 All right, so we will get started. Today is March 27th, 2023. Good evening. Thank you for joining us in person in Contois and online for the Burlington City Council meeting, our last council meeting of the council year. It is now 20 of six and we're gonna begin with a motion to adopt the agenda. I need to get my agenda up as well. Okay. Who's got their agenda up that can make a motion on item 1.01, a motion to adopt the agenda. Thank you so much, Councillor Shannon. Motion is made to adopt the agenda as presented. Is there a second to that motion? Seconded by Councillor Travers. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, please say no. That means that we have our agenda. The second item is item two, which is a communication regarding camping and parks. And that will go to some degree hand in hand with our third item, which is item three, a communication update on Memorial Auditorium. These are both expected executive sessions. And before motions are made to go into executive session, I'll mention the first one for the benefit of the public. Item two, I had actually requested that this be on our agenda. And as far as what can be shared in open session, this item was brought to the council in February 2022. The motion in the draft ordinance was to request that CDNR, the Community Development and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, which is a committee of the council, begin a community review of the proposed ordinance and operational policies related to camping on municipal lands. And at the same time, the city attorney's office would lead a review of the proposed ordinance and submit to the council report on the benefits, precedents and possible concerns about the changes in comparison to our current policies. That was to come to us some time ago. Work has been done on the draft ordinance, the committee, CDNR has met, and the council will meet in executive session to get that update and determine next steps based on that update. The administration had requested item number three, and I don't believe there's anyone here from the administration. I don't know, Attorney Sturtivin, if you know of anything that can be discussed and that we can share with the public before we go into executive session. I'm not aware, President Powell, other than it's an update regarding Memorial Auditorium. So I guess we will leave it at that. With that, that has been our policy of late when we have more than one executive session. Sessions is started by Councilor Shannon that we do our best to combine the motions and economize on time. And with that, I'll ask for the first of the two motions to go into executive session from Councilor Carpenter. Thank you. I would move that the council find that premature general public knowledge of legal advice regarding camping in parks would currently place the city at a substantial disadvantage. And in addition, I would further move that the council enter into an executive session with regard to negotiating or securing real estate purchase or lease options pertaining to Memorial Auditorium pursuant to one VSA 313A2. Thank you, Councilor Carpenter. Is there a second to that motion seconded by Councilor Hightower? Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, we will go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, please say no. Okay, we have that. So we will go to the second motion with regard to the first part of your motion regarding camping in parks. Councilor Carpenter, if you could move the second motion, please. Thank you. Based on the finding regarding camping in parks, I would move that the council go into executive session to receive confidential attorney plant communications for the purpose of providing professional legal services to the body pursuant to one VSA subsection 313A1F. Thank you, Councilor Carpenter. Seconded by Councilor Hightower. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed, please say no. I also just wanted to add that Councilor Jang is also joining us by Zoom. With that, and also just to note, in the first executive session, I believe we have the mayor, staff, city attorney, McClelland as well as Sturtevant, and I believe we also are gonna have joining us by Zoom the special assistant to and homelessness, Sarah Russell. For the second, or actually that's for the, I'm sorry, yes, that's for, that's for the first, yes, that's for the first one. The second one would be the mayor, staff, and from CEDO, Brian Pine and Samantha Dunn, I believe that that covered and you, and you too. And as well, attorney Sturtevant. So with that, we are, we will go into executive session, we will be doing the executive session downstairs and we hope to end at around 6.45, so, yes, 6.45 to 6.50. So we are in executive session and if you can all join us downstairs in the bushel conference room. Thank you. We are back from the executive session that we had. Thank you so much for your patience. The next item on our agenda is item four, a presentation regarding dog task force progress update. And for this update, we have a number of members who are here with us from the dog task force. Perhaps it would be easier, I know you're here with the director of parks recreation and waterfront, Cindy White, if you could all introduce yourselves and then whomever it is that is going to be leading the presentation, I believe that's you, Maria, that you're gonna be leading, yes? Or someone is going to be leading this presentation. Contributing to the presentation. Okay, all right, so, and do you have, and you have a setup for the presentation as well. So we've allotted about a half an hour for this and if you could keep maybe your presentation to about 15 minutes or so and then we will, that'll allow us some time for some questions from the council. So welcome, thank you so much for being here. We're all looking forward to hearing what you have to say. Do you have the dot, do you have that on? Oh, now it's on. Now it's on. All right, so I'm Cindy White, the director for Parks Rec and Waterfront. I just wanna start by thanking the task force. We've been really fortunate to have some incredible community volunteers that have stepped forward to be involved with this. And I'm gonna go ahead and introduce the folks that are here at the table and then we'll catch those in the back. I'm Lori Kettler and I'm an animal law attorney. I live in the Old North End and so I've been working on the ordinances primarily. And I'm Nina Hurley. I am the representative for Animal Rescue. I'm a board of director member at the Humane Society of Chinden County and I live in the Old North End. Just the green dot, yeah, great. I'm Maria Karnumgen. I am the chair. I'm serving in the trainer position and I live in the Old North End. I'm Alana Blanchard and I am the non-dog owner and I live in what was Ward 5 and is now Ward 3. We have some additional members here. I don't know where they went. So Megan O'Daniels been one of our staff representatives on the committee. Abby Duke, our park commission chair and Kyle Tansley over here. Kyle is on the conservation board and has been helping with us from that perspective. We first started when there were a lot of complaints showing on social media and just lots and lots of complaints. And so I think a few council members actually convened a community meeting. I believe it was Sarah Carpenter and Ali Ding. Maybe someone else. Apologies, I'm forgetting somebody. But they convened a community meeting and that was really productive and led to a resolution. And there were various that all of us were appointed officially in November of 2021. And we started our work in January of 2022. And this was a mandate that we were given. We had a scope of work that involved both taking action, some action and also just making some policy recommendations. As a task force we meet monthly and then there's also subcommittees that meet outside of those meetings in order to make sure that work is moving forward between each meeting. And then there's some areas such as licensing that we are addressing as an entire group. So we are still in the process of collecting all of the data that we need. But we have some high level data that we'll show you on the next slide. This is the high level data that we received from the police department. Just so you can get a flavor of the fact that we do have some issues in Burlington. And we are still in the process of learning more about them. We just received some detailed data from the police a few weeks ago that we're currently going through. And we also have some results from a survey that's currently going out. So I've been supporting the off-leash subcommittee. We've been going back and looking at a lot of the previous work that had been done around off-leash and then also taking into account what are urban wilds, community uses of spaces. And right now we have a survey out that's collecting feedback. We've received about a thousand responses so far and that survey will be closing the end of the month and then we'll be spending time to be going through the survey. So that's a lot of the work that the off-leash subcommittee was doing is leading us up to that survey and then we'll be taking the results from that and that'll be part of the recommendation. To define off-leash. So we have sort of two different sort of areas. There's one that's a dog park. Currently less than 1% of Burlington City parks are available for off-leash space. So there is a need for these off-leash areas. One, there's the traditional dog park that's completely fenced in. But then we also have these off-leash areas that might not fully be fenced in such as areas that people are currently using as off-leash areas like Smalley or Roosevelt Park. But the expectation is that people still have their dog under voice control when they're in these off-leash areas. And part of the issue is that since there are no designated off-leash areas, people are still utilizing them and then there's a conflict between people who want their dogs off-leash and then people who maybe are not comfortable for whatever reason, whether they're afraid of dogs, their children are afraid of dogs or they have a reactive dog. So by creating these off-leash areas at certain times, we can give dog owners that outlet that they're looking for but then also alert the people who might not be interested in meeting an off-leash dog around those certain times there will be off-leash dogs in those areas. So the Educations Lab Committee takes a lot of cues from the whole committee in terms of what public service announcements might be useful. And there's several that have been developed and rolled out over the past year to encourage folks to clean up after their dog, to lease their dog especially in the spring when our natural areas are much more sensitive. There's new flowers, baby animals, and to make sure that dogs aren't disturbing or harming any of our incredible resources in the city. So the committee's also been working on a calendar and planning event which Nina's gonna tell you a bit more about. So some of these calendar items are items that we have enacted while others are just proposals or ideas that we may have had. So part of our mandate is education and events. So education items that we've posted on social media and front porch forum do include the barking, PSA, dog licensing that has gone out in the last month. There's also been a picking up poop PSA now that the snow is melting. That's an issue that I think we're all seeing around Burlington. So that will be coming back out soon. And then there's some events. There's ideas that we've proposed like dog days of summer to promote dog friendly businesses on Church Street, maybe a Halloween parade, again to bring people down to Church Street. And then there is one event that is currently in the works and that's called Wag the Waterfront. So that is going to be an event at the Waterfront Dog Park and the Moran plant. There will be a yappy hour with switchback at the dog park on the Waterfront. There will also be some vendors and ask the trainer booth so people can, if they have an issue with their dog, chat with a trainer about how to handle those. Maybe some agility. There can be some local vendors. We have a lot of really great stores here in Burlington that can set up as well as maybe some low cost health options from the Humane Society of Jenin County. So the ordinance subcommittee has been reviewing the current ordinances and we'll be making some recommendations to update those. A lot of what we're looking at is just updating language to make it more relevant to today's language. And all the ordinances are still under discussion, but we are looking also at possibly prohibiting at large cats, licensing cats. We are looking at whether Burlington needs to have a dedicated animal control officer. And we're also looking at updating the fees for licensing and how that might work. And that's all going, it's still under discussion, all of those. So we've got some, we wanna call out Yusef Abdi who has taken on the police representative role on the dog task force and he's been really great in helping us to understand the current policies and practices and try to make connections between what's happening in the neighborhood and where we might want to make improvements. So we have run into some things we would like to see improvements to just the accessibility of reporting in particular and also some just sharing information between city departments so that the police have access to the city clerk data on license, on dog licenses. Oh yeah, and so yeah, and so in reviewing all of these, we're still kind of debating what recommendations we might make and that will be in the final report. Only the American Veterinary Medical Association suggests that 45% of households have at least one dog so that estimates that Burlington has over 7,000 dogs but in 2022, only 826 dogs were licensed and that's down from 2012 when over 1,200 dogs were licensed so clearly we're under licensing our dogs here in Burlington even though licensing is now available online, we would like to promote that that's an option. We would also have some suggestions around whether licensing fees could be used to support dog related programming and one of the items that we've noticed is that there's a perceived lack of consequence for not licensing your dog. So right now, if the community service officers are responding to a call, as Maria had mentioned, there is no way for them to check if a dog is even licensed so there doesn't seem to be this perceived consequence for if you don't have your dog licensed. So one of the communities that we looked at, if you saw the chart on the prior slide, South Burlington was pretty much higher than the other communities despite having a much lower population and so the city clerk, I think because of the rabies and other concerns really sought to see how their office could promote dog licensing overall in the community and so she went to other clerks to see how they did it across the country and came up with a program that each year builds overall except for the during the pandemic but builds the overall amount of dogs that are licensed. So for example, if someone comes into the office and wants to license their dog but didn't remember to bring their proof of rabies shot with them, she'll call up the vet's office and get the vet to fax over the rabies license and issue their license at that moment. So she makes sure that the customer does not get away. So, but there's many other things she does. She has a contest for the top dog in the first feline and she collects prizes so that they receive, so that when the drawing is done each year for who gets the number one license tag for the dogs and the number two license tag for the cats, that they receive about $200 worth of prizes. So it does require some effort but it does definitely up the numbers for licensing. Okay, so in terms of next steps, we're going to look at all the data that we have and we're going to complete our final report. We will be making recommendations for both the council and for city programs. So that's the end of anybody has any questions. Okay, thank you. Thanks so much for this informative presentation. I don't know if there'll be people that will have any questions about the slides that you had up there, but we can always go back to them. Are there any comments or questions from the council? Keeping in mind that this is an interim update. You will be coming back to us and when it's nice and warm outside. Were there any questions or comments from the council? Councilor Carpenter and we'll go to Councilor Barlow after. Thank you all. There was a great report and I really appreciate all the work you did. And Sophie says, hi. Just two comments that I got feedback on. One was in the survey itself. You were rating different sites and it didn't seem easy to have a definitive yes or a definitive no. And I heard this more from the no side, which is not needed versus no. I don't want off leash in that area. So I just hope as you weigh your results, you take that in mind. The other thing, and I know this was done under the auspices of the park department, but I encourage the dog task force to look at are there other public lands that might lend itself to off leash dog areas? And I don't know if you looked at that or not looked at that, but there might be some other appropriate, not in your department, Cindy, but that might work. And it might work say for in particularly a fenced dog park, which would sort of add. Thank you. Thank you. Did you want to? Those are just my comments. All right. Or if you had anything you wanted to add, Cindy. I can just say that when we're looking at the one, the one was that one was the one, we're basically interpreting, if someone hit a one on that is not needed, that that meant no, as that's kind of, and it just getting to sort of a somewhat funny kind of way that our world is right now that, so there's one through five. And so one is not needed, five is gotta have it. And so there's very few twos. People are very clear, they do not want it, but there's many more fours and then the fives. So people are, when it comes to, you know, good habit, they're a little more blended, but when it comes to not wanting it, they're very clear. We'll go to Councillor Barlow and then Councillor Freeman. Thank you. And thank you for the presentation. I just had a question about the data. The largest complaint category was dog at large. And is that an off-leash dog or is that a dog that's roaming free? Or what? That high level data came from the previous representative to the council. So we might have to go back and ask him, but I'm hoping that the detailed data that we received will give us more information. We're assuming, but my off-leash means the owners around. Okay, thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor Barlow. Councillor Freeman. Thank you, President Powell. I was just wondering, is there any, like I think microchipping has become so much more prevalent and I wonder if that has somewhat related to the decrease in licensing because it's such a fast way to ID an animal. And so the sort of more registry, like sort of, I don't know if to call it old school, but is maybe less on people's mind. I also was just thinking as you were talking about it that like I know if there was a reminder or even a place to do it at like town meeting day when you go to vote, like I would just be like, oh yeah, I got to do that, you know? And I think there are little ways to increase that. But I do think maybe it is competing with sort of the fact that there's just microchipping and so people are using that as a default way to track an animal that might get loose. I think there's the added benefit with licensing of being able to check rabies status, which is a good reason to continue to encourage it, but I'm just wondering if that might be part of it. And I don't know, I was just thinking as you were bringing up. And then regarding the off-leash versus like sort of, and versus like dog parks, I do think that would be so lovely to continue to look into. I don't even know if I would end up as a dog owner utilizing an off-leash space because my dog can be like a 50-50 reactive dog. And so I don't necessarily have her around dog, she doesn't know. But I do think as you said in the presentation, the sort of lack of off-leash spaces like designated spaces is probably contributing to these sort of like stop gap, informal sort of people just going rogue and saying sort of deciding to designate a space is like, well, this is sort of informally off-leash or just saying, well, there's not really any off-leash spaces, my dogs need to be active. I'm just gonna kind of go with it and hope it works out. And I think it's also helpful for those of us who do have dogs that can be reactive to be like, to know like this is not going to really be an off-leash area. And then like if I do want to be in an off-leash area, which is a little bit niche getting into dog ownership, but it definitely, I think there are, I mean, this is a very dog-friendly town. There are a lot of people that have dogs. And I do think it can, it's definitely a stressor. I know that we have a lot of stressors that we deal with and a lot of very serious things, but since I've moved here, I've always thought like, oh wow, it's such a dog-friendly town, but it doesn't always feel like there are actually that many dog-accessible spaces, which I was like, oh, it's kind of, would be nice. But I appreciate the work that you all have been doing. And I really liked the aspect about the sort of thinking about how to creatively create off-leash designated spaces. So thanks for your work. Yeah, I just want to add that I think as much as this task force is about making it a dog-friendly city, it's also about protecting the people who don't necessarily like dogs or don't feel comfortable with off-leash dogs running up to them. So those are all things that we are taking into consideration so that, again, if you do have a reactive dog or if you're afraid of dogs that you feel comfortable walking through a park or down the sidewalk without fear of an off-leash dog approaching you. Totally, I think that's something that I've also just noticed with, I think we brought up Roosevelt Park and just how as much as I would love for there to be designated places where people can have dogs off-leash, that it creates this sort of tension with people who either for personal or cultural reasons or they just have their kids, they don't want to be in a space where there are off-leash dogs. And it causes tension and it just, yeah, it would be great to try to figure out some solutions for that. So thank you. One of the hopes that we have as an outcome would be that if in the end some off-leash spaces are designated, that there would also be some education that would help to spread the word so that people would know when would be a good time to go and not have to be subjected to off-leash dogs and also education for the people who do have dogs to handle their dogs appropriately and to make wise choices. Great, thank you so much. Were there any other? Councilor Hightower. I guess I'll ask one question, which is just the forage into cats and some of the thoughts around that. Yeah, I was just curious as to like what cat registration look like and some of the benefits of it as your, it looks like you were maybe considering that, so. Licensing? Yes, licensing, thank you. So we feel like it would be, we're probably gonna be recommending that that be done and it's really a public health issue just like it is with dogs, with regard to rabies and such and then with regard to the free roaming cats, it's not only a public health issue but it's an environmental issue because of the impact they have on wildlife and also just on neighborly relations and that kind of thing. Did that answer your question? Yes, thank you. Thanks very much, Councilor Hightower. Councilor Shannon. Thank you all for your work on this. It's, this is great to see and I'm so glad you're wrestling with the many difficult issues that we have around dogs. And I just wanted to note that a couple of things about dog licensing. I agree, it doesn't seem like there's any consequences for not licensing the dogs. I remember a day where one of the methods was publicly shaming those of us, particularly on the City Council who did not register our dogs. However, that was only known because they had been previously registered. So on the more positive side, I don't know if we could publish a list of the registered dogs so that there would be a place you could go to see where dogs are registered and then maybe there's a public aspect to compliance with this. Yeah, that was my only thought on that topic, but thank you. Thanks very much, Councilor Shannon. I think South Burlington, an anonymous water reporting. Sorry, we're done. Oh, sorry, what? Maria was just stating that South Burlington, I think other communities also have an opportunity for people to anonymously report dogs that are not licensed, which is then followed up by a friendly initial letter to say, hey, it's possible you have an animal that is not licensed. Well, I suppose we could try that, although I'm not sure how effective that would be. Are there other Councilors who have Councilor Carpenter? Just a quick thought in South Burlington can't have more dogs than we do, but we have a different demographic. We are two-thirds renters, one-third homeowners, third, just the opposite. So somebody mentioned that other ways to communicate, we have a highly transient population who probably blows right by them. So how do we get to those folks that only live here two or three years and still have a dog and electric bills, your ballot? I don't know what the right venue is, but a little more work on that. Can I make a comment? Certainly, Councilor Chang. Yep, sorry, I've been raising my hand. I did not see you, my apologies. No problem, no problem. Thank you, thank you all the Doug Task Force, thank you so much for your work. We have been hearing some regular updates with the Parks, Arts and Culture Committee, and we were amazed by the breadth of partnership and also the knowledge and expertise of the composition of the Task Force, from lawyers, to trainers, to civil society, all of it is just amazing. Thank you so much. And also what I like the most is how this is not only one specific neighborhood represented, we have people from the South and New North and all of it represented on the Task Force. And bringing this Task Force together, also a lot of community engagement, community engagement, I think thank you, thank you so much. I am particularly thankful for your work, as well as Cindy too and your staff. We really appreciate everything that you've been doing and Kyle as well and the volunteers. So it's just saying that people want change, people want something to be done and also people want things to be regulated and also expert to make these type of decisions. And I think all community, let's say, city policies should be like this from the community to bringing real policy with tangible amount of community engagement. Thank you for that again. I think one thought is we need to utilize too. I know you're already working with the Burlington Police Department and sorry that the data did not come to you, it came to you kind of late, but I'm glad that they're engaging now, it's great. But now the other city departments such as DPW and Burlington Electric, they're sending bills home. I think you need to utilize tap into those too, like postcards have a blurb in the bills going to people's home to remind them to register their dogs or their cats, whatever it is. Like the city resources already established structures. I think you need to tap into it in reaching the 7,000 dock owners in the city. Burlington should be a welcoming dock city for everyone. Also be environmentally responsible too, like the nature, exactly. I think that's too. And it will be amazing as well for these dock events to be more known. I see that you do a lot in terms of social media and also in terms of from push forum, but I think more need to happen. And you should not even wait for the city council to ask you if there is a policy that you have established that you have done, right? Request another meeting again, come to the council or come to the arts and culture to provide updates. I think this is just amazing. To the question of council high tower about what the benefits of having cats being licensed. I think the community meetings that we held, it was very clear that people need some type of regulation about cats and also because it will help us makes a distinction between wildcat and outdoor cats, right? And also right now, Cindy can attest cats are attacking dogs, cats are attacking people, cats are killing birds, I mean, I think there are a lot of concern between neighbors about cats. And I think the city need to do something to solve this issue too. But really I am really impressed about your work and I can't be thankful enough. Thank you so much for what you have been doing and what you will continue to do. And I'm confident that you may come back again to request more time before your final report. I'm just impressed, work well done and thank you. That's what I wanted to say. Great, thank you, Councillor Chang. And also thank you for the work that you did on bringing this issue forward and to all the people that applied to be on the dog park task force. I remember when we were discussing members and we had an amazing wealth of people that have a lot of different talents when it comes to being able to serve and do this work. So we're greatly appreciative of all of your work. I don't know if there's anyone else who has any questions, if not, certainly if you do find that you need more time past, I think it's June, right? Then let us know. Of course we would love to have your report on time, but if that can't be and you need more time or there's other things that you feel are missing that you would rather have in it, by all means let us know. And thank you again. Thank you very much for your time. We are now at 7.35 and we will skip ahead past item number five to item number six, which is the public forum, which begins at a time certain we're a little bit behind, but not too badly, which begins at 7.30. Before we begin the public forum, just a few items of information. The table that sits in front of the city council has a light system on it with three lights. The green light will shine when you begin speaking. The second yellow light when you have 30 seconds left and the last light is red and that will shine when your time is up. We just ask that you try to wrap up your comments. When you see the red light so that we are giving the same amount of time to each of our speakers. We have a hybrid system for public forum. If we should speak in person, there are forms that are to my right in the back of the room. Please fill one out and you can bring it to the clerk who is on my right in the front of the room. If you wish to speak via Zoom, you can go to burlingtonvt.gov slash city council slash public forum. And when you do that, there will be a form that will come up, please complete the form and your answers will come into a spreadsheet that is sitting right here in front of me on my computer. It's been our practice that Burlington residents will have first priority to speak. We will go to Burlington residents in Contois, then to Burlington residents online, back to non-Burlington residents in person and then we will conclude with any non-Burlington residents that have joined us online. During public forum, we just ask that you please direct your comments to me as the chair. Please use respectful language and try to remember that there are a number of families we know sometimes they come here in person and sometimes they're just joining us online. There are a number of families who use our council meetings to teach their children about civic engagement and to try to keep that in mind when you direct your comments to me as the chair. With that, we will go to those people who are joining us in person in Contois. The first is Romeo von Herrmann to be followed by Todd LeCroy. Romeo, please join us. Thank you, good evening. Thank you and good evening. Thank you for having me. Madam President, Mr. Mayor, it's good to see you again as always. Counselors, city administrative team. Today, I just wanna highlight that we are in a very important month being the Holy Month of Ramadan. There are a lot of members, I suspect here the city that are Muslims as well as members of the community here in Burlington, as well as our state here in Vermont, the nation and around the world. This important month, I wanna acknowledge all Muslims and congratulate them on this holy month and wish them all the health and success on this very important month. As we acknowledge them. On the second point that I wanna make is to the lack of civic engagement that students have here in this city. Burlington is considered a college town or a college city. That's not to say that students do not get involved when it comes to canvassing, reaching out to their counselors with respect to when running for office. However, beyond running for office, I barely see them their engagement in the public engagement when it comes to the political sense of it. Rather reaching out to counselors, airing their concerns, showing up at the city council. And I'm hoping that students will make time to come here and listen to their counselors, but as well as fights versus that the council will reach out to the students in their respective wards to create much more engagement with the students. On that note, I would just wanna end happy Ramadan to all Muslims that are here in the city of Burlington, as well as in our nation and around the world. Happy Ramadan 2023. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. We will continue with Todd LaCroix to be followed by Sandy Baird. A lot of people talking about where all these volunteers going. They have an article in Vermont Tigger. Where are all the volunteers? Generational divide. You see, the thing is, it's very clear to the generation below, the generation above, as to why there's a divide. You see, rich people don't volunteer. People who own second and third homes and drug dealers who own places here don't volunteer. They don't care about your communities. They don't like paying taxes. They don't care about our children. In fact, most of them are really against our children. Look at the policies they support. Look at how they're bankrupting that generation, paying for their stuff. You see, what you guys forget is that I used to go to World Bank and IMF meetings as a journalist. And I know a little bit about what I'm talking about. And you guys have led me and my generation off a cliff with 30 trillion dollars of debt, while you gave 30 trillion dollars away to the wealthy in the last time that I checked in my life. You are the generation that will be remembered as the generation that destroyed the dollar as the powerhouse of global finances. You are the generation that will go down in history as the generation that knew nothing but destroying everything. Everything was disposable, including your children, including their future. You are the people who sold it out to the house of sod, to corporations, to death mongers who think the death and destruction is the only profitable thing left. And you all are going along. Thank you so much, Todd. Our next speaker is Sandy Barrett. Hi, Sandy. My name is Sandy Barrett and I'm from Ward 1 and I'm here tonight to talk to remind you all about the F-35s at Thunder through our skies every morning. And then I'm sure I hear on Loomis Street with probably many of you others. I want to remind you that with all of our talk about climate change and weather change, that what we never talk about really is that these F-35s are massive polluters as well and that if anything causes climate change and increases in temperature, it is F-35s and we're the constant emission of fossil fuels and also with their constant noise that thunders through our skies makes our children afraid, makes all of us afraid. And as the city committed to measures that counter climate change, I don't understand why we still remain committed to the F-35s which have been with us for many, many years with the consent of all of our political leaders. Secondly, the F-35s contribute to the wars of the planet and then once again, the wars cannot help weather changes and climate change. In fact, I would argue that war and the military are main causes of all the climate change that we experienced and we're all committed to doing something about and I'm wondering why don't we do something about these F-35s? And lastly, I would remind you all that they have made us a target of perhaps the worst kind of weapons and wars on this planet and that is nuclear war. That these planes have the capacity to carry nukes in them and that because they are here among us in a dense urban population that these planes make us a target of nuclear war. And I would just ask once again that we reconsider and at least take a stand against these horrible weapons that could kill all of mankind and all of nature. Thank you. Thank you very much, Sandy. Amy Dimetruis, I do have your, but did you want to speak during the public hearing on the inclusionary zoning ordinance or did you want to speak now during the public hearing? Okay, so I will hold on to this until we get to that item. Thank you. So we have one other person who is asked to speak in con toys. They are non-Burlington residents so we will go online. To a number of residents who wish to speak, Burlington residents beginning with Burlington residents. The first is Jean Hopkins and Jean, I have found you and enabled your microphone. You just need to unmute on your side. I have unmuted, can you hear me? Yes, we can, please go ahead. Okay, I would like to thank you for having us speak tonight of the concerns of the F-35s. And Sandy Beard expressed my thoughts very well. I agree that it's just too noisy. I live in a third floor apartment and in ward one and can see and hear the planes, the jets going over probably three to four days a week. And there must be maybe sometimes 12 of them going over each day. It's just noisy, it causes pollution. I'm wondering if the vibrations that I can feel in my home if they're doing deterioration to our buildings, people with heart conditions, it's just too much vibration. And they just also remind me and make me angry about our military industrial complex. I thought growing up, we had the Peace Corps and we were a country that helps people instead of hurting them. I really just want these F-35s moved out of our city to a much less populated place and we need homes, not weapons. Thank you. Thank you, Jean. Our next speaker is Sharon Busher and Sharon, I've enabled your microphone. You should be able to speak. Thank you so much, President Paul. I'm going to speak regarding Memorial Auditorium. I am very disappointed with the process that is being undertaken right now. The desires of the community were captured, what, five, six years ago in a very public process which spoke volumes about the need to keep it as community-based. I'm a realist, I understand the financial impacts of and the reality that we don't have those funds to make some of those dreams come true. They were dreams and wishes, but I don't feel that the process that is currently being undertaken is in the spirit of what the community wanted. The community still wanted public engagement and it's become very private. And so I'm asking the council to please bring this out in the open. Please involve the community regarding the two RFPs that you're considering. Please compare those RFPs and what they propose with what the community intended or what they wanted. And I feel a very, a big sadness that we no longer have visionaries within our city that can come forward with ideas and potentially look for funding sources outside of just bonding. This whole process right now is incredibly disappointing to me as a resident and I'm sure to the veterans who still remember the rationale and the reason for Memorial Auditorium. Thank you. Thank you, Sharon. Our next speaker is Jess Hyman and Jess, I have found you and enabled your microphone. Thank you, President Paul. I'm Jess Hyman, I'm the associate director of the Statewide Housing Advocacy Programs at CVOEO and also award three resident. And my comments related to the Fair Housing Month proclamation that's coming up later on the agenda. I wanted to express a strong gratitude to Mayor Weinberger for the proclamation and also for the city's commitment to expanding housing opportunity and to ending homelessness. I also wanna recognize and thank the city council, the dedicated staff of the Department of Permitting and Inspections, the staff at CEDO and the Office of Racial Equity and Belonging for your commitment and work towards safe, accessible and equitable homes for everyone. It's also a reminder that the Fair Housing Act isn't just about prohibiting discrimination in housing but it's also about the responsibility to address and redress the historical patterns of segregation and exclusion that exist around the country in Vermont and right here in Burlington. We still have a lot of work to do right here in this city to ensure that everyone has access to opportunity and choice and where they live. And so in that spirit, I invite you all to take part in the Fair Housing Month events coming up in April. They're fun events, they're creative events, thought provoking events, some virtual, some in person, even one on April 26th right at City Hall. You can learn more and see the calendar at fairhousingmonthvt.org. And I also urge you all and all of us to take the spirit and the intent of Fair Housing Month throughout the whole year, not just in April and keep it close in your thoughts and in your conversations, including conversations tonight about inclusionary zoning and help us make sure that everyone has access to an inclusive and vibrant community. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ashley Adams. And Ashley, I have found you and you should be able to speak now. Hi there, good evening. Thank you, President Powell. My business is on Airport Parkway in South Burlington and I rent to 14 families in South Burlington near the airport who all deal with the daily onslaught of F-35 noise and that's what I'm here to speak about tonight. It's painful, it's anxiety inducing, it interferes with my ability to conduct business and it negatively impacts lives. The health and wellbeing of thousands of residents was sacrificed for this flimsy economic argument that didn't hold water when the F-35 was hoisted on us and it certainly doesn't hold water now. It's important, I think, for the council to acknowledge that your tenant, the air guard, is inflicting pain and suffering on a population that is disproportionately poor, working class, new American and BIPOC. And I'm asking you to decide today that you will put forth a plan to stop the suffering that your tenant is causing thousands of people surrounding the airport. Can you please decide today that you will not renew the air guard lease that expires in 2048? Doing so will reduce CO2 emissions by an estimated 236,000 tons of CO2 per year. It will allow 44 acres where homes were demolished to become housing again, this in a housing crisis. It will allow us to use the 280 acres that the air guard has leased since 1974 for only $1. We could use that property for a 35 megawatt solar array. Allowing the suffering to continue is a stain upon the city of Burlington. Let's demilitarize the skies around Chittenden County and let's put in place a plan to stop the scourge of the F-35. Thank you for hearing me. Thank you so much, Ashley. Our next speaker is Dan Castragano. And Dan, I have found you and you should be able to unmute and be able to speak now. Okay, thanks President Paul. First, I just wanna echo and everybody who's spoken on the F-35s, a climate nightmare should be removed from Burlington and wanna speak more broadly to some airport-related items in aviation tonight. First, I just wanna bring to light some behavior from the Airport Commission, which I learned about, which happened on February 1st. Not only planning for decades of expansion, but cracking jokes about the climate emergency and selling plowed snow to sugar bush. And just wanna remind everybody that the Airport Commission is in charge of stewarding the airport and joking about the climate emergency is just very callous and very cruel. In addition, there's also laughter and joking about noise mitigation and how long it's gonna take to outfit all the buildings. And at the current rate, it's gonna take 52 years before every single house gets outfitted. And just wanna bring that to light and say that's really callous, it's really cruel. If nothing else, a public apology from the Airport Commission is due. And I also wanna make the council and the public aware that the airport released an admissions report today for the TOOC meeting tomorrow. We have to, I have to look at it more closely, but we do have numbers. And so just a summary for the council and for the public around Burlington International Airport. Airplanes burn fossil fuels. The city of Burlington owns and operates Burlington International Airport, which means that all of you are in charge of what happens there. The airport is not included at all in the net zero energy roadmap. So any talk of net zero by 2030 is nonsense because the airport's not in it. And everybody's a climate champion until you talk about flying. Everybody's on board with heat pumps and EVs, buses. But then when you talk about flying, it's as if planes don't burn fossil fuels. So all of you are in charge of the airport in action is negligence and we need a degrowth of the aviation sector. And so I hope you talk about that today. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dan. That concludes those people who have wanted to speak online that are Burlington residents. We have one more speaker and we will come back to them. There is one speaker in con toys who wishes to speak Duncan Nichols and thank you. Take your time. Please come and join us. Welcome. So I just the green dot in front of you. I think maybe I pushed the button. Now I've got two. So anyway, in Thetford, we can hear the F-35. You can't mistake it. I know in Bradford, I have friends who've heard it. I know that there are helicopters and I'm gonna give a general overview of why I'm gonna speak because I'm a social worker and I was licensed in Vermont and I work with young people, young men. And the helicopters are up and they're training from three different states. So I see Vermont as becoming an air base and a military base. That's what it feels like to me. Now that's not the Vermont that me, my father, my grandfather, my grandmother knew. Okay, so things change. But I just really wanna speak about a personal thing and that is my practice. So I work in a high school and I'm mostly, I'm a counselor with boys and that's been that way for a long time. So they always tell me about the games they play and Call of Duty is one of them. And I've never played the game because I abhor those things but they have a great time in playing all these games. Well, I'll try to make a connection here. I had a couple of kids the other day they're both 15 and they said they wanted to join the military. One said, I said, do you really wanna shoot somebody? And he said, sure, because they signed up for that. They're in uniform, they signed up, I signed up. And he said, and I'll torture them too, he said. And I said, well, that's against the law and it's the Geneva Convention. And he said, oh, well, so what? You know, that no one has to know. So I feel like I live in a culture of irresponsibility. So as a social worker, I work with trauma. I work with moral trauma, it's called, what's it called, moral something. There are different kinds of trauma and I'll finish. I started being a social worker working at the VA hospital with soldiers and vets, mostly young men. And so what I'm seeing is that if we wanna know, and this is a radical idea, maybe, and how do I make the connection, there's a lot of mass shootings. If you could wrap up your comments, please. Wrap it up. There's a lot of mass shootings in this country and I wonder why. And so I would ask this town where my son is at UVM for four years to face it up and resist this thing and get rid of it. Thank you. Thank you, thanks so much. So we have one last speaker who's joining us online, that is Jennifer Decker. We'll go back to the, we'll go back to online and Jennifer, Jennifer, I found you and you should be able to speak if you just unmute on your end. Thank you, Chair Powell. I am gonna share what I am for and what I am against. I'm for peace, security, freedom, inclusion, equity, diversity, nature, plants and wildlife, children who can hear and have the opportunity for uninterrupted learning. I am for representative government. I am for healthcare education. I am for services for the disabled. I am for fair, integrated, accessible and affordable housing. I'm asking you to please take a public stand against the basing of the F-35. Let's create a stop the F-35 task force. If you can do that for cats and dogs, certainly do it for us. Why don't we have community space? It's because we put too much money into the military. So what am I against? I'm against racism, fascism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, white nationalism, sexism, transphobia, environmental destruction, militarism and the F-35. We are wasting trillions of dollars in this country. Crashes alone have cost us $400 million or more. There's been at least 10 crashes and malfunctions with pilots ejecting. So in addition to the harms already spoken of, we can fear that they may crash on us. They cause harm here and they cause harm in military conflict. My house still shakes even though I moved away to Heinsberg. I have tinnitus and this triggers my trauma. I just remember what my young friend Johnny said a few years ago. He said, no one wants to lose their life. Thank you so much, Jennifer. James Lees, I do see that you've raised your hand and I'm happy to enable your microphone. You should be able to speak now. Can you hear me? Oops, let me just, can you hear me now? Yes, yes, we can hear you, fine. Thank you. Sure. Many people think the federal government controls the F-35 at the airport, but they only control the basing and they still control the discipline. The states have control of the training of the National Guard, according to that discipline and it's discipline for the US military that applies. So says the constitution and federal law. In five different ways, that military discipline protects civilians, including by requiring the states to keep the training operations separate and apart from populated areas. So it doesn't hurt or injure civilians. The F-35 training at Burlington Airport violates that discipline because the runway is in densely populated cities. It causes pain and injury on a mass scale. The Air Force said repeated exposure to the 115 decibel F-35 jets impairs hearing and the cognitive development of children. It caused the demolition of 200 homes. It degrades 3,000 more affordable homes. The training with the F-35 jets at Burlington is illegal, immoral and unjust and it violates the military's own discipline. Vermont adopted a law that delegates power to cities, towns and villages to promote the public health, welfare and convenience by regulating the operation and use of vehicles of every kind to protect citizens from all kinds of danger from vehicles and to protect from public nuisance. This Vermont law means that the Burlington City Council and other select boards nearby have the power. So please use that power to ground the F-35. Thank you very much. Much and thank you to all who offered their comments during public forum. We have no other speakers either online or in contoy. So with that, we will close the public forum at 805 and we will go back to item number five, which were two proclamations. My understanding is that 5.01 needs to be postponed to our next meeting or our next business meeting, I would guess probably on the 17th of April. But we do have 5.02 and with that I will go to the mayor for that proclamation. Thank you, President Paul. As we have, I think every year for the last 11 years, we have issued a proclamation marking that April is fair housing month. And given, I think we have the opportunity to read the entire proclamation tonight. So happy to do that. Whereas the Federal Fair Housing Act was passed in April 1968 to take, in order to take steps towards eliminating discrimination and housing opportunities based on race, color, national origin, religion, and as amended sex, family status and disability and to further housing choices for all Americans. And whereas Vermont's Fair Housing Act strengthened the protections of the Federal Fair Housing Act to include age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, receipt of public assistance and people who have experienced abuse, sexual assault or stalking as well as the income of prospective residents and land use decisions. And whereas the month of April is now celebrated as Fair Housing Month both nationally and locally. And whereas the ongoing struggle for dignity and opportunity for all in housing is not the exclusive province of federal or state governments and vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination and expand housing opportunities can be extremely effective. And whereas Burlington, Tonians need safe, decent, affordable and inclusive housing in illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing no matter how subtle diminish the rights of all. And whereas the city of Burlington supports the efforts of fair housing organizations, advocates, community members and the housing industry to create broader housing choice in Burlington and Chittany County and to promote understanding of fair housing. And whereas inclusive, welcoming and affordable communities promote diversity in a climate conducive to equitable and vibrant development. And whereas Burlington submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development an assessment of fair housing which was subsequently approved by the department in December, 2017. And whereas my 2021 action plan to fulfill the promise of housing as a human right in Burlington in that I propose opening new housing opportunities through the creation of a mixed use enterprise innovation district in a portion of the south end and opening new housing opportunities for citywide through missing middle zoning reforms which will expand opportunities for new homes to be created in every neighborhood in ways that reflect the character of these parts of the city. And whereas Burlington continues to work to expand housing opportunities and the availability of housing in Burlington through policy reform including development of new policies to implement energy efficiency standards and rental housing, eliminate requirements around parking standards in order to reduce a major driver of the cost of housing and align the city's land use policies with its climate goals and to restore the dedicated funding for the city's housing trust fund among others. And whereas the COVID-19 crisis put additional strain on the city's housing and support services and exacerbated existing inequalities for people whom fair housing laws seek to protect from discrimination particularly people of color. Now therefore be resolved that I, Maro Weiber, the mayor of the city of Burlington do hereby proclaim the month of April 2023 to be fair housing month in Burlington. And I do hereby urge all individuals, agencies and institutions public and private to contribute to the observance of fair housing month by continuing our efforts to eliminate housing discrimination in our communities and increase housing opportunities for all. Thank you, President Powell. It's amazing to me how quickly the year goes by. I feel like it was just a month ago that we were doing fair housing for April and it was already 12 months ago. But nevertheless an important milestone and something we should be honoring every year. With that we will continue with our agenda in the hopes that hopefully on the 17th of April we can have the Burlington High School Girls Nordic Ski Team here to be able to recognize them for their accomplishment. That will bring us to item number seven which is climate emergency reports. Is there any counselor or the administration who wishes to offer a climate emergency report? Councillor Bergman. Last Thursday I had the pleasure of testifying at a V-Trans Climate Reduction Strategy public meeting. These are meetings that are required by the federal government to have all the states transportation agencies address what they're going to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. And I had the opportunity to plug this council's action this council's action on mass transit and the need for a sustainable funding source. And I was happy that that was supported. I continue to go back to that resolution and go okay, what are we doing to make that real and not just dead words that we speak here on a Monday night? And V-Trans held two public sessions that day, but then for those of us who missed the opportunity who could not make it then, they have a big public comment period and I can provide this afterwards to anybody, particularly the administration because our resolution called for this administration to engage with the, not only the legislature who's talking about funding now, but also the administration which means V-Trans to be able to address the sustainable funding that mass transit needs. It was shocking to me that the V-Trans officials did not know about the Regional Planning Commission's 2021 study on sustainable funding. You've heard me go off. So maybe I'll resist the opportunity to go off again on things like studies that we pay tens of thousands of dollars to sit on shelves for, killin' lots of trees while we fiddle with the opportunities. So I just want to encourage all of us to engage with the process that is happening right now. Perhaps I don't know and maybe we can get a report because maybe the administration has been reaching out. I would love that. But we've got an opportunity now while the transportation bill is being addressed to have an impact. One of the reasons that we have and I'll end with one of the reasons we need to do this is because we will be faced in a couple of months in the budget with being asked to fund an 11.6 increase in our assessment for Green Mountain Transit and that will result in decreased service including the elimination of fare free service which for the people in my ward, poor folks, it is really, really important. So I will continue to harp on this because we have to do it. I was happy actually, VPR took it up and I didn't hear the report but apparently people heard me talking about this. So that is not to, my horn is to say that yes, we can have a statewide impact if we act, if we seize the time. So please, let's seize the time. Thank you, Council Bergman. Are there any other Councillors or the administration that wishes to offer a climate emergency report? Seeing none, we'll close out that item and before we get to our consent and deliberative agendas, we do have a fairly brief local control commission meeting to attend to. So with that, we'll adjourn the, we'll recess the council meeting at 815 and we'll call to order the local control commission meeting at the same hour. The first item, and I'll give everyone a chance to get to that agenda. While you're doing that, the first item on that agenda is item 1.01 which is a motion to adopt the agenda. A motion to adopt the agenda. Yes, thank you, Commissioner Shannon. Seconded by, seconded by Commissioner Brandt. Is there any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion to adopt the agenda, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, please say no. We have our agenda. The second item is item number two which is the consent agenda. Commissioner Shannon, is there a motion to adopt the consent agenda? So moved and to take the actions indicated. That too. Thank you so much, Commissioner Shannon and seconded by Commissioner Brandt. Is there any discussion on the consent agenda? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, please say no. That motion passes and that moves us to the one item on our deliberative agenda which is item 3.01 an application for a festival permit for two days for the Vermont Brewer's Fest. Commissioner Shannon. Move to approve the two-day only festival permit application for Vermont Brewer's Fest at Waterfront Park on Friday, July 21st and Saturday, July 22nd, 2023. Thank you, Commissioner Shannon. Seconded by Commissioner Brandt. Is there any discussion on the application for the festival permit for Vermont Brewer's Fest? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion is made by Commissioner Shannon. Please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, please say no. That motion passes and with no other business on that agenda and seeing no objection, we'll adjourn the local control commission meeting at 817 with our thanks to the licensed committee which is Councillor Shannon, Traverse and Brandt for their service on this committee this year. We will go on to item number eight which is our consent agenda. Is there a motion to move our consent agenda and take the actions indicated? So moved. Thank you, Councillor McGee. Seconded by Councillor Traverse. Is there any discussion on the consent agenda? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, please say no. We've approved our consent agenda and that brings us to our deliberative agenda. I would say that we have a short deliberative agenda but usually when I say that it ends up taking much longer than I think it will. So I'm not gonna say that it's short. I'm going to say there are four items on our deliberative agenda. We do have time limits for each item which we've agreed to by approving our agenda and we'll do our best to keep to those limits. The first one, the first item is 9.01 which is a public hearing regarding the comprehensive development ordinance for inclusionary zoning, inclusionary zoning percentages and general requirements for inclusionary units which is ZA 23-02. And the first item we have is the public hearing. So if there are those who wish to speak during the public hearing, you can raise your handing con choice or online and we're happy to recognize you. Amy, please join us and I will check online to see if there are any who wish to speak online. Welcome and thanks for your patience. Yes, thanks for getting me to the right hearing. I'm, hello, I'm, do you have the, is the green light on in front of you? Green light is on. Yes. Can you hear me? Do I need to be closer? Good evening. I'm Amy Demetruits. I'm the chief operating officer from the Champlain Housing Trust. I'm here tonight to speak in favor of the proposed amendment to the inclusionary zoning ordinance. The inclusionary zoning ordinance has been an important tool to increase the supply of affordable housing in Burlington. Over the years, the ordinance has opened up a number of opportunities for the Champlain Housing Trust to partner with private developers to meet the IZ requirements for their new neighborhood developments. And when we're involved with the subsidy that we bring to the project, we're able to exceed the affordability requirements of the IZ ordinance and provide deeper and broader range of affordability. The proposed changes to the ordinance will allow more flexibility so that both CHT and the private developer can independently tailor the unit mix of our buildings to our markets. For example, when we partnered with Eric Ferrell to meet the IZ requirements for Cambrian Rise, he was building for the market of single adults. And so he built a large number of studio in one bedroom units. We felt Cambrian Rise was a great location to meet our demand for families. And so we included more two and three bedroom units in our Laurentide building, as well as a great playground. Complying with the strict matching requirements in the IZ ordinance was tricky. We were only able to meet the mix because Cathedral Square Corporation built mostly small affordable units for seniors in their Juniper building on the site. Although we met the bedroom size match requirement, the square footage of our IZ units actually exceeded the square footage of the market rate units built by Eric Ferrell in that neighborhood. Conversely, at City Place downtown, the developers are planning on developing three and four bedroom apartments to meet the demand from students and young people looking for roommate situations. This will be a good option for those households and hopefully will free up larger apartments and single family homes in our neighborhoods that would be appropriate for families with children. In our 85 unit building that's planned at City Place, we will include only a handful of three bedroom units and a higher number of one bedroom units because this downtown location is not ideal for children while we always have a strong demand for smaller units. The proposed ordinance change will allow us to meet the IZ requirements based on a unit count with flexibility on the number of bedrooms and allows the overall project to meet two different but both important market demands. The proposed change to set minimum unit sizes is also important to our participation and partnership projects. The proposed sizes are in line with our typical unit sizes and by creating a minimum size, it assures reasonable sized units for projects that aren't matching bedroom sizes. We appreciate the council's consideration of these changes. The inclusionary zoning ordinance is an important policy and adding this flexibility will assure that it keeps supporting the creation of affordable housing that meets the current and future market demands. Thank you. Thank you so much. We don't have anyone online who wishes to speak and who has used the raise hand function and I don't see anyone else in con toys. So we'll go once, go twice. And with that, we will close the public hearing at 823 and move on to item 9.02, which is the ordinance, the comprehensive development ordinance, inclusionary zoning, inclusionary zoning percentages and general requirements for inclusionary units, ZA 23-02. I'll go to the chair of the ordinance committee, councilor Travers for a motion and also want to note that we do have planning director Megan Tuttle as well as principal planner Charles Dillard with us this evening, councilor Travers. Move to waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance. Thank you. And would ask for the floor back upon a second. Certainly. Thank you, councilor Travers. Seconded by councilor Hightower. Councilor Travers, the floor is yours. Thank you, President Paul. As you mentioned, we do have director Tuttle, director Pine and principal planner Dillard here. And so I know they've prepared a presentation and a memo, so I would like to turn the floor over to them, but just for the sake of some context here, this is coming as a result of some joint meetings that were held between the ordinance committee and the planning commission. The amendments that you see before you now are the result of feedback that was provided over those meetings. I'm excited by this. I think representative here from CHT spoke very well to it and so would really echo the sentiments that you're hearing from the city's affordable housing developers and would love to hear from the folks that we have here today on their presentation. Thank you. Yes, that would be great. And my apologies to Ceto director Pine for, you didn't sit down quickly enough that I saw you. So thank you, thank you as well for being here. Thank you all. We don't have a whole lot to present. We did post the slides from the last presentation in your agenda packet and I was going to invite Charles to just briefly recap us on the two main changes that are included in this. Right, so I think you did have a great summary from representative from CHT, but essentially this amendment deals with inclusionary zoning. If for all those who are not familiar, this is a primary way that affordable housing is provided in Burlington and many other cities. The ordinance today regulates not just the number of affordable units that are provided, but the size of those units in terms of square footage and the number of bedrooms in each of those units. The current standards require that the bedroom mix in the inclusionary units match that in the market rate units. So if a market rate project includes one third of the units as studios, one third is one bedroom and one third is two bedrooms, the inclusionary units have to have that same ratio. And as the representative from CHT said, this doesn't always provide the flexibility that developers of both market rate and affordable housing are looking for. So an example might be one that she gave where in a market rate project, it's primarily studios and one bedrooms that are being provided, whereas the affordable housing developer might want to build more sort of two or three bedroom units. So this amendment proposes to allow some flexibility in that bedroom mix. And in doing so, it also creates the need for the second component of the amendment, which is to allow some flexibility in the size of the units themselves. Because today, the minimum size of an inclusionary unit is tied to the size of a comparable market rate unit, so a one bedroom unit. In the IZ portfolio has to be no smaller than 90% of the market rate unit of that size. And so the amendment proposes to create a floor, a minimum for those unit sizes, but again to allow that flexibility in both the unit size and bedroom mix. So that is a summary of the amendment. Great, thank you. Was there anything else that you wanted to add or we'll just go to questions or comments from the council? Yeah, I think we're happy to take questions from the council. Great, Councilor Hightower. Thank you for coming in front of us again, both for the presentation and for this kind of sped up version of getting an ordinance through. I think it's usually very difficult to find flexibility without doing a weakening of sorts. And I think that this doesn't do that. I think it both maintains the strength of our current inclusionary zoning while also providing flexibility. So I'm really thank you to the administration to the planning team and your office for finding the solution and bringing it to us. And the only question that I had, which was very nitpicky, but I just can't figure out what the last amendment was that was posted, but the differences in the two versions. So if you don't mind. Yeah, I apologize. That's actually from our office. There was a type of the four plus, the plus was missing. So it just would say four bedroom. So it needs to have the four plus bedroom. Thank you. Welcome. And again, thank you for bringing this to us so quickly. And I look forward to supporting this. Thank you, Councilor Hightower. We'll go to Councilor Bergman. I had been questioning, as you know, whether this would lead to a decrease in the number of people, not necessarily the number of units, but the number of people. And I've been convinced from the communications I've had with the CHT and your office, including today to support this. I'm all in favor of flexibility, generally as long as we're not given away the store. So the only thing that I would love is in some relevant time, in the time period, six, eight, 10, 12 months, that we sort of get a report back. Maybe it's in writing. It doesn't have to be extensive, but just to see what the impact of the good work that we've done is. We talk about being data-based. We talk about relying on good information and then proving it. Often we pass stuff and then we walk away. So that would be helpful. And I know as someone who's somewhat skeptical, if you can get me to buy a little bit based on the numbers, then I'll maybe be differently skeptical the next time. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Bergman. Councilor Carpenter. Thanks. Couple things. I appreciate Councilor Bergman's comment. I'll throw this over to Director Pine. I think it would be good to look at that, but I can tell you having worked in the business for a long time, housing production is cyclical. CHD will do some stuff in South Burlington and Cathedral Square will do some stuff in Essex. And so actually a collective report might be useful to us because, for example, the antidote about Cathedral Square meeting all the one bedroom things, well, they probably won't do another one bedroom facility in Burlington. So it's just speaking to all the more reason why we need to pass this because outside of the city, the housing providers tend to look at it more globally. So we just have to pay attention to that. And I just wanna advocate my support for it, having been involved in pre-inclusionary zoning, advocating for it, on two study forces looking at it, understanding the constraints of how the funding goes. We really do need this. And I think it's win-win. It'll get us, I think, some more housing and that's worth keeping track of. And it'll just get us the kind of housing that where we have gaps. So thank you. Thank you very much, Councilor Carpenter. If there are no, oh, Mayor Weinberger. Thanks, President Pollard. Just wanted to quickly thank this team for working really hard to take us from the passage of the amended and restated development agreement last fall where we committed to take another look at this, knowing that it was gonna be a significant issue for the city place project to move forward and to both the planning commission and then the council for working very collaboratively to take all the steps needed to make an ordinance change which are significant and to do so in a way without cutting corners and coming to a substantively, I sense, I hope, something substantively that there's broad support for and that makes an important change necessary for CHT and city place partners to move forward as with the project that we think we all very much wanna see happen, so. Thank you, Mayor Weinberger. On that positive note and seeing no others in the queue, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion to waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, please say no. That motion passes unanimously and as the mayor has already said, thank you, Megan, Charles, Brian, to you, your team, the planning commission for all your work on this ordinance, which we hope will be a step forward and more responsive to our changing needs. Thanks very much. That will bring us to item 9.03, which is our council rules. For a discussion of the changes to our rules and a motion on this item, I'll go to the chair of the Charter Change Committee, Councillor Bergman, and Councillor Bergman, if you could start with the motion, then we'll get a second and then if you can offer us an overview and starting point for a discussion that would be very helpful and welcome. So I'd move to adopt the rules as placed before us to waive the reading of those rules and to get a second, after a second, to get that floor back to make a short presentation. Great, thank you, Councillor Bergman. So seconded by Councillor Shannon. Councillor Bergman, the floor is yours. So this council asked its Charter Change Committee to do some extra work in the last month after we had already gave you three Charter Changes and at least looked over the redistricting a little bit. And I have to say that the staff from the city attorney's office and my fellow councillors on the committee deserve as much credit as anybody could give. We met three times since we were given this, which in the end of February and in March to give you a document that went through all of the work that the ad hoc committee did. Thank you very much for taking that on. And not only just that work, but to go through every rule and it would be really difficult and would have been setting myself up for much correction had I given you a memo that tried to get into the details of why we did what we did. So what you have is a memo that highlights the work that we did, but then directs you back to three minutes, three meetings worth of minutes and say, if you want to get into the weeds about our deliberations, go at it. And I wanna thank the city attorney's office especially because these minutes are really good, including minutes from last Thursday. They're almost as good as the minutes that I used to write when I was the staff of the ordinance committee, but they're really, really good. And I do wanna say that the one point of contention and it's reflected in my memo are the votes on the public forum and particularly the time limit. You will see there that we changed the time from 60 to 90 minutes that we rejected a memo a vote, we rejected a request to eliminate the time completely. If I thought I had the votes, I would move on the floor to do that. But what we did do that I think is important for us to recognize is that we did provide an escape and an additional escape to the one that the ad hoc committee had recognized. So the board president, the council president can extend the amount of time for public forum and I believe that that is in the rules already. But we added that the council could also extend obviously by majority vote of those present in voting. And I just wanna say that we cut off public forum at our peril, I understand all the motivations and I would just say, and I've been, if not on the council for the hours of public and the days of public forum that have been recent history, but I actually was at home listening for the hours and it was in this room also for some of them. So I've been through that with you. So there are a lot of other details. People can raise questions about them mostly to try to clarify. I think that that is the most important of the changes and the biggest substantive change. We did do some more flexibility in the time that public forum would be had. We reduced the amount of flexibility and that is based on public comment that we received. And so perhaps there are questions that would guide the rest of my comments here tonight or none then I leave it to your pleasure. Great, thanks, Councillor Bergman for that overview. Are there, I also wanted to acknowledge not only the charter change committee who reviewed these but also that we did form an ad hoc committee on council rules that was Councillor Shannon Hightower Barlow and myself who worked on these over last summer and into the fall. So there were a lot of councillors who had a look at these rules as they were evolving. Are there councillors who have any discussion, comments, questions? Councillor Shannon. Thank you, President Paul and thank you, Councillor Bergman and the Charter Change Committee. I think that the council rules really benefited from spending some time in a room with three attorneys and a fourth person who's very well versed in legal language, which was not so much the focus of our ad hoc committee and the improvements that have been made here are numerous. I really appreciated the memo. I think I also appreciate that maybe you didn't explain every detail of the reasoning behind and I'll admit I haven't read all the minutes at this point in time, but the memo was great. I of course would like to bring up your most contentious issue for further discussion. The ad hoc committee, the original council rules had a 30 minute time limit with the possibility of being extended by the council president. The Vermont public meeting law allows for the chairperson to create reasonable rules around limitations on public forum, which in other communities are far more limited than they are in Burlington. And our council rules reflected that state law giving the authority to extend public forum to the chair, the council president. I don't object to further extending that to the council. That seems like a good idea because I think that Councillor Bergman is right that public forum is, we have to be very sensitive to how the public is feeling. And that behooves all of us. And as council president, it's kind of nice not to have all that burden on the council president. I think actually it's good to have the buy-in from the council. So I agree with that change. But we've already extended the time from 30 minutes to 60 minutes. We still have the ability to circumvent that. And the public also, and we did discuss this in our ad hoc committee, this is not the only way the public has to communicate with us. The public is welcome to email us, to write us and put documents onto board docs that our public documents call us. We meet with constituents. There's a variety of ways in which people can have their say. But I think for a lot of us, we really struggle with not only the length of public forum, but the fact that we have to do our business after the public forum. And we have to be awake and sharp when we're trying to conduct the business of the city. And at a certain point, there's a real conflict there between allowing how much public comment we allow and our ability to effectively do the business of the city. So I would ask that the council consider amending. That the council consider amending. Sorry, I have to wake this thing up. It is the two places where there's discussion about the length of the public forum are in section six and section 16. Those are the amended section six and section 16. I believe. Can you tell us which one, which of the attachments you're looking at specifically? The edited version of the council rules. The one that has the highlights and changes. Yes. Okay. You're making council further information. I think that the version that we should look at is the clean version. It is the final one is the one which was introduced if that should have been clear because it was the clean one. It's what we're looking at. So I said the last item. It says clean. Clean. I believe. Oh, yes. Got it. That one? All right. Council rules 613, 2022. Version five 111, 2023 revised clean PDF. Yes, that would be the one. There is no difference in the sections and because there are no line numbers, it's not gonna make a difference. But I believe that just focusing on that will give people the document so we can all be at and it's gonna be most clear. So may I continue? Sure, of course. The amendment would be, we don't have page numbers, unfortunately, but if you see section six, place and date of meetings, quorum, you have A below and on the next page you have B. And in B, you will see the 30 minutes crossed out from our prior council rules with 90 minutes added in there. So I would amend that to 60 minutes. And there's a second place where it is also referenced which is in section 16, order of business D. And it says public forum for a time, certain starting no earlier than 6.30 p.m. and no later than 7.30 p.m. for no longer than 90 minutes. I would amend that to 60 minutes. So my amendment is simply changing 60 to 90 in those two places, section six and section 16. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Shannon. As is our practice, we go to the maker and I will go to the maker. Is that amendment friendly? I appreciate you're letting me know. I won't even bother going to the seconder because I know that would be friendly, but it takes both of you. So with that, thank you for the motion, Councillor Shannon, we will go to a second to that motion. Is there a second to Councillor Shannon? Second. Thank you, Councillor Barlow. So let's have a discussion on the motion and this is a motion to change in two places in the council rules from 90 minutes as amended to, or as proposed to 60 minutes. And with that, I will go to Councillor Hightower. Great, thanks. Did you, I apologize. Did you want the floor back or? Okay, Councillor Hightower. Great, thank you. I also have some concerns with the changes made specifically in this section. And I'm not sure that this amendment completely, I think that the original time was 730. I believe that the, and I'm looking at the clean version so I can't see it anymore, but I believe the committee had moved that up, which part of the reason that we moved the Board of Finance meeting was to move everything up. And so to keep, yes, I realized that this gives the flexibility of 630 to 730. But again, I feel like that, again, takes us to if we have the best outcome, which is as much public form as possible, that always takes us to 9pm starting of deliberation, which I don't, I just don't think that that's a good idea for public process for us to do our best work. Rather than seeing the 90 minutes, I would rather have us move up the public forum time. I don't think 630 is the earliest that we should consider starting that. And I think even if we do go with this amendment and keep it at 60 minutes, I still wish we would do 6 to 7. So that again, best case scenario, we're starting deliberations at 8pm, which is still rather on the late side. I think that sometimes we say, oh, but people like after work, it takes them two hours. I think it's just as much of a barrier to still be deliberating at midnight for folks to be around on a Monday night, which influences your sleep for the whole rest of the week for most of us, as it is to expect people to be there an hour after most people close work. I have not talked to any about this. I'm not gonna make an amendment now, but I think I would like to see an amendment regardless of how this vote goes to have, if we're gonna have a time range to have that time range be 6 to 7, rather than 630 to 730. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hightower. We'll go back to Councillor Shannon. I would be glad to make that amendment. I'm not completely sure why. Maybe Councillor Hightower just wasn't sure, not having talked to anybody, but I don't see any downside with that. We're often struggling to make it to 730 for public forum. I don't see us starting our meetings later than 7 o'clock, so that window of time from 6 to 7 makes sense to me. So I'm amenable to that, and I would be happy to amend my motion to include changing the time. In D, this is section 16 D to further amend that to say 6 p.m. and no later than 7 p.m. for no longer than 60 minutes. All right, so Attorney Sturdivant, we have an amendment that a person who proposed their own amendment who is amending their own amendment, and I imagine that will certainly be friendly to them. They had a conversation with themselves, and I'm sure it's friendly. Is that okay? That's okay, yes. And amenable to the seconder. So we now have an amendment that will change the time of the time certain from to 6 to 7, and would change the public forum to no longer than 60 minutes. So based on that, is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this amendment? Councillor Bergman. So we moved the start time back to 6.30 to accommodate working people and all of the things that you need to do to get families particular, in particular, to work through the dinner time and then have an opportunity to go to a public forum and participate in this process. There was a push to have it even be later, but that did not get accepted. I think that is and was compelling and in line with the schedules of most people and particularly people who are working during the day. I personally don't believe in any limit to the public forum. We are going to engender an item that is of such concern that many people are going to speak for the two minutes that they have and it's gonna go over, then we should give them that opportunity to do that. It is part of our responsibility to listen. And I know I sit here with you all and I've sat as a staff person and I've sat in the audience as well for many decades and I understand that, but it is, I think our public duty to listen to the public. And to me, the legislature is not the model of democracy that I care to replicate here. We don't need to go down all the details, but I do not find their process to be one that engenders the type of participation that is particularly important in a local situation. This is where people live. And the way that they relate to the issues is very different than the way that they relate to the issues that are in Montpelier. Yeah, we have the right to do it. We have the guidance to do it. Is it the right thing for here? Not in my mind. And so I will not support an amendment to cut the 30 more minutes, a third of the time for the public. I don't think that we will get that many. We have not in the course of this year, but I've seen it in the last few years to know that there are some issues of public import that are important enough for us just to have the time to listen to people. And I'll be voting no as a result. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bergman. We'll go to Councillor Barlow and then to Councillor Freeman. Thank you, President Paul. I just wanna point out, as Councillor Shannon mentioned, we actually extended public comment in the working group from 30 to 60 minutes. And so that represents a doubling of what was in the council rules. And I'd also say that in my two years on the council and previously watching the council, I can't recall a time when we haven't extended public comment, when we've needed to, to accommodate all the speakers who wanted to speak. So I don't think updating the rules in this way would preclude us from continuing that practice. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Barlow. We'll go to Councillor Freeman. Thank you. I do want to echo Councillor Bergman's sentiments. I agreed with his thoughts on this. I don't think that if we are going to limit it, if that's the compromise, I would, I agree that six seems a little bit early. I don't know why it seems like that was a consensus in regards to making sure that people who are working, maybe later can, and have families and can still manage to join. And I do feel like 90 minutes is a good time. I understand your point that it can be extended, but like 630 to eight seems like a fair bridge to go from 730 unlimited. It sort of seems like an intermediary before jumping to like this one hour of six to seven or six to 630. So I would vote no on this, but I appreciate the discussion. Thanks. Great, thank you, Councillor Freeman. Are there Councillor Carpenter? Thanks. I do support both of these amendments. I served on charter and I sort of acquiesced to the timing issue, but really in reconsideration. I think we, if people want to come to us and communicate with us in this way, I think six to seven is a reasonable time. We make presumptions. What about the person who works seven to three or three to seven? I mean, everybody has a complicated family life. I think six to seven is a fair amount of time, as is 60 minutes. And we just cannot forget that this is not the only way we get communicated to. We get constituent calls a lot, constituent emails. I think we should all search our hearts and including my own heart. Am I being responsive to those? For me, that's the better way, not the two minutes, but I appreciate some people like that form and we've got a balance. I really appreciate the fact that we're putting the written comments as part of the record. And I think that that's actually a big step forward because people know that I actually see that the best because I read it, because I got the agenda item up. We used to put them on consent and that wasn't as effective. So I think putting them as part of the record, is a better process. I think that those times are very fair. I also think if we have a hotly contested issue, maybe we should get in a better practice of setting a hearing just on that issue. The budget's gonna come up. Maybe we, not a cursory, but a real substantive. We're gonna do the budget. Come talk to us just about the budget. Don't talk to us about, I mean, or another topic might come up. Come and talk to us about that topic. And I think mushing it all into our meeting, sometimes it loses its effect and we would gain more by some more focused discussions as an agenda item, not as a free-willing public forum. So thanks. Thank you, Councillor Carpenter. Councillor Shannon, and then we'll try to go to a vote on the amendment. Um, Councillor Hightower would also. Okay. Sorry. Okay. I, as somebody who has raised a family while serving on the City Council, I completely agree that seven o'clock is at least much more convenient for my family. Starting our meetings earlier than that is really difficult for my family because it doesn't really allow us to eat dinner together. And if what we wanna do is accommodate families, we probably should not have moved all our council meetings up earlier. It's not, well, I'll say again, it's not convenient for my family. Other families operate differently and people prefer those earlier hours. I also know bus drivers who can't come to our, you know, they can't come to the public forums at all because they're, because of the hours that they work with their split shifts. And there isn't a time that really accommodates everyone. So I do appreciate the desire to accommodate families, but I think generally City Council meetings are very inconvenient for families. And, you know, we do have other ways to communicate. So. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Shannon. Councillor Hightower. I very much appreciate the earlier times. I do think it does make a real difference. And I think it does mean that some people might actually stay for the substantive part of the meeting. And I will still be voting no on this although I greatly appreciate the amendment because I do agree that as has been our practice, it's better to hear out the public forum. And I would just rather have that be the baseline of what we're going into it with. So I agree with the colleagues on my left on that. I would say that I would feel differently about the earlier time if we didn't have hybrid meetings, but the amount of folks who use the opportunity to call in, you know, and it's like, yes, you have to listen for your name. But I think it definitely, we have greatly expanded access to public forum. And I think expanding it in that way makes it accessible to people even if they're still coming home from work or just getting home and cooking dinner. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Hightower. Looks like we've exhausted all the comments on this amendment. So we will go to a vote on the amendment. So this is the amendment is to change the public forum time from six to seven from what it is in the draft council rules and then to change the public forum time, amount of time from 90 minutes to 60 minutes. So we'll try a show of hands, although actually we do have Councillor Jang joining us by Zoom. So maybe it would be easier if we do it by roll, Laurie. Thank you. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. I can't hear Laurie, so that's why. Okay, we heard you. You said yes. I said no. You said no. Okay, thank you. Councilor Jang. He said no. I haven't called him yet. Okay. He called me now. Yeah, Councilor Jang, if you could just repeat your vote please. No. Thank you. Councilor Freeman. No. Councilor Hightower. No. Councilor McGee. No. Councilor Shannon. Yes. Councilor Travers. No. City Council President Paul. Yes. That motion fails. So we're back to our rules as presented by Councilor Bergman. Is there anyone else who has any comments on that or should we go to, I'm sorry, do you have a question? Is that count right? There were, yes, there were six, there were 11 of us. There were, there were six, there were, there were six, yeah, there were six no's and five yes's. That's right. So the motion failed. Yes. No, Ben voted no. There are 11 of us. I know. Okay. So we're gonna. Five, six. No. Yeah, I know. I know. Okay. One, two, three, four, five, and Ali is six. You voted no? Sorry. Yes. Oh, that's what I meant, I'm sorry. Okay. That was, that was a hard one. I think there were parts of it that some liked and some didn't like, but you gotta vote on the motion as it is. So we are back to the original council rules as presented by Councilor Bergman. If there are no other comments or amendments, we can go to a vote. Councilor Travers. So this is just with respect to the vote that we just had there. So by means of explanation on that and just a bit more discussion around the discussion that we had there at the committee level, I was the one who had proposed our going from 60 to 90 minutes before the Charter Chance Committee in that past in the version that came forward here with the support of Councilor Bergman as well. The discussion of the Charter Change Committee and you've heard from Councilor Bergman on this, we also at our last meeting had Councilor-Elect Grant join us and spoke to this as well, was really a debate around whether or not we should have any time limits at all around public forum. I agree with the sentiments that have been raised by my colleagues here that I do think that we need to have some time limits around public forum. I'm mindful of the fact that our rules still do and even if we pass the amended rules this evening, prohibit us from conducting any deliberative business subsequent to 1030. And so unless with two thirds majority, we move to suspend our rules. And so I know we've been pretty collaborative on that point to date, but I can envision a future where that may not be the case and the Council could be, I hope not to envision it, but it's nonetheless possible that the Council could be stuck with that rule and not being able to move if public forum last too long. All that said, the existing 30 minutes, I'm hard-pressed President Paul to see you or any Council President in force 30 minutes. I think that if we really have enough people here speaking on an issue that has brought folks out such that we take up a full hour of public forum, I'm also hard-pressed to believe that we're going to enforce that limitation if we still have folks here who are wanting to speak on it further. So I propose 90 minutes as a compromise between the 60 minutes that we had from the ad hoc group and the other argument that we were hearing from folks around not wanting any limitation at all. All that's to say, I hear Councilor Hightower's point with respect to if we are at 90 minutes and we begin public forum at 7.30, that that potentially takes us to nine o'clock and to bring us back to our supposed to being done at 10.30. It really only gives us an hour and a half window there. And so if Councilor Hightower wanted to again present the point with respect to potentially allowing us to start public forum earlier, that that is an issue that I may be more open to and can come around to here. I think the Council is already starting its meetings earlier on in the evening and I'm not opposed to our getting the public forum earlier in our agenda. Thank you, Councilor Travers. Yes, Councilor Hightower. I'm just looking to City Attorney Kim on, because we did not divide the question. So if I just bring forward part of the question, is that substantively different? Yeah, I think that's up to the President. I think. You were still on the main motion that we have not divided in or amended. I mean, we've amended that motion or tried to amend that motion once. You could also try to amend it still one more time, but. Well, we amended it and then we've already voted on it. Voted no. And debated it. So what you're saying is that you can then go now and bring forward the same. It's not the same. Well, no, it's not the same amendment because you amended the amendment to include two versions of it. So I mean, so this would be a separate amendment. Okay, so is it? Okay, I can just try to move it. Let me just ask the question. So what you're saying is that even though we had voted on the changing the time to 60 minutes and changing the time of public forum to six to seven, that if Counselor Hightower wanted to make an amendment before we vote on, before we vote, that would go back to the six to seven that that is permissible to do so? I believe so. The other amendment was two parts of the same amendment. You ended up making the amendment a friendly. So it was voted on as just one amendment, which is a different amendment than this is going to be now. Okay, all right. Counselor Hightower, do you want to make that amendment? Do you want to make that motion? Yes, I will move to have the language read for time certain starting no earlier than six and no later than seven. Okay. Unless I have to do 559 and 729. Are you? It isn't even that late and you're already saying things like this. Were you raising your hand to second that? Yes. You are raising your hand. We have a second. Counselor Shannon, you would want it to ask something. No, Mayor Weinberger, did you want to ask something? I just want to bring us back to the point that we talked about there in the Council retreat that the problem, at least maybe not a problem, but something that will happen if we start starting the public forums at six is I think we will frequently not be able to do what we did tonight of having the executive sessions before public forum and then councilor business begins, which seems to have been a popular innovation in recent years. And I think that that is going to end up being challenging with six o'clock starts. Thank you, Mayor Weinberger. Councilor Travers, did you want to add to that? I think Councilor Hightower and I may have the same point here, we'll see, but to clarify, my understanding is the amendment is not that public forum will always start at six o'clock. It would permit us to schedule it no earlier than six o'clock, no later than seven o'clock. And so I do think that that still permits us the flexibility to, if we had an evening where we had an executive session, then we could schedule public forum still to begin at seven o'clock on those evenings that we don't have a working group or an executive session, we could schedule public forum to begin as early as six o'clock. That's my understanding of the amendment at least. And I see Councilor Hightower giving a thumbs up. So. Okay, so we actually don't need to vote on this, assuming that to Councilor Bergman and Councilor Shannon, this is a friendly amendment. Is this a friendly amendment? Well. It's a yes or no. I understand that. I think that in the spirit of us all trying to get along and make this happen, and in light of the last vote, it will be a friendly amendment. How is that for you? Okay, Councilor Shannon, is that a friendly amendment? This has already been debated and it is not a friendly amendment. Okay, well, then we will, we will, we have a first, we have a second. Is there anyone who wishes to comment on the amendment before us, which is starting no earlier than six and no later than seven p.m.? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the amendment changing the public forum to no earlier than six and no later than seven, please raise your hand. All those not in favor of the amendment, please raise your hand. So there are three, there are three, and I, my apology. You know what? Councilor Jang, could you let me know if you've, were you in favor of that amendment? Was your vote yes or no on that? I'm voting no. You're voting no. So that means there are four against, which means there are seven in favor. That amendment passes. So we are back to our council rules. Are there any other amendments or any of their comments on the, on council rules before we go to a vote on our council rules and the motion to, the motion to adopt the revised council rules as now amended. Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion to adopt the revised council rules as amended, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, please say no. That motion passes unanimously. We have new council rules. Thank you so much again to the members of the charter change committee, the ad hoc committee who volunteered to take a look at these and have a first go around. That was councilor Shannon, Hightower, Barlow and myself. We, I think we met four times, maybe five over last summer and fall. That will bring us to the final item on our deliberative agenda, which is 9.04, the report on the CNA recommendations. And this item was, came to the public safety committee last year. And for this item, I'll go to the chair of public safety, Councillor McGee, for a motion and then a second and then we'll, if you'd like the floor back, you can give us an overview of the report. Thank you, President Paul. I would move that we waive the reading and accept the recommendations in the report and ask for the floor back after a second. Thank you so much, Councillor McGee. Seconded by Councillor Hightower. Yes, last year's member of the public safety committee. Please go ahead, Councillor McGee. Thank you, President Paul. The report we're discussing here tonight is the result of a weeks long process that began in the early stages of last year. The previous public safety committee composed of President Paul, Councillor Hightower and former Councillor Stromberg assembled a working group made up of community stakeholders to undertake the daunting task of discussing each of the 150 recommendations made by CNA in their functional and operational assessment of the Burlington Police Department. That working group met weekly to accomplish this task, finishing just prior to the end of last council year. The recommendations outlined in the report before us are related to prioritizing implementation of each of them, each of the CNA recommendations, acknowledging that resources and bandwidth limit our ability to do all of these things overnight. The group recognized that many of these recommendations are connected to shifting culture within the department and as such, those recommendations point to work that will be ongoing and won't simply be marked off as completed. Particularly with regard to changing behavior, addressing bias and engaging the community more collaboratively. The Public Safety Committee believes that the recommendations highlight that the redrafting of DD-40 must be a top priority. As a reminder to folks who aren't as intimately familiar with department directives, DD-40 is the directive that governs the handling of citizen and employee complaints within the department. This work is now in a preliminary phase with conversations happening between members of the department and members of the police commission and the Public Safety Committee as well, along with amending a number of other department directives which will be discussed at the police commission tomorrow evening. The CNA report recommends that the department should consider the possibility that disparities in traffic stops and use of force incidents are driven by bias, either implicit or explicit, and proactively address potential bias in officers' behavior or department practices. Training is one part of this and it is important to note that this dynamic will only change in a fundamental and meaningful way when the tone from the top sends a clear message that this bias will not be tolerated. The committee also strongly recommended continued emphasis and priority be placed in establishing the alternative responses for mental health calls, rising calls related to substance use and overdose and the sharp increase in houselessness we have seen in recent years. And we've made significant progress in these areas with the added numbers of CSOs and CSLs as well as the new park ranger program through the parks department and the crisis response team which is soon to be established here in the city. This progress is promising and we have a lot of work left to do in this area. The committee also recommended that the department commit time and resources to develop a strategic plan through community engagement and in collaboration with various stakeholders. This report is meant to summarize the conversation that took place within the working group as well as the timeline that resulted from those meetings last year. And that timeline can be viewed in the matrix that is posted on board docs. It is a daunting document to look at. So if anybody has any questions, I'm happy to do my best to walk you through it even though it's pretty daunting for me as well. I wanna extend my deepest gratitude to the members of the working group who dedicated nine Tuesdays and dozens of hours in January, February and March to making sure that this work got done on a tight timeline. I hope if there's one lesson we learned from this process in this report, it's that this work will take all of us to continuously engage with each other and work in good faith toward implementing these recommendations and the changes they require. I remain deeply committed to this work and I know many others here do as well. And I wanna close by offering deep gratitude and appreciation to the community members who have been so engaged in these conversations over the last several years. They're by no means finished and this work will continue. So thank you very much. Thanks, Counselor McGee. We'll go to open the floor to counselors for any questions or comments that they might have on the report on the CNA recommendations. Seeing none, I just will simply add that it was a pleasure serving on the Public Safety Committee last year, served with Counselor Hightower and former Counselor Stromberg. The three of us worked diligently on that report. We did meet every Tuesday for a pretty long time. And it was an incredibly collaborative effort as well coming into this current council year and working with Counselor McGee. It was really a pleasure to work with you on this report as well. And you are correct, the matrix is daunting, but once you sort of get the hang of it, it's not quite as daunting. And it's an incredibly valuable tool which actually the matrix was actually started by Acting Chief Murad. That was what we used to go through the recommendations and then we condensed it to make it something a little bit more workable because quite honestly, if you think the matrix now is complicated, it was three times as much as when we finished our work. Seeing no counselors in the queue, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion to waive the reading and accept the recommendations and the report, please say aye. All right, aye. Any opposed, please say no. That motion passes unanimously again with our thanks to all. And that completes our deliberative agenda. We do have a couple more items. Item number 10 is committee reports. Are there any counselors who wish to offer a committee report? Counselor Hightower. Which is not a forward-looking report, it is a backward-looking report, the CDNR committee met with a variety of stakeholders, including city staff, county-wide planning kind of bodies and kind of on-the-ground support services for especially for folks experiencing houselessness and heard some testimony on what might be a solution for us, especially as we think about the motel voucher program ending this summer in light of our increasing population of folks that are currently experiencing houselessness. We had, our last CDNR meeting was exceedingly positive. We've had a lot of folks who were very worried about the camping and parks ordinance that passed into CDNR many months ago. And we've kind of had an ongoing debate in CDNR and so it's been nice to talk through that at the community level and a more informal level than we can do at the council level. Encourage folks to continue to come to those meetings and excited to work collaboratively to find a solution and to pass that on to whatever CDNR will look like in the future. Thank you, Counselor Hightower. We'll go to Counselor McGee. Thank you, President Paul. I just wanted to also offer a summary of some of the things that we've discussed at the Public Safety Committee in recent months. We've, and things that I hope the next Public Safety Committee will continue to discuss. We have talked at length about the fire dispatch and some of the innovative approaches they have used to bridge the gaps there and look forward to continuing those conversations as we also look at regionalizing dispatch and all of these other important issues to grapple with. And I also look forward to continuing the work of redrafting and amending the department directives in collaboration with the police commission and Shannon Trammell at the police department has been really just exceptional in terms of making sure that those items move forward. And thank you to everyone for your patience as I get used to being a committee chair for the first year. Thank you, Counselor McGee. We'll go to Counselor Shannon. Thank you, President Paul. So I've reported on several committees. One is the reappraisal committee which did submit their report to Counselor Paul and I'd like to thank those committee members who that was to be staffed by the city attorney's office. And while we did have staffing from the city attorney's office it was recognized that the city attorney's office is very short staffed. And so it was the committee members who really wrote that report with James Unsworth. And Alan Birkey taking a big lead on that. So this was a committee that really went above and beyond in terms of just drafting the whole report and it was a challenging committee and I think they did good work. Secondly, licensed committee has started a conversation about we licensed some retail establishments to sell alcohol as early as 5 a.m. and learned that you can't even do that in the state of Vermont until 6 a.m. And we have been having a discussion about possibly moving that later as we do have some people in the habit of starting drinking very, very early and becoming very problematic in our downtown. And there's some thought that if they start a little bit later they will cause a little bit fewer problems in the downtown. So that discussion has been postponed to the next licensed committee meeting but you're welcome to weigh in on that matter. I did reach out to a lot of the licensees and was surprised to find, I won't say enthusiastic support but a surprising lack of strong objection to the idea of starting everybody at 9 a.m. I think that they were, there was some comfort in that nobody, no individual was being targeted that it would be across the board. The Cannabis Control Board, we had some discussion when anything comes to the council from the Cannabis Control Board. I remind you all that you have one choice which is to vote yes. What we learned is that while we must vote yes on the licenses that after we vote yes on the licenses by voting yes on the licenses we have some control over withdrawing them. That seems to be the advantage of that. We have been invited to a discussion at the Cannabis Control Board on I think it's Thursday which could provide an opportunity to tell them what we really think. Some of the challenges that we've had. And lastly on the Parks, Arts and Culture Committee we've had an ongoing discussion about safety among other things about safety in the parks. And we've heard a lot from the public. There's a lot of concern in our community about safety in the parks. And I can't say that we've reached a satisfactory conclusion on that topic. I think that that's an ongoing concern in this community that needs to continue to be a concern of this council and the subcommittee. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Shannon. Are there any other committee? Councilor Barlow and then we'll go to Councilor Carpenter. The Transportation Energy and Utility Committee will be meeting tomorrow, Tuesday, 328, 5 p.m. at 645 Pine Street. Our agenda will include but will not be limited to an update from the airport on emissions accounting and a progress report on their carbon accreditation project as well as updates on the Vermont Project Selection and Prioritization for the Prospect Street, Pearl Street, Colchester Avenue Intersections and Colchester Avenue, Riverside Avenue, Barrett Street Intersections. Also, Tax Abatement Committee will be meeting Thursday, March 30th at 4.30 p.m. in the Sharon Bush Art Conference Room for hearings. Thank you, Councilor Barlow. We'll go to Councilor Carpenter. I just want to report that the HR Committee who spends a better part of its time on reviewing sometimes appeals for union is starting work on reviewing the comprehensive personnel policy of 170 pages. We're not gonna review all of it, but it's needed some updating and language and we're just beginning that process. We're gonna look at cell phone policy and remote work policy coming up. I also just would like to make an editorial comment not about the HR Committee, but about committees in general for the public to make sure they understand that they can come to the Committees for Public Forum. And I personally think that's a very meaningful way for constituents to let us know what they're thinking about topical issues. And I hope we continue to encourage them and let them know when the committees are meeting. Thank you very much, Councilor Carpenter. Councilor Travers. Just briefly, while it will be in the next Council year, the Ordinance Committee has scheduled a meeting for April 19th. The one item on our deliberative agenda will be to consider the proposed rezoning amendments for the South End Innovation District. I know a number of members of the public on the South End have been, as well as around the city have been very interested in this matter. So I wanna make sure folks are well aware of it before the meeting date April 19th. Thank you. Great, thank you, Councilor Travers. I think we've covered just about every committee this evening. Can I... Oh, my apologies. Go ahead, Councilor Chang. No problem. Thank you. So I mean, I think we, the Racial Equity and Collision and Belonging Committee, our last meeting was canceled, but we had a chance to particularly tank both Councilor Freeman and Councilor Brent for the involvement in that committee. And our previous meeting, we had a chance to really thank them because they will not be returning. And just wanted to say it as here. The second elements that I wanted to add into the Act Committee, Parks Arts Culture Committee, we received actually the Chief of Wellington Police Department Chief, Mirad. And I think he expressed that there is, that the police officers are no longer, for example, doing their job because of the scrutiny about policing in this community long time ago, which is really, really, really concerning. And with the CNA report, I really hope that you will look into processes for the city of Wellington to bring some level of proof and reconciliation between the council and the police department. It is needed in order for them to do their job right, in order for all of us to come together and try to make sure that everyone feels safe in the city of Wellington. Thank you. Thank you. I think that wraps up the committee reports. Thank you to all for your committee reports, particularly those that are wrapping up the year. It's always great to hear, always great to hear about the work that you have done over the past year. That will bring us to item 11, which is city council general city affairs. Are there counselors who wish to offer comments on general city affairs? Yes. Go ahead, Councillor Chang. Yep, I really wanna say to all the Muslim people around the city of Wellington and also to thank Mr. Romeo who spoke about Ramadan Karim that has been here since five days so far. It is a year, a holy months of every year we look into it to cleanse ourselves, to ask for forgiveness. And for that, I'm asking you, all my colleagues on the city council to forgive me for things that I have done, that I have known, that I have unknown, to forgive me and to forgive all the community members as well and happy Ramadan to all the Muslims from here and around the world. Thank you. Great, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Chang. Any other councillors who wish to offer comments on general city affairs? If there are none, Councillor Shannon. Thank you, President Paul. I just wanna say that what Councillor Chang just said was really beautiful and I wanna thank him for that. And also to wish everybody a happy Ramadan. Is this an appropriate time to speak about those who are departing? I do wanna thank councillors Freeman and Councillor Brandt for their service. And specifically I have, I realize that we've had many contentious times, Councillor Freeman, but I wanna say that I really respect your independent thinking and there have been times when I have seen you scrutinize something and even be the only councillor who supports something that I say or some action that I wanna take and I appreciate your independence in that way and your dedication to the job here. And Councillor Brandt, I wanna thank you for stepping out. You have so much to offer this council. I'm sorry your time here was short, but I am so grateful that you stepped up when we really needed you and the work that you have done here, you have made some great contributions to this conversation at this table and your insights have been really, really valuable to me and thank you for being here. Thank you so much, Councillor Shannon. Are there any other councillors who wish to offer comments on general city affairs? If there aren't, then we'll, oh, Councillor Freeman. Thanks, President Paul. I actually thank you for your comments, Councillor Shannon. I wanted to, sorry to sort of switch gears a little bit, but I'm a good friend of mine, like am I gonna cry? Seems to be the question. It's like my last few City Council meetings. I'm a good friend of mine, Janet Karsgaden, passed away last week and I'm not sure how many of you had the pleasure and the honor of knowing Janet. She's an amazing person. She was, you know, for one, like the most superstar volunteer of both my City Council campaigns. She just like threw herself into it both times and I'm so grateful for that and it was one of the ways that we bonded and got to know each other. Beyond that, she was just, I think truly like a pillar of the Old North End and the Burlington community. I think she organized and ran the Old North End Community Dinner for I wanna say maybe at least a decade, I wanna say. She also had a wonderful business down on Kilburn Street in the South End called Evolution PT. She was a physical therapist and practiced yoga really for me, one of the most beautiful people I've ever met. And I feel very heartbroken at her loss and it's a loss for the community but I don't want that to overshadow just celebrating what a wonderful person she was and how much she dedicated herself to community service. She was just so brilliant and also so kind, extremely gracious. I think in so many ways she was the best of us and any of us would be lucky to be a little bit more like her. She was a truly incredible person. But yeah, I just wanted to know her passing. Sorry. It's funny, I feel like I literally only cry at these meetings. I don't know what it is. But yeah, I just wanted to also send love to her and family and friends and everyone who's been sort of mourning her loss and celebrating her life and she was a really important person to me and a really important person to the community and thanks for letting me share that and especially at my final meeting here. And yeah, this has been such an interesting life experience being on the Burlington City Council and has taught me so much. I think I will take a while to sort of unpack all the things I've learned here and all the conversations we've had and I really appreciate the work that we've been able to do as colleagues and I think it became more challenging through the pandemic but I think we've sort of are writing that out and finding ways to come together again and I really appreciate my time here, so thank you. Thank you so much, Councillor Freeman. Councillor Brandt. It has been such an honor to serve with you all. I have seen in my short time on the council the gifts that each person brings to the council and nurturing democracy and making a better society. But this is really remarkable, this group of people and thank you for teaching me in many ways how you do this. This has been an incredible experience. I'd also just like to acknowledge all of the many people who have been involved, people who are at NPAs and knocking on doors and people keeping democracy alive, forward thinking, progressive living, Burlingtonians who deeply care about our city. Our city, so this has been quite remarkable. Thanks everyone and keep up the good work. Thank you so much, Councillor Brandt. If there are no others then we will move on to item 12 which is city council president updates. It would sort of be hard for me to have an update at the end of the council year except to just simply thank all of you for your support and the confidence that you placed in me a year ago. You really took a leap of faith and I'm glad that you did. I feel like we have been on this journey together and have all worked hard to create a collaborative working body and I just wanna mention to the public who witnesses our moments of collegiality, our lighter moments where we kid one another and just want the public to know, the community to know that those moments are really genuine. We respect one another. Yes, we don't always agree, we disagree some of the time but we respect one another because we know deep down that we're committed in caring individuals and we all have in common that we love this community. We just love Burlington, that's why we're here. I'm grateful to all of you and I look forward to next year's progress with new faces at this table. We'll have three new counselors come a week from now and this is a time that we close out the year and we honor those that have served with us that are leaving us counselors, Freeman and Brandt. We've had so many years in the last three years that we have not been doing these in person and I think that's really unfortunate because there is an opportunity for us to really thank the people that leave us in person and to give them a small token of our appreciation and for that I'll turn to Mayor Weinberger and then if you wanna wrap us up with item, with any updates that would be great. So again, thank you so much. Thank you President Paul and thank you President Paul for your service in this very challenging role for the past year. I think you've done a remarkable job really restoring civility and collegiality to the way we work together at this table and the way we engage with the public and you also I think what the public doesn't see is the long hours that you put in ahead of the meetings to make sure that we avoid unnecessary conflict here through lack of preparation and being ready and sometimes we have to debate. It's a critical part of this process but you've helped us keep that focused on the substance and on moving the city forward. I do get to offer a small token of appreciation to the two counselors that are leaving tonight. We have plaques memorializing your time on the service to share with counselors Freeman and Brandt and I will personally deliver them to you in a moment. Before doing so I do just want to thank you both for your service, Councillor Brandt. Yes, far too short of a time working together but very appreciative that you stepped up to serve the city on short notice in a critical time and I of course have known you for years and I enjoyed knowing you and as parents of women growing up in this community I'm so grateful we've had this chance to work directly together even if it was only for a few months and I hope you will stay involved with city affairs in this elevated way going forward and Councillor Freeman, you served the city during some of the most challenging years the city has faced in decades and you always came to this table with great authenticity and sincerity, earnestness. I particularly appreciate, you know there's a lot of things that we didn't agree on but I always knew you were coming from a sincere and authentic place and I did feel that there were moments during the pandemic when you, in your role, it's being on the front lines of fighting the virus really, communicated critical information and I appreciate the opportunity to work with you through that challenging period. So I wish you both the best and all your future endeavors. So that brings us, my apologies, you maybe you had some other updates. I had just one more thing to say. This is, tonight is about goodbyes and then very quickly we'll be back in this room once again a week from now for our annual tradition of organization day and where we will be welcoming three new councillors to this table. We will be electing a city council president, we will be appointing a new board of finance and I'm looking forward to sharing my 12th state of the city address with you all with the public on Monday night, starting at six o'clock. In this case we actually are moving it up to six o'clock and it's not gonna cause any problems. In fact, it's gonna be a great thing. I look forward to seeing you all then. Thank you so much Mayor Weinberger. That brings us to the end of our agenda so I'll ask for a motion to adjourn. How about it Councillor Freeman? So moved. So moved. Seconded by Councillor Brandt. Thank you both. All those in favor of the motion to adjourn, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, please say no. At 9.50, no, 9.47 we are adjourned. Thank you for joining us this evening. As the mayor indicated our next meeting is our annual organization day on April 3rd at 6 p.m. And we'll look forward to seeing you then. Have a good evening.