 Good morning and welcome. Town Meeting Television continues its ongoing coverage of elections, they always seem to be happening here in our community and on the 7th of December, Burlington will have a special election on two ballot questions. One is a general obligation bond and one is a revenue bond. And here today to talk about them, our city council member, Joan Shannon and Jack Hansen. Joan is the South District City Councilor and Jack is the East District City Councilor. Thanks for joining us today. Thank you Lauren Glenn. So there are two questions that people will have no doubt seen if you're in the city of Burlington, you've received your ballot and everyone is encouraged to vote early. Of course the polls will be open on the 7th of December as usual, but there is an extra push to encourage your participation. And so you have this in your house already if you haven't voted on it. And the first question is the approval of a general obligation bond for city capital plan, city capital plan projects. And I'm just gonna read it so folks know what it is. Shall the city council be authorized to issue general obligation bonds or notes in one or more series in an aggregate principal amount, not to exceed $40 million to be borrowed in increments between fiscal year 22 and 25 for the purpose of funding capital improvement infrastructure projects of the city and its departments in furtherance of the city's 10 year capital plan. So actually why don't we contrary to what we discussed let's talk about this one first because it's number one. So Jack tell us why voters might want to support this GO bond to support the city capital plan up to $40 million. Great yeah so this bond is really asking the voters to finance a continuation of the sustainable infrastructure plan that we've been operating in for the last five years. And what that plan really is is about investing in the city's infrastructure. So everything from streets, sidewalks, intersections, bridges, fire engines and other city fleet vehicles a number of civic buildings. Memorial Auditorium has got it in a lot of attention but there's over 60 buildings that the city owns many of which have deferred maintenance needs. Our parks, our information technology infrastructure, public safety infrastructure like the radio dispatch system for fire and police. The list really just it goes on and on. Those are some of the big ones that I wanted to call attention to but there's a very large amount of need in our community for infrastructure and I think infrastructure is what really holds the community together allows the community fabric to hold strong allows people to get access to the resources they need and to move throughout our community and so approving this bond would allow the city to make those investments in that infrastructure to really keep the city functioning at the level that it is today. And can you remind us did the voters approve bond funding for the first five years of the capital plan? Yeah, exactly. So in 2016 voters strongly approved the initial five years and then this is to continue this for the next five years continue that level of investment. And I would say a lot of people, myself included, feel that even the current level of investment that we've been in is still leaves a lot on the table and anytime you hear someone complaining about the sidewalks being in disrepair, all we're asking now is to continue the level of investment in sidewalks that we've been doing. If we don't approve this bond, we would even do less sidewalk repair than we are now. That's just one example but there's really decades of deferred maintenance to catch up on in the city and in a lot of these areas of infrastructure. And so I think it's really critical that we continue at the level that we've been at and try to build, try to play catch up and also move into more proactive investments to really move our city into the future to try to address our net zero goals, to try to reduce inequality in the city and kind of level the playing field and give people access, make sure that everyone has access to the resources that they need in our community. Thank you, Jack. Thanks. Counselor Shannon, you have a view on this first ballot question, the GEO bond for city capital plan up to $40 million. How would you vote? I did vote no. I voted no at the council and I have voted no on the ballot. I was the only no vote on the council, I'll acknowledge but and actually I think it's, I can't ever remember not supporting a capital bond before. I'm generally very supportive and certainly recognize that we have in the past had a lot of deferred maintenance and we've needed to make headway on that and we have been making headway on that, which I appreciate. However, I believe we can still continue to make headway on that without this bond. So really the number one reason that I voted no on the bond was that we're looking at a school bond coming forward and we don't know what that is. And we just went through reassessment and the, I mean, I've had so many calls from taxpayers who just do not know how they're gonna pay their taxes. So when you add a small amount on the camel's back that's already broken, that's not gonna work. I don't think that it's fair. Everybody knows that we have, we cannot continue to not have a high school. We have to pass a school bond and the unknown is how much that is. But just to renovate, we passed a $70 million school bond to renovate, then it turned out the cost of doing the expected work was something more like $95 million. Now, renovation's not gonna work. We need an entirely new high school. Labor costs have gone up. Materials costs have gone up. And I think we, I don't know what the number is. We haven't been told that. But just referencing the ballpark of the previous numbers, this is gonna be a big number. You know, South Burlington went for a school bond vote for over $200 million. And they certainly weren't in the dire position that we are in. So that's my number one reason. And the other thing is we just don't need this money right now. Like why are we having an emergency vote? Why could we not wait until town meeting day for this vote? But ultimately, we should be waiting until we know that the school bonding needs are. And when I say we don't need this money now, we have a lot of money other than this school, other than this capital bond available to us. We just passed the Congress, passed the infrastructure bill. So when Councilor Hanson, he references the sidewalk repairs. Without this bond, we have, according to the information we received, we have $7.4 million to spend on sidewalks. So the bond would be $1.7 in addition to $7.4 million. We have a severe labor shortage. How many sidewalks can we put in in the next year? You know, we have more money than we will be able to spend. We have, for bridges, what they gave us for infrastructure. The feds, the feds. Well, actually the city anticipating the infrastructure bond. They had... Anticipating the bond or the... I'm sorry, the infrastructure bill. Got it. Yes. Anticipating the infrastructure bill. So without this capital bond, we have $4 million for bike infrastructure. Actually, no, that's wrong. $6 million for bike infrastructure without the bond. We have $4.3 million for bridges. $2.7.4. There are different sources, so you kind of have to add all of these things up. So you're arguing that the feds will provide us with infrastructure money making this bond not necessary? Yeah, when we passed this at the council and put it on the ballot, we didn't even know if the infrastructure bond would pass. And... So can I just pause you and give Chuck a chance to respond? Yeah, thank you. Thanks. Can I briefly go through the two other things? So Jack has a chance to respond to the whole thing. We don't know what we're paying for with this bond. We have received a list of things and dollar amounts associated with them, but the council can change that. So it's fungible money with the exception of the $10 million that's reserved for Memorial Auditorium. And this capital plan exceeds our target debt ratio, which starts to impede on the financial health of the city. Now, that debt limit is really kind of how Wall Street looks at Burlington. That may be higher than how Burlington taxpayers perceive their ability to pay. So I'll let Jack respond. Thank you. Thanks. So according to the head of capital projects in the city, Martha Keenan, the infrastructure need for the city is 151 million. What we're asking, over the next three years, we're asking for 40 million of local taxpayer dollars, but the idea is we would leverage the local money to get the state and federal money that Councillor Shannon's talking about. There's some state and federal money you can just get, but typically, especially for these construction projects, you have to have a local match ready to go in order to win that money and to get the state and federal money. And so as we are competing with all these other communities for the state and federal money that is now flowing, having local money available and ready to deploy is gonna make us more competitive and it's gonna allow us to capture more of that state and federal money. So I think the fact that there is the state and federal money available, I don't think is a reason to not move forward. I think it actually is a reason to move forward so that we can really fully take advantage of that, be competitive and utilize as much of those state and federal dollars that are available right now. So I think that's a reason to move now. The other reason of sort of why now in that question, that the initial five years did run out this summer, from my understanding, the administration's plan was to come back this March so that the next round of money, the next five years would already be there when the initial five years ran out. I believe the administration delayed due to COVID so we're actually already a little bit behind and we're already in that gap period where the first one is run out and we don't have the next five years of funding in place. We also have right now, there's really low interest rates that we can take advantage of and lock in. So I think there's plenty of reasons to move now. I think the biggest underlying reason to move now is that if we continue to defer on some of these needs, the cost, I think, is going to be higher when systems fail or when infrastructure collapses or when things get more critical. And this happens on a micro level all the time. Like think about the last few winters when you had big snowstorms and the sidewalk plows were continually breaking and the city had to spend a lot of money over and over repairing these sidewalk tractors, paying people over time to use one tractor for longer. Just all of these things that we have to react to, whether it's fleet or all the way up to bridges and bigger infrastructure that from time to time does fail and then we have to spend a lot of money solving that crisis. So preventative maintenance is always more cost effective than repair and responding to collapse. And so I think we need to continue on the path of preventative maintenance. And I don't think by deferring that we're gonna save money. I think we're gonna actually spend more if we delay. So I guess I have two follow up questions. Are you concerned about Burlington taxpayer's ability to absorb the cost of this bond? Yeah, absolutely. And I think that's why I bring up that point is that to vote no on this isn't going to save money in my opinion. It's actually gonna have a higher burden on taxpayers when the maintenance gets further delayed, further deferred and more problems arise. We're gonna spend more money later on. We might delay briefly that spending, but then the spending's gonna be at a higher level, especially if interest rates do go up. I think we are facing a huge problem of affordability and the tax burden is a huge part of that affordability crisis. I think we need to take that head on by addressing our property tax system. The state level, that's obviously, even more important than the local level, but as we're trying to do with this recent resolution that we passed to look at not only reappraisal, but also how we do local property taxes, I think we're trying to find ways to lessen that burden, especially on low-income Burlingtonians, and there are things that we can do with the local level in addition to pushing at the state level for property tax reform. So that is a critical, the tax burden is a really critical issue, but my two points on that are, let's address that issue head on through reforming that system, and two is that voting no on this, I don't think we'll save taxpayer, Simone. So my second follow-up question has to do with the level of indebtedness that the city is carrying. I know that the mayor has really made it a sort of centerpiece of his administration to regain the confidence of the markets in effect and that our bond rating is pretty good. Are you worried about that being affected by this combined with potentially the high school? Well, the administration's saying that we would still be under the debt limit that we set, and that's a voluntary debt limit that the council set in order to control that and stay below that. That's not, we don't have to do that, but that's the policy that the council set in order to try to be fiscally responsible and keep that good bond rating. So Councillor Shannon's saying we wouldn't stay under it, the administration's saying we would, so I'm not sure, I would need to hear what information Councillor Shannon's going off of for that. Thanks for your response, do you have a follow-up? Sure, we can go to the- Slide? The slide, because that's what I'm talking about, which I think is consistent with what the administration is talking about. So you see on this slide, if you go to ratios, city, geo, debt, 1.75, that's our target debt amount, and then as you see where we go in the yellow, you see where we exceed that target debt amount. Then you also go down, so that's just the city side, not city and schools, you go down below that and you see city and the school debt, the target is 4%, and it goes up to 3.27 in 2026, but that is without the school bond. So that is giving some allowance on that total debt for the school bond, but that total debt, we haven't been told what that will allow for a school bond when I have asked somebody who's got real financial expertise, both in the school finances and generally in finances, I'm told it probably leaves in the $110 million to $120 million range for a school bond, but I could foresee the school bond being well above that. So this is an unknown how that's going to affect the overall debt policy. However, remember that this debt policy was set with our old grand list. So one of the reasons why it's within our debt policy at all is because our grand list increased with the reappraisal. So most people don't feel more flush after reappraisal. Reappraisal has put additional tax burden on people, not given us more ability to pay, that's the reality. In the Wall Street world, maybe it gave us more ability to pay, but in terms of our home finances, it did not. To say that we're going to reform the tax system to address this problem, I think is really unfair. I mean, we've had a problem with how we pay taxes, property taxes and property tax burden forever. And 70% of the property tax, I'm sorry, 70% of the property tax bill in Burlington goes to the state. So that has to be solved at the state level. It's not within our control how we're doing that. And also as far as the preventative maintenance and not having money and to say that we're not going to be doing these things, Jack did point out that the overall need in the city is 151 million. 40 million of this is this bond. All that other money is still available to put towards these things. So I don't think in the next year, we are necessarily not going to have the money to do the things that we need to do. In fact, there's what, six million for the fleet. You mentioned snow plows and stuff. Actually, I'm not sure to line these things up, but there's, we have an annual bonding ability without going to the taxpayers. So that can still address our most urgent needs as well as other grants, annual vehicle leasing that we have. So can I just clarify, so this GO bond to complete to further the city's 10 year plan, and we're in the second five years or the second four years, is this bond going to cover the next, the completion of the whole plan, or do you anticipate that we go back to the voters in a couple of years to finish up the 10 year plan? Is this meant to wrap it up or is this just meant to further it? My understanding from the administration is that it's meant to wrap it up, that this would be the last, yeah. So, last major ask around. Sorry to interrupt. So if I was just to sum up your views on the subject, you feel, Jack Hansen, that a yes vote would enable the city to continue its infrastructure improvements that are needed, and would make us, you think that it's important and it actually is more cost effective for us to approve this now? Yeah. And you're concerned that the cost of the taxpayers is unsupportable and that the need hasn't been fully demonstrated? Yeah, if we don't pass this bond, I'm not sure what exactly we're not going to do that we would, if the vote on that bond is no, what is not going to get done? Because there's a lot of other money here on the table. Okay. So it's unclear what it will go towards and what are we not doing if we don't have that bond? Exactly. Last word on this. I don't agree that it's not clear. I think we're laying out line by line what this $40 million would go to and folks can look at that, that's in the presentation, that's available online. I listed some of the key areas, but it goes line by line and accounts for the $40 million and how we would spend that and that's spending that, without that $40 million doesn't happen. Could you bring up that slide, Joan, on that of the list of things? Yeah. This... It's the next one. That one would do it or the other one, yeah. Yeah, let's bring it. Well, this one shows, this is, the bond proceeds is what the bond is being spent on, but this shows all of the other money that is available, it shows the total lower right corner of 151 million and then the other sources of money other than the $40 million capital bond. So, we do have this list of things, but we're not bound by this list. The resolution that we passed says, except with explicit city council approval of the reallocation. So we can reallocate all of this with the vote of the city council with the exception of the $10 million funds for Memorial. That's the only part that is not fundable. Yeah, and I would just, so that's the $40 million and how we would spend it. In terms of the other money, the state and federal money in particular, I think we would lose out on some of that money as well as the $40 million because we're leveraging the $40 million to get more of that money. I understand. Well, thank you both for going through ballot question one. I hope this has been helpful for our viewers. It's certainly been helpful for me. There is a second question. The issuance of revenue bonds for BED Burlington Electric Department projects up to $20 million to achieve a variety of goals, capital additions and improvements to the city's electric system and energy conservation systems in furtherance of the city's net zero energy goals, including improvements to the city's technology systems, customer and financial information systems, electric grid upgrades, generation plants and dams and funding a debt service reserve fund and paying costs of issuance. So that's $20 million revenue bond, which is different than a GEO bond. And maybe Joan, you can explain what's the difference between a GEO and revenue bond and your position on this second question. And then we'll go to Jack. Thank you. A general obligation bond pledges the full faith and credit of the city. The revenue bond, we have different enterprises, kind of different businesses within the city. And the airport is one enterprise, and BED Burlington Telecom at one point was an enterprise. BED is an enterprise. It's a business unto itself. And so this is asking for money to invest in the business that's going to be paid for out of revenues, not from your property tax dollars. However, of course, the city property tax payers are also the rate payers for BED. But this is an investment in what we, I think, all agree is really important infrastructure that can actually lower rates. So, you know, as we're converting, Jack actually can probably explain this better than I can because I know you follow all of these kind of things very closely, but these investments, our rates may go up a little bit, but they also have the potential to lower rates, right? So you're supporting the question, Joan? I am, yes. Yeah, I mean, the big difference is the first valid item is really asking the taxpayers to give the city money to make these investments, whereas this is allowing our electric department to borrow money, and we think that that money will be used in ways that will save money over time as well. The city's done this before with Burlington Electric Department in the 1990s with energy efficiency, and that was a wildly successful program that did save a lot of money, allowing the electric department to make investments in energy efficiency that then saved everyone money and really went on to inspire and create efficiency for Vermont, the statewide program, to do the same, which now is consulting all over the world on similar programs. So we've done something like this before. This is a little different. It's not as much on the energy efficiency side. It's more on the pathway off of fossil fuels than net zero, 2030 plan. So it's really about two things. It's about the infrastructure of our grid itself and making those investments, and it's also about moving the city off of fossil fuels, and a lot of how we do that is by converting things to electric. So for example, with this borrowing, Burlington Electric Department could offer greater incentives for someone to switch out natural gas heat in their home for electric heat pumps, and the benefit of that is not only on the climate front and a health and safety standpoint for that person as well, but it's also when that person switches over to electric heating, instead of spending money on Vermont gas and spending money on fossil fuels, which come from outside of Vermont anyways, they're spending money into the electric department system. So you have more revenue coming in to our electric utility. You have more customers paying in. That means what each customer, each customer's share of the overall infrastructure that they have to pay to keep the system running is actually pushed downward when you bring in those new revenues and those new customers. And so it sounds like you'll be supporting this valid question for the revenue bond for BED. Absolutely, yeah. I think this is millions of dollars additional that we can invest in not only the grid infrastructure but the pathway to net zero, and I think it's really critical. Thank you for explaining that. We have about a minute left. Did you have? I just want to thank Jack for picking up the ball there because as I was talking, I realized I'm playing with something under the table here and it's a mic. So I got a little distracted. I guess we don't need this. No, it's another mic. Yeah, I guess that's why I'm checking. I'm like, where did that come from? Yeah. But yeah, I mean, I can't really see any reason to justify not supporting this net zero bond. And it's exciting work that they're doing there. It's, you know, Darren Springer is just amazing in terms of his financial management and moving us towards our climate goals. Well, I want to thank you both, Counselor Shannon and Counselor Hanson for joining us today to talk about the December 7th vote for the city of Burlington. That is December 7th. If you have not found your ballot, I'm sure it has been mailed to you. So be careful with it and vote it or come into the polling places on the 7th of December to vote on two questions. The first, the approval of a general obligation bond for city capital projects, up to $40 million. And second, revenue bonds issuance for BED, up to $20 million. Thank you so much for watching and stay tuned here at TownMeetingTV for continuing coverage of all things municipal government.