's not on my time. Okay. It's not on you either, Mr. Mayor. I'm under fire, Mike. So, okay, back to the deliberative agenda. Item number six, 6.01 is a public hearing regarding Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance ZA-18-05 Chairman Mason. I think we have to open a public hearing closing a public hearing here. Correct. So we will open a public hearing on this. And this is on article and bike parking. Do you need to say anything, Councilor Mason? I'll reserve my comments for the actual ordinance, other than noting Mr. Gustin is here if there are any questions for him. But I think this is a public hearing. I don't know if any member of the public is here to speak on these. Okay, so any member of the public that would wish to speak on this item, on this ordinance. Hearing none, we'll close out that public hearing. Thank you, and we'll move to item 6.02, which is an ordinance comprehensive development ordinance, article three, amendments ZA-18-05. Councilor Mason. Thank you, President Wright. I'd like to make a motion to waive the second reading, adopt the ordinance and ask for the floor back briefly after a second. Seconded by Councilor Nodell. Councilor Mason. Thank you, President Wright. The ordinance proposed before you has some proposed changes to article three. Scott is here to sort of pick me up if I misstate any of these, but in essence, these are the first ordinance or changes to section 3.25. Majority impose a time limit relating to imposing time limits for deferred action on complete applications. Occasionally, action on a completed application is deferred by planning due to factors, state permits or building code issues. Our current ordinance did not have any provision allowing for deferred action nor any limit on the actual number of deferrals. So this amendment permits deferral for up to six months on a completed zoning permit application and then for zoning application subject to DRB review, it permits two deferrals for three months each. Anything to add to that, Mr. Guston? Well, that's the first section. Oh, I missed the rest. 326 clarifies and incorporates a 30-day appeal period for zoning permits associated with the DRB and the final changes relate to 3.29, which extended the time to complete work authorized under a zoning permit to three years unless extended. But importantly, it also imposes a limit on the number of extensions, my understanding at least now informally, it's just been granted as a matter of right and this imposes or puts a limit on the number of extensions to two. Any discussion or questions from the city council? Hearing none. All those in favor of taking the action, which is to waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. I'm moving on to item 6.03 is an ordinance comprehensive development ordinance bike parking, the one we just had the public hearing on. Councilor Mason. Thank you, President Wright. I'd like to make a motion to waive the second reading, adopt the ordinance and ask for the floor back after a second. Seconded again by Councilor Nodell. Councilor Mason. Thank you, President Wright. This proposed amendment revamps and updates bike parking standards, implementing recommendations from planned BTV walk bike. There are general cleanups, high level allows for bike parking in the right of way and also extends a payment in lieu option. This was unanimously supported by the ordinance committee and I'd turn it over to Scott and answer any technical questions. Councilor Busher. Yes, I don't have a technical question, but I did call because the copy of the ordinance that was on board docs, I think on Saturday, still had in the table that deals with table eight dash and not eight, 8.2.4 dash one bicycle parking requirements. It still had under fraternity sorority and dormitory one per 43 residents. The little strikeout wasn't for the four, which I had noticed during ordinance. So hopefully that's there now. The strikeout not being reflected is simply a function of the strikeout going through the four. Okay, so I think it's misleading. So hopefully when you, you can make that clearer because shows up in the color anyways. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Busher. Other comments or questions? Councilor Tracy. I just would like to thank the ordinance committee for your work on this. I think that this modernizes a lot of our ordinances and updates them specifically dealing with issues of short and long-term use. Also getting rid of a maximum. I don't know why you'd have a maximum provision. I think that's really helpful, but it's just really nice to see us taking some of the things from Plan BTV and implementing them because it's one thing to build a network, but it's a whole different thing to make sure that people have a place to put their bike when they actually use that network and get to the places they need to be. So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Tracy. Other Councilors hearing none. Again, all those in favor of taking the action, which is to waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance. Please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you. And we're on to item 6.04, which is a comprehensive development ordinance regarding grocery stores in E-LMZA 19-01, Councilor Mason. Thank you, President Wright. I'd like to make a motion to waive the second, excuse me, waive the second reading, adopt the ordinance and ask for the floor back after a second. Seconded by Councilor Nodell. Councilor Mason. Thank you, President Wright. So this one's quite simple. It just changes the use table to permit grocery stores up to 35,000 square feet. Current limitation is 30,000 square feet in the Enterprise Light Manufacturing District. All right, thank you, Councilor Mason. Any discussion, any questions from the City Council? Hearing none. All those in favor of waiving the second reading and adopting the ordinance, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That also passes unanimously. Moving on to item number 6.05, this is a resolution regarding the Champlain Parkway and termination of easements. Councilor Shannon. Moved to waive the reading and adopt the resolution and ask for the floor back after a second. Seconded by Councilor Paul. Thank you, Councilor Shannon. Thank you. This is, we all went on the bus tour of acquisitions for the Champlain Parkway in the South End. This was one of those properties and the property owner appealed. Most of the property owners signed off on the easements and the city purchase easements. This particular property owner appealed and it's, the city determined that we don't really need that property. It's, it doesn't say it in the memo but I believe it was nine square feet and it was a temporary easement. So we can just avoid that litigation for everybody and stay within the right of way that we have. All right, thank you, Councilor Shannon. Questions from the Councilor to any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of adopting the ordinance, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Moving us on to item number 6.06, a resolution notice of compensation hearing regarding Champlain Parkway, Councilor Shannon. Move to waive the reading and adopt the resolution and ask for the floor back briefly after a second. Seconded by Councilor Nodal, Councilor Shannon. This is a required hearing that, and we are giving notice that the hearing will be on December 17th at 6 p.m. in Contoy's Auditorium. And this will be to initiate a compensation, it's a compensation hearing to determine damages, if any, to which each person from whom property interests were acquired in connection with the City Council's June 6th necessity order. Councilor Busher. I have a question. Attached is the citation notice and Riley or however you say it, properties is still listed. Do they have other parcels beside the one that we just dealt with, or should they be removed from this list? We have a team up here now to address this. They suddenly appeared and, okay, who wants to address Councilor Busher's question? I can handle this one, Councilor Busher. Riley is still included on the notice because until we file the document, you're approved on the last agenda item, they still need to be noticed. So should they be removed from this list? Is this what I said? They'll be on the list until we file that document. And then you won't need to hold a hearing for them in December, but they still need to be notified until that's finalized. Okay, okay, just confusing. Anyways, thank you. All set, Councilor Busher? Yeah. Any other questions from the Council? Hearing none and the action here is to waive the reading and adopt the ordinance. Adopt the resolution, yes. Excuse me, adopt the resolution. All those in favor of taking that action, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We have adopted the resolution. Item number 6.07 is a resolution request that the Vermont League of Cities and Towns Board of Directors consider submitting an amicus brief in Doyle versus Burlington Police Department, Councilor Mason. Thank you, President Wright. I'd like to make a motion to waive the reading and adopt the resolution and ask for the floor back briefly after a second. Seconded by Councilor Nodell. Councilor Mason. Thank you, President Wright. I will turn the floor over very briefly to Eileen to explain, but this is a somewhat complicated, nuanced decision about, or a decision about the distinction between inspection versus copying and the right of the municipality to charge reasonable amounts for purposes of compliance with an inspection request. So, without Eileen, maybe I'll turn it over to you to give a better explanation than that. Turn it over to Blackwood. Yes, to make clear what you're being asked to do is that the Vermont League of Cities and Towns often will submit an amicus brief in support of a Vermont Supreme Court case and we would like them to do that. They have a policy that, before they will agree to do that, they need a request from the legislative body of the city. So the goal here is just to have you all say, yes, we wanna ask the Vermont League of Cities and Towns to file an amicus brief in this case. They care about this case. They've posted it up on their website. It is, they believe that it's important for cities and towns throughout Vermont and they have indicated to us that, yes, they are interested in filing an amicus brief if they get this request from us. So that's really the action. Councilor Mason. Just to also set the stage, the city was, we actually won at the Superior Court Judge teach out, weighed the arguments on both sides and decided the argument put forth by the appellant was too nuanced. He was dissecting the statute too closely. The policy goal was to put some limitations on these FOIA requests. So we won. This is actually being appealed. I understand the ACLU is representing the appellant. So this is basically asking, the city will be filing its own appeal, I'm assuming, but this will be asking for support from the Vermont League of Cities and Towns in terms of our position and the decision of the court below. Thank you, Councilor Mason. Any discussion by the city councilor? Council hearing none. All those in favor of taking the action to waive the reading and adopt the resolution, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Again, passes unanimously. And that moves us on to committee reports. Item number seven, any committee chair who would like to report to the full council on committee action, Councilor Shannon. Thank you. The Charter Change Committee does not currently have a meeting scheduled, but I ask that Charter Change Committee members meet in this corner after the meeting because we do have a lot of work coming rapidly at us, including the Downtown Improvement District and other matters that need to be decided by the full council by December 17th. So in addition to that, we have our council rules and just to let the council know that that's going to go on the back burner so that we can make sure that we get everything back to the council that has that strict deadline. Thanks. Thank you, Councilor Shannon. I know December 11th is highlighted. I'm your schedule as a possibility. Other councilors, Councilor Nodell and. I'm not a committee chair, I just wanted to, I am the chair of the Senior Center Study Committee that we created by resolution in August, I believe. And I just wanted to let people know that the committee is now up and running. We are meeting at the Old North End Community Center in one of the spaces being used by the seniors there. And we're making good progress. We will have a hearing on our, we will have some kind of public forum on our recommendations. We wanna make sure that there's, that people understand what we're doing and why especially anyone who is at one of the senior senators who may be affected by our decisions. Thank you. Great, thank you, Councilor Nodell. Councilor Roof. Thank you, President Wright. Public Safety Committee will be meeting this Thursday, 5.30, we're not in room 12. At one point I said we were, we're not, we're in the community room at the Fletcher Free Library and we'll be taking up an important issue. We'll be looking at the city's newly released encampment removal policy. We'll have a discussion and then also take some action. Most likely, we'll also be looking at a proposal on bringing more bathrooms, publicly accessible bathrooms to the downtown. Thanks. Thank you, Councilor Roof. Councilor Pine. Sure, the Community Development Committee, Community Development and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee is meeting jointly with the Ordnance Committee. We've had two very productive meetings to discuss revisions to the city's ordinance, the inclusionary housing ordinance. I think it's safe to say that, well, we're gonna try to meet the deadline that the Council set for this joint committee. We had a difficult time getting six counselors together for the fall, so it took us a while to start meeting. There may be a request to give us a few couple more weeks. Once the holidays hit, but I'm gonna try to, I think all of us would like to try and wrap this process up. But we meet next on Monday the 19th. Those are 5.30 star times. Then we hold a public hearing on, I thought it was the 10th of, oh no, sorry, the 11th of December. I don't believe we have a location yet, but we're hoping to hold it here. That was one of the requirements of the resolution is that we hold a public hearing together, community input, and so I think that's a good update for that, yeah. All right, thank you, Councilor Pine. Did I miss anyone? Any other chair? Councilor Dean. Just finally, the License and Local Control Committee has a meeting scheduled for next Tuesday afternoon, the 20th at 4.45. I believe that's in conference room 12. Correct, conference room 12. All right, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Dean. Any other chair? Councilor Busher thinks you wanted to speak, Councilor Mason. Did you? If we have a meeting, I'm not remembering it. Let's say Councilor Busher's word for it. The Ordinance Committee will be meeting next Tuesday at 5.30 conference room 12. Yes, thank you, Councilor Busher. Thank you, Councilor Mason, via Councilor Busher. Councilor Powell. Thank you, so I forgot the HR committee, which doesn't meet very often, only meets when we have something HR policy related to talk about. We are meeting next Monday at 5 p.m. in the HR conference room. One of the items on the agenda is changing, in the city HR policy, changing the name of Columbus Day to Indigenous People's Day. And there's another item to do with 457 plans as well. Revening stuff, I know. Revening, thank you, Councilor Powell. Any other chair? Hearing none, we will go do City Council on General City Affairs. Councilor, any Councilor on General City Affairs? Councilor Roof. Thank you, President Wright. I wanted to make one remark on the Downtown Improvement District process, what was laid out with us tonight in this flow chart, which is great, by the way, thank you to the administration for putting this together. Two other items, I'll be doing an update tomorrow with the Church Street Marketplace Commission and also receiving feedback, which I'll try to capture and characterize. In some sort of written form, of course, that's open to the public so anyone can come. I will also be having a Downtown Improvement District Advisory Council on the 27th. That is open if people wanna come and sit on that, but that is a Council-appointed advisory committee to this Downtown Improvement District item, and they'll be getting an update on the 27th. I should also say in the resolution that established a process back in, I believe, August, we asked the Charter Change Committee to come back in the first week of December. This process contemplates that they'll miss that date, but I think that we can forgive them for doing so, because it's really not their fault. Beyond that, I'd just like to riff for a minute about, I think, some really incredible numbers that came out of Election Day last Tuesday. 2,125 same-day registrations happen city-wide, which is quite remarkable. First, I think some appreciation is owed to the clerks office and our ward clerks and folks who are working the polls. That is quite the number, a huge jump from early days of same-day registration. Just a few notes on this, because I was poking around these numbers, and I'm not out yet, but some wards had some incredible same-day registration numbers. Wards six close to 300, 298 same-day registrations. Wards one and two more than 300. Wards one, 382 new registrations, 351 from Ward two. These are incredible numbers. Ward eight, and this is something that I'm excited about. I'm proud of 523 new registrations in Ward eight alone, compared to the first election in Ward eight where there was, I think, barely 300 votes, just back in 2015. So we're seeing some incredible numbers there, and I had the opportunity to stop by and just to check in on the election, and there were 100, more than 150, mostly young people waiting to register to vote, and I spent the last couple of hours on election day helping that move forward, and I'll just point out, just in one more item related to this, that between the East District, Ward's one and eight, 905 new registrations occurred on just election day, which constitutes 43% of the total, which is just, I think, quite remarkable to see how young people, especially, are getting engaged in the political process, not just at the top level, but right here locally as well. So I appreciate the time. Thank you, Councilor Roof. Any other, any other Councilor Pine? I think we owe a big thanks to the voters of Burlington for supporting both the Clean Lake Bond, which I know there was a better name for it, but I kind of like that name, and the Burlington High School Bond questions, overwhelming support, and I think we, as a council, really rallied and came together and presented a good case to the voters that I think was pretty compelling for both of those, and perhaps over 90%, I believe, supported the Clean Lake Bond question, and well over 70% for the high school, so I think we're in good shape. It's an exciting time, and I realize that there's a price to that. Folks will be seeing their taxes increase as a result of the high school question for sure, but hopefully the benefits to our community will be felt throughout. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Pine. Anyone else, Councilor Mason? Thank you, President Wright. Burlington High School, for members of the public and the council, Burlington High School Drama Club will be presenting Little Mermaid Thursday, Friday, to Saturday. I have personally watched the commitment of a army of people trying to pull this off. I expect it will, as always, be a great show, and I know they greatly appreciate members of the public coming out to watch. So if people are around Thursday, and there's actually even a kid's matinee on Saturday afternoon as well. So hope to see you there. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Mason. Councilor Powell. Thank you. So yes, it was a wonderful election day for the city of Burlington, for the number of new people that voted. It's always great when so many people come out to vote. It certainly is a sign that our democracy is alive and well, at least in Burlington, for sure. And I think the last time most of us, at least most of us around this table, last time most of us were in this room, there were a lot more people in this room. There were about 450 or so people in this room, and I'm speaking about the night on Tuesday, the 30th of October, when we had the gathering of unity with the interfaith community. I just wanted to thank the number, the huge number of people, just the outpouring of support of people who came for that event. I have to confess, I did not see, I know that there were city counselors that were there that I didn't see. I know that many of you were there, and I am grateful as is everyone in this community for the fact that so many of us were there. We are, our presence makes a difference, and our presence means something. We are role models in our community, and being there sends a message that we care about that issue. We care about a lot of issues, but we cared about that issue that evening. And just also wanted to add that I think, I know a lot of people that came up to me after the event, and even in the days since that, even yesterday who said that having that event made them feel safer in this community. So we need to do that for everyone. We did a wonderful thing for many people that evening, and hatred and bigotry, anti-Semitism does pervade our society, but we can't allow it to prevail. And I think that evening sent a powerful message to many people that we are not going to allow that to prevail. I'm sure there's a lot of you that saw the article in the New York Times and probably saw on social media about the group of, I believe it was the junior class who went to their prom in Wisconsin and we're all photographed doing a Hitler salute. This is pervasive in our society and we have to do everything we can to crush it. So again, thank you very, very much for being there. Your presence meant a lot to everyone. And on a personal note, it meant a lot to me. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Powell. And I would just concur that that was a tremendous event. And I thought that Governor, former Governor Cunin for me actually said it best, saying that everyone in this room tonight, tonight we are all Jews. And I agree that there should be, we can accept zero tolerance for any kind of anti-Semitism. So thank you for that report. Any other Councillor on General City Affairs? Councillor Dean. Thank you, President Wright. I would like to just remind everyone that Sunday was a gathering for in City Hall Park for the recognition of the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, which was Armistice Day 100 years ago. And Michelle Kaver, who's the current common down to the VFW was there, as well as Senator Sanders. Mayor Weinberger sent representative in Brian Low. We had a representative as well from Pierre Welch's office. It was an opportunity to recognize the sacrifice that so many of our fellow citizens have made in many years past in securing our freedom and our ability to engage in democratic process and vote. It was a moving ceremony and it was a beautiful day. And I was very proud to have the opportunity to be there. Councillor Hartnett was there as well. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Dean. Any others? Any other Councillor? Hearing none, we will conclude item number eight. Item number nine is City Council President updates. Just real briefly, I will be setting out an email just reminding everybody of the process and the times going forward. We have a busy agenda in regard to obviously some work sessions that are coming up on the charter change issues. So look for an email from me on that process and the timelines that we'll be looking at. And it's obviously a busy time coming up including for the charter change committee. With that, I'll conclude that item and Mr. Mayor, take us home. Great, thank you President Wright. I too wanted to comment actually on your last point there and just to highlight in particular, there will be an extensive schedule because there are a number of different committees that will be asked to review the three different charter changes that are under consideration. November 26th is two weeks from yesterday is going to be an extended work session and did wanna, well, we'll nail down the exact time it may start because there is so much to do that evening it may start a little earlier than normal but do wanna highlight that for Councillors as a key night for all three of these charter changes each of which have been our culminations of, in some case, years of process and the administration is looking forward to working with you in the coming weeks to try to put them in front of the voters in the coming town meeting day. I too wanted to note the past, the election from a week ago, the local ballot items, the outcomes were quite remarkable. I wanna thank the public works team that really responded to the really unpleasant series of events last summer, kinda came through that adversity and worked very hard to put in front of first this council and then the voters a compelling $30 million clean water resiliency plan. I like Councillor Pines formulation as well. The 92% passage of that is, I think, a sign of certainly the strong belief Berlin-Tonians have in the importance of keeping Lake Champlain clean, a sense of urgency that we need to move on this quickly which the administration certainly will do in response to this vote as well as I hope at some measure in confidence in the city team to use these resources well and make progress and we'll be, work has already begun to make good on that. Also congratulations, it is an exciting and really historic achievement for the Burlington School District that nearly three quarters of the voters supported moving forward with this vital plan for largely new and rebuilt high school and that as the council may recall, there will be important work before the Board of Finance. Soon we, certainly speaking for the administration and the Board, we're excited to do the city's part to work with the district and support that project moving forward successfully as well, there's an exciting, very exciting and meaningful decision for the generations of Burlington School children that the voters supported this and I will work to do our part in making sure we make good on that opportunity as well. Couple other quick things, there is a no, in the consent agenda, just wanna point out that per the council's resolution from a couple months ago, I have named two city councilors to the community stat effort and I wanna thank a number of councilors for their interest in this and I wanna thank councilors Karen Paul and Max Tracy for agreeing to serve on this important working group and the effort that you are joining, I think is at a critical time and it's much appreciated to have some additional energy from councilors at this moment when we are starting a number of new initiatives with respect to the opioid epidemic that have just been launched in recent months and that will be following very closely with the hope that in 2019, we finally see a significant drop off in the number of overdose deaths that have so plagued this community, the whole state and the whole nation. So thank you, councilors Paul and Tracy for your agreement to serve on this committee and then finally this Thursday, councilors and the public are invited to the launching of highlight at 1 p.m., there will be a press conference which has been announced previously but some additional details will be put forth on Thursday that flesh out the plans for this year's December 31st New Year's activities and this is the successor to the longstanding successful first night celebration that BCA is leading this highlight celebration and stay tuned for more information on this later this week on Thursday. President Wright, thank you. Appreciate the opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That concludes the city council meeting. Motion to adjourn. Moved by councilor Roof. Second by councilor Nodell. All those in favor please say aye. We are adjourned.