 We've already adopted our agenda prior to the work session. We are going to go right into public forum, public forum. If you're interested in speaking this evening, you may sign up. You may sign up using the forms in the corner right here and then handing them over to the clerk's table here. Folks will have two minutes today. You'll have the light system there that will tell you green, meaning you're good, yellow, meaning you're close to running out of time, and then red, meaning you've run out of time. You also have the timer right here. You could please focus on issues and not personalities or individuals. We appreciate that, and I'll allow you to finish your thought, but I would ask that people please respect the two-minute time limit. We have quite a few folks signed up this evening that we're going to try and get to and a pretty full agenda as well, so please respect that time limit this evening. The first speaker will be Amy Magyar to be followed by Mark Coopridge. We are encouraging folks to wear masks. We have masks available as well as a sanitizing station outside here. I see many folks took advantage of the city mask, the city flag masks. We also, if you are a public forum and are speaking, and councillors as well, please feel free to take off your mask to speak if you're not able to project, but we do encourage folks who aren't speaking to please wear your mask this evening. So I'll do this as a task. Yeah, loud and clear. Perfect. Thank you. My name is Amy Magyar, and I'm here on behalf of the short-term rental host in Burlington. I just wanted to say I know that this is coming up for you all to decide whether this should be moved forward or go back to ordinance, and I just wanted to say that we've worked really hard both sides of the table in trying to find a really strong win-win that will really only be applicable for a year because of how it's been set up, so that if in a year once we're all registered, if we feel like it's a little bit too aggressive, that you can actually back it off a little bit. And I think that that was a really great decision that was made so that there can be a spicket turning it on and off. So I just wanted to say that especially with the three years having ownership for a minimum of three years to be able to become a short-term rental, I think that also reduces any kind of risk of having developers come in and immediately turning houses that gets bought and sold in the area into short-term rentals. So I just wanted to say I really think it was a very thoughtful, thorough two-year process to get to where it's at, and I just hope that you can look at it to be able to move it forward. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Mark Kuprich to be followed by Eric Hanley. Hello, thank you. I'm Mark Kuprich, I appreciate the opportunity to want to say I bought one building when I moved here in 93, and I lived at 34 South Willard, a four-unit building, until recently when the city asked me to either move to my other building at 228 Maple Street, which is an eight-unit building, or lose the Airbnb opportunity, the short-term rental. I chose to move my entire life over to 228 Maple. That building in the middle of Maple Street had a lot of problems, which in my opinion, after owning it for 22 years, was solved by short-term rental. As a four-unit apartment in the middle of a three-story building, I had always young people who made a lot of noise and made it really tough for the rest of the building. My solution, short-term rental, allowed me to keep the building under control and allowed me to make a little additional income so that I could improve the look of the building. I just want to tell you, if you believe that one or two people deserve to be protected by any municipal laws or anything, I want to encourage you to also believe that these laws should also protect people like me, who have invested time and money in a section of the city. Nobody knows 228 Maple better than I do, and I really believe that what I'm doing is what's best, and I'm embedded in from, and I can appreciate what I'm doing for, I think I'm doing the right thing at 228 Maple Street as an eight-unit building. I don't understand the division between five units and eight units, but that's in the law. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you. Our next speaker is Eric Hanley, to be followed by Julie Marks. Hi there. I'm here to talk about the short-term rentals. In seeing Councillor Mason and Jean in here, we had many hours of meetings, probably hundreds of hours of meetings, to hash this out and see what works for the city and for the host and people coming to town here. I think what is proposed right now is fair for everybody, for the host, for the city. Short-term rentals, Airbnb, people like to come to Burlington. I was down at my Airbnb yesterday, early in the morning, and I ran into the gas, and they love coming to Burlington. It's another avenue other than hotels and stuff, and I think what's proposed right now is fair for everybody, and I'd like to see the council move forward with that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Julie Marks, to be followed by William Keaton. Hi, my name is Julie Marks. I am a Burlington landlord and property manager. I'm also the director of the short-term rental alliance, a statewide advocacy group for short-term rentals across the state. Today, I'd like to speak on the topic of short-term rentals, while the proposed ordinance before you is complex and restrictive, it does achieve two things. It allows our well-established short-term rental hosts to continue operating, and it adequately protects from the conversion of whole apartment buildings into de facto hotels. There will be some council members, Chair, who will press you to totally eliminate the opportunity for an owner to short-term rent their property if they don't claim residency there. You may also hear desires for your council members to tax short-term rentals beyond the 9% meals in room and the state income tax they already remit. With these ideas, I strongly oppose. Tactics of that nature would have detrimental downstream consequences to Burlington's tenants, traveling workers, local businesses, not to mention the integrity of our aging-built environment, as they would encourage landlords like myself to just tighten their purse strings. As you deliberate, please consider that landlording is a business, not just a privilege. It's like running a coffee shop. You invest capital up front to get it going, and then it's every day hard covering your expenses, breaking even paying off that loan, so that in the future you hope that it'll be worth it and pay you back, but it might not be. And like a coffee shop, when the cost of beans goes up, a cup of coffee gets more expensive for the consumer. As you deliberate, please consider the compounded impacts of other policy changes. My property taxes just went up by 30% overnight. How else am I supposed to stay in business without charging more for coffee? As you deliberate, please consider the needs of a family, a community, a building, a business. They change over time, sometimes without warning. The ability to diversify, adapt, innovate, this is what makes a business sustainable, including the rental housing business, which from what I hear, we need more people to get into that line of work. If you could please wrap up. I trust the council will realize the symbiotic relationship that short term and long term renting can have and come to the conclusion that the proposed ordinance before you is more than sufficient for controlling the growth of short term rentals. Thank you. Our next speaker will be William Keaton to be followed by Christopher Aaron Felker. Yeah, so I'd like to speak out against raising the police cap as I believe this so-called public safety crisis has been loosely fabricated by our police chief and Joseph Corot, the president of the police union or vice president, who is also a known brutalizer of black people in Burlington. I would also mention that it's hard to have any trust in a system, the police force as a racist institution, which evades any form of community accountability while we also have a city council and political system that is protecting abusers and gaslighters from accountability. So I would urge the progressive party to take action and not raise the police cap while also holding its members accountable for their actions. And yeah, I mean, I don't think the police will do anything in Burlington besides protect us, white people, our capital and property and our middle class and upper middle class interests. So yeah, not about it. And you know, everyone in here at the Blue Eyes Matter Flag representing a symbol of white supremacy and the systematic murder of black people. So please, I'm urging you, the city councilors, to take accountability for our police force and that the members on your council who have committed harm and been dismissive of black activists and need to go through a genuine accountability process. Also like to mention how ridiculous it is to mention police and private investigators in any case of sexual assault. The city council has lowered the police cap but has done pretty much nothing else to build new systems of community support and safety. We have the people doing that on the streets themselves. So take action. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Christopher Aaron Felker to be followed by Paul DeSalle. Good evening. I am Christopher Aaron Felker, city council candidate and eight-year resident of Ward 3. Approximately one year ago, this council made a reckless and irresponsible decision to drastically reduce the number of sworn officers in the Burlington Police Department without having a proper plan in place to ensure continuity of public safety. Ward 3 is the most socioeconomically diverse district in Burlington. We are home to Burlingtonians of all income levels, home to treasured small businesses, the Waterfront Park, neighborhood and their businesses, and the Church Street Marketplace right outside this door. Ward 3 is in crisis. And I'm here today pleading for this council to act to restore public safety in the Queen City. In the past 10 days alone, Burlington has experienced reprehensible violence in our parks, an assault that appeared to be motivated by racial hate, a knife attack and three shootings at one at Waterfront Park and two on South Wenuski Avenue. All these occurred in Ward 3. As a candidate for council, I've been spending considerable time interacting with Ward 3 residents and workers. Once I introduce myself to them, I always ask residents what issues are important to them. The number one issue from this entire campaign from the beginning to right now, the number one issue from Elmwood to Lakeview Terrace from Manhattan to King Street has always been public safety and rebuilding our police department. The last few weeks have also, I've also been reaching out to the workers on the Church Street Marketplace. Many of these businesses have late evening hours and workers that I've spoken to have all voiced serious concerns for their own safety, the safety of their co-workers and the safety of guests and visitors in our city. I was dismayed to learn that officer levels have plummeted so severely that private security escort programs are necessary for businesses doing short safety. Ward 3 cannot afford to wait two more months for the CNA report to be received and then another two to four more months to deliberate on a course of action. I'm aware that the adoption of this police commission recommendation is not a panacea, but it is the prudent course of action to attempt to quell the hemorrhaging of officers in our police department. It's an opportunity to ensure staffing levels do not continue to plummet. I implore this council to listen to residents and workers calling for the raising of the officer cap. Can you please wrap up? Thank you. Can folks please respect the time limits and also if people can please not clap, we're trying to create an environment here where people of all viewpoints are able to express those viewpoints in this room. So please if you want to show your support, please just do this. It has a chilling effect when you are when you when we have this this applause after people speak. So thank you for that. Our next speaker is Paul DeCel to be followed by Amanda's Yeah. Good evening, councillors. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you specifically to two city councillors taking the bold step to do what I think many of us in the community is long overdue. I think time will tell 20, 30, 40 years from now that the actions taken by the city council last year may have been the most reckless vote ever casted in this city. I truly believe that many folks do. But tonight we have an opportunity to sort of right that wrong. To quote a city councillor who remain nameless on Friday made the comments that response time matters is 100 percent correct for all first responders, not just fire department. So after this evening, I have a request that I've heard from many people in this community, business owners, patrons, customers, you have it. Stop talking to the press. Stop talking to the chief with all due respect. Start talking to the officers. Do you any of you have any idea what you've done to these folks? Have you had conversations with any of them? Have any of you done ride-alongs? I welcome all of you. They welcome it. Find out what it's like to work 15 hours over time a week, 30 hours plus a week. How many of you do that? They have to be perfect in every aspect of what they do. None of us here do. The reckless decisions that were made last year, I'm afraid our daughter is going to college in a month and I'm petrified for her safety. Many people feel the same way. I don't understand. You have an opportunity tonight to fix some of the mistakes that you've made. Again, do a ride-along, follow along with these officers, understand what you've put them, you've put them through. The time is now for you to correct those mistakes. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Amanda Skihan to be followed by Gary Dion. Thank you for giving me this time. I've been an ardent supporter of criminal justice reform for much of my adult life. My uncle Patrick was shot by an off-duty cop while my uncle John died in prison, serving time for holding up a bar with his finger in his pocket for $100 to serve as heroin addiction. He died an awful death in prison at a young age. So I'm passionate about this. And there are a multitude of changes that need to happen beyond what you can do at your level here. Parole reform, public defender reform. None of us, I think, have had to rely on a public defender. That process is incredibly difficult. Bolstering mental health programs, substance use programs, but we're perseverating only on police here. So I'm going to ask you to do what I've been doing, get up your voices and talk at the state level, talk to the governor, talk to our representatives, demand mental health services because you're saying, and I hear you, that you are creating CSL positions and thinking that's a one-to-one replacement for police. It's not. It is just not. CSL positions, CSO positions, crisis. They are there to, as intermediaries, to bring people to social services. CSLs are not long-term clinicians. We do not have that right now. We have a dearth of that throughout the state. You cannot, with your best intentions, do that at this level. We need to raise up and do that at the state level. In addition to that, I'm asking you to continue to bolster our police program. Most mental health calls are not simple. They are not just a straightforward someone is having a breakdown on the street and needs help. There are many calls like that, but there are also calls that are more complex. I had to call the crisis support in the spring for a woman who was just sitting outside my house on my bench with her pants down. It's pretty simple, right? They could not respond. I had to ultimately call the police and it turned out to be a situation where if you could please wrap up, she defecated in my lobby and threatened to shoot me. So we are going to still need police for many of these calls. Please refund our police department. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Gary Dion to be followed by Gene Bergman. I'm going to be shooting from the hip. I've lived in the city of Burlington all my life. I am a Burlington Indian. And when I meet people on the street, in the stores, they are very, very disappointed in what is going on with this city council. We are being made fun of. People are laughing. No disrespect to any of you. But it's time that we have a recollection. We need more police officers. There's no doubt about it. There's too much going on. There's a lot of undercover stuff that nobody even knows about. No comprehension. A person doesn't know what's going on. You have a chief right here that knows. The other thing is the property taxes. Myro said, you know, we all 15 years, we had a reassessment. We knew it was coming. It came. He goes, but it's not. It's going to be insignificant. You will never even notice it. Guess what? I'm 75. Got a pension. I guess so security. My wife gets half a mind. I don't get an increase. We got a school I can't use. But Public Works is down here putting painting the lines for a school. I told them the school's in Burlington. You know, we're wasting our services. We're I don't understand what's you know, what's going on. We you know, we need to, you know, get together in. The safety part, get ahold of the governor, T.J. Johnnevin, the state attorney general, which or which her name. I can't think of that. Get ahold of them. We need help. And the governor can do it. He needs. You got Shirling, who used to be the chief. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jean Bergman to be followed by Jane Nodell. Good evening. I'll switch the subject here right now and first voice my support for the appointment of Dan Richardson for the attorney for the city attorney's position. I've known Dan. He's a good choice and he'll be a good choice for the people for you and the administration and for the office as well. So I actually hope that you you appoint him tonight. Second, I want to thank you for delaying the decision on solid waste consolidation until all the off the counselors are present. It's very important that all residents are representative represented. And there are some things I'd like you to think about over the next month. Please share the legal opinions on the legality of consolidation and municipalization with the public immediately. We all deserve to know the legal landscape in the same vein of transparency. I ask you to engage in vigorous resident outreach that involves the city counselors and uses all the available avenues of engagement while I support a consolidated municipal system. I ask you to seriously consider bifurcating the decision. I think there's been considerable input on consolidation, but not on the model and the options. I hope you will withhold a decision on the method until the public outreach is completed on the preferred model and the opt out options. I trust that the administration is being honest when DPW says that it's preserving the municipal option with the hybrid option to do that. I support the hiring of a project manager to drive implementation during the initial period and exploring the municipal billing system during that period of time, as well as all of the capital documents that need to be done and the planning. And finally, I hope that the administration will renegotiate a new agreement with CSWD for either a drop off center, but also has the opportunity for us to expand into a municipal system. Thanks very much. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Jane Nodell to be followed by Kurt Raith. Good evening. It seems appropriate that I would follow Jane because I'm pretty sure when I was first elected the city council in Ward 2, it was gene seat. I'm here to read a statement from the Howard Center street outreach team on downtown safety and security. The street outreach team has been providing service and support to our downtown for over 20 years. The street outreach team works with individuals in downtown Burlington who have mental health, substance abuse, homelessness, and unmet social surface needs. The team helps to coordinate services for those individuals and as part of the Howard Center system is able to especially engage with our crisis, substance use, and mental health counseling systems. Our primary goal is to increase access to services for all individuals. A secondary goal is to address concerning behaviors and respond to calls for service that require immediate intervention but do not rise to the level of an emergency response. Lately, we have been asked most often to provide that immediate intervention, which means we spend less time helping people access social services. Just this morning, I received six calls to provide immediate assistance before 9 a.m. I was the only person on staff. While the street outreach team understands that a decision has been made by the city council to cut police staffing as a step in police reform, our team is increasingly concerned about the availability of emergency law enforcement services during this transitional period. When the police can't respond to calls for emergency services, people downtown will call us. We get that. We are their next best option. However, in many cases, we are not equipped to handle the call. We do not provide services when there is a need for an emergency level response. Street outreach is finding it increasingly difficult to respond to both the nature and the number of calls we are receiving. We see this as a direct result of the uptick in behavioral problems downtown and the reduction in the number of officers responding. There is more, but I will stop because I'm out of time, but I will submit this to the clerk. Thank you. Our next speaker is Kurt Wright, to be followed by Jennifer Nesbitt. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, wherever you are, and good evening city councillors. First, I want to start out saying, I'm glad that we are following, and I encourage everybody to follow by the time limit tonight. I'm glad we're doing that again. I know last summer, people were speaking sometimes for eight, 10 minutes for unlimited amounts of time, so I'm glad we're getting back to following that time limit. There is, I want to mention a TELITA report. The TELITA report is out. It was commissioned by the Joint Committee. They chose the group to do this work, and it is a public report paid for by the taxpayers. I don't know if that's been released yet, but as of a couple days ago, it was not. Please, City Council and Mayor, make sure that report is released. There's a lot of interesting data in there, and it shows significant support from the minority community for the police. Now, on to the issues for tonight. I urge you to pass the resolution by Councillor Shannon and Barlow, perhaps others, that will at least begin to take a small step, just a small measured step in correcting the really serious mistake you made last June. This is a Band-Aid, but when you have a wound that's bleeding, you need to at least apply the Band-Aid. So, you've heard, you've seen the headlines, and these are not fear tactics. These are RIA, that's reality what's happening, what's in the news. People are talking about it all across the city in the New North End, everywhere. Everywhere I go, people are talking about the incidents that are happening downtown in the New North End at Letty Park, stabbings, bikers attacked. I heard a Councillor say that this was all BS and fear tactics coming from the Chief of Police. I really don't wanna hear one of our leaders talking like that about the Chief of Police. That is disturbing. Let's show respect like we always did for our police. Are they perfect? No. Do we need reform? Yes, but let's show respect for them as they do for us. So, please pass this tonight. We have business owners that are talking about the safety and security downtown. Charlie Handy's on the news tonight. Halverson's wife was attacked last week. You can please wrap up. There is great fear in the community. Females are afraid to go to their cars. You can please wrap up. So, let's correct the mistake that you made last year. Amen. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Jennifer Nesbitt to be followed by Jada Beardin. Taking this back to the short-term rentals. So, I first wanna thank all the people who've been involved in clarifying the short-term rental issue for both renters and owners as it was a sticky problem. I'm an owner who combines short and long-term rentals with owner use to maintain the affordability of my home. And I would like to see the short-term rental period extended from 14 to 21 or 28 days if that is reasonable and possible in subsequent revisions to this policy. But mainly, I'm glad that the issue is being clarified so people can move forward with a full understanding of how they are permitted to use their property. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jada Beardin to be followed by Jeff Nick. Is Jada here? That can see if they come in at a different point. I'll go to Jeff Nick. Two minutes of stuff, but I'll try. I'm Jeff Nicholson, N-I-C-H-E-L-S-O-N. Some of you guys might remember me, some of you. No, I'm sorry, this is Jeff Nick. That's Jeff Nick. Oh, you got a different one? Yeah, it's a different one. Yeah. Sorry. Just what you wanted, two of me, huh? All right. All right, thank you. All right, go ahead, Jeff Nick. I'm Jeff Nick, chair of the Churchie Marketplace Commission. I shouldn't be here tonight, but one question I have for everybody up there. When you took the oath of office, did you think that your number one responsibility would be public safety? Because I really think that everybody in this room thinks that public safety is your number one job of any municipal government. So tonight, we're faced with a severely depleted police force. We have gunshots on almost a weekly basis, it seems like. Knife fights in City Hall Park and elsewhere. Gang members are showing up in town all of a sudden for some reason. We have threatening behavior from intoxicated individuals on a daily basis. Sexual harassment of women, both workers and visitors, happens all the time. That's why BBA now has an escort service. I mean, we really have a situation here. We have to get our arms around. We have daycare centers that don't want to come down to the park. They've called City Hall. They say, we're threatened by what's going on in the City Hall Park. A beautiful new park with pop shed fountains that our kids are supposed to enjoy and they cannot. It's shameful. It really is. We have a depleted, the Howard Center. I mean, those folks are at their wit's end, as you just heard. They need help. We have to get our arms around this thing. We've got, and of course, now we have a private security and chocolate thunder is out in the park because why? We don't have enough police. Law enforcement is depleted. So, really, we really have an emergency situation on our hands. You've got to get your arms around this thing. You've got to go with your police commission's recommendation to increase the police force. And I understand you have studies going on. We cannot wait for the results of those studies. Reaction has to happen now. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sandy Barron, to be followed by Kelly Devine. Good evening and thank you for being here. After a very long year, I'm happy to see all of your faces even though they're masked. My name is Sandy Barron. I'm a resident of Ward One and I'm an attorney and I have the great privilege of working at 20 Allen Street at the Old North End Community Center where I share space with the Association of Africans Living in Vermont. All black people, mostly on that floor. And I'm coming here to talk to you about your support of the police. I believe the police need that support from you and that the police need to be back to the levels under which they can really govern or help govern the city. And I'm speaking to you basically on behalf of the many clients I see there that need police protection. Mainly who I see at that center are women, black women, and they are the victim of domestic violence. I have a long history of domestic violence. I'm the daughter of a mother who was a battered woman. My own daughter was an African American daughter, was murdered by her white boyfriend and that was in this community. I'm speaking on behalf of all victims of domestic violence, black and white women. And I believe that in those situations you must remember that the only people that respond to their calls of a woman in her home being hurt are the police. Social workers really cannot help in that situation. I admire the work of social workers. I always have and I always will. But in most, in many instances, where a perpetrator of a crime has to be removed, it is only the police that can arrest them. Only the police, no one else can. So I'm asking you tonight to show the support for the police of this community who are the first responders in domestic violence situations. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Kelly Devine to be followed by Deb Ward Lyons. My name is Kelly Devine. I'm the executive director of the Burlington Business Association. And while most people think of me as representing business owners, I represent and speak for all of the people who work for businesses. Our businesses downtown can't survive if they can't get people to come and work there. And I have to say over the last week, I have heard increasingly from business owners that particularly women on their staff are going to leave their jobs once the job becomes primarily an indoor situation because they are really worried about their safety. We have women who work late night till two, three in the morning and have to make their way home which is why we decided to step in and provide them with a service that Burlington Police Department did provide and doesn't have the resources to provide any longer which is someone to walk you to your car. We're encouraging and speaking to all of our businesses with late night staff and telling them have the buddy system. And I've talked to several of our downtown bars and restaurants including RERAS that said they do not let women leave the place if they don't have someone with them. It's not okay for me as a woman leader in this community when women don't feel safe. On Friday at about 5.30, I walked around the sidewalk sale and I talked to four different women who were visibly shaken because they were being harassed pretty much the entire day by a certain individual who's been on the street for several weeks, he's known to the BPD, he's known to street outreach and they don't feel safe because they had already called the police and had been told we don't have the resources to respond. I spoke to street outreach today who told me that they are short staffed in part due to the fact that it's hard to fill positions. They have two overnight positions that they've been approved for that they have not been able to fill. In the short term, we are in a real crisis. In the long term, I do understand that we need to be a better community when it comes to public safety but in the short term, we need a solution. Thank you. Our next speaker is Deb Ward-Lions to be followed by Jeff Nicholson. Excuse me, I was skipped over, can I just go? Is that okay? I'll come to you at the end. I got things to do. Okay, that's fine, you can go now. I appreciate it, thank you, President Max Tracy. Okay, so I had two things I wanted to talk about but since the energy of bootlickers is high on this evening, I have to address this because I'm a black person, specifically I'm a black masculine person in the second white estate in the nation and it literally boggles my mind that y'all can sit here and ask for more and increase in police presence in a police like state, are you kidding me? Do you know the origin of these people? They're slave catchers. Do your history. Come on now, reconstruction error. That's, anyway. Okay, next up, I just wanna talk about freaking, the decrim sex work, I'm not, yes. Honestly, I'm not gonna spend too much time on it but I just have to say that decrim is not enough. Sex workers, again, I'm a black person. Black films, black trans women are the most at risk in sex work so decriminalizing this stereotype of work is not enough. We need insurance, we need protections, we need regulations. And lastly, all I gotta say is, what the, city counselors, you have a predator on your staff and the fact that only one council person, a council person, Jane, is the only person who reached out or said anything about your colleague. Do better because you have a constituent that has been attacked, victimized by your colleague. So what are you gonna do? Like, what's the issue? Do you need a push? Do you need a script? Because we are in this city and you know, do better. I can't, I have to do better. And fuck cops, like ACAB, like abolish, defund the police and that's all I gotta say, goodbye. Our next speaker is, is Deb Ward-Lions? To be followed by Jeff Nicholson. Sorry about that, thank you. That people could please be respectful in your comments. Hi, I'm Deb Ward-Lions and I live in Ward 1. And I wrote to you all last week and appreciate that you took the time to read my comments assuming that you have. You still have a chance. I sent it to you by email and post. So I'm here to reiterate my support of the work of the Planning Commission. They took two years to vet all the sides of the short-term rental issue and they came up with a really balanced proposal that supports renters, homeowners, and the Burlington economy. I do not see the housing challenge as either or, but as both and. Both long and short-term rentals can operate in Burlington and the housing challenge can be addressed respectfully. Short-term rental hosts are in favor of the Planning Commission's recommendations that include registration of all short-term rentals, life safety regulations, and off-site hosting if the property is owned for three or more years, which helps to eliminate the quick flip that many people are worried about. I offer another comparison. Would you consider getting rid of or limiting food trucks and restaurant options because of the housing problem in Vermont? Would you consider eliminating all small art venues in favor of the Flynn? Would you restrict comedy or musicals to allow only classical theater? Check out the Airbnb site for any weekend to see how many standalone units are available. Not many. Please allow short-term rentals to operate along with long-term housing and hotels in Burlington, again, both and, per the Planning Commission's proposal to you. Thank you. Thank you. Jeff Nicholson. And to be followed by our final speaker, Eric Dio. I feel like I've won something. Okay, two minutes is tough. My name is Jeff Nicholson, and you guys may not know me. Some of you remember me from a long time ago. I'm not a member of either side of these things. I'm not a bumper sticker. Black Lives Matter, sure they do. Defund the police, mean something, ACAB, back the blue. I back the blue. I've been working with these guys for a long time. Chief Scully's an old friend of mine. He and I are gonna come down on different sides of this issue, but we're gonna leave here friends. It's more nuanced than a bumper sticker or a campaign advertisement. You guys need to work on the facts. You tried something here that's different, and it's barely starting out, and you don't know what's happening or what's not. I'd just ask you to look at facts. Response time is important, but that's a never-ending ray. You can always have a faster response time. Where do you draw the line? That's what you guys have to decide. I hear things talking like that. Chocolate Thunder guys are a bad thing. Having to have an escort or a buddy system is a bad thing. Those are alternatives to having more force. Use of force is not the only answer. To a guy with a hammer, everything's a nail. I met these guys working on the largest public assemblies that this city has ever done. We did it for years. They said you can't do it unless you have hundreds of cops and we said let's try some different things. We did it. It was very successful. And some of these guys, like the Chocolate Thunder guys, came out of that experience. You can try different things. You can't always just response with massive use of force. Before Chief Scully, we had a police chief that thought massive use of force was a great idea. That didn't always work out. So I just asked you guys to look at those facts to give other alternatives a chance and see if we can do something other than just use of force. Why do people respond with force, whether you're a gang member or whether you're a second amendment guy who say something scares me, something's wrong. I'm going to use force. We have to say to our neighbors, to our friends, to our visitors, use of force is not what we do. I can go downtown because I'm strapped. No dude, that's not how we do it here in Burlington. And that's not how we do it here in Burlington. And you guys as the leader of the community need to make that statement that whenever we're scared we don't resort to massive use of force as our first response. Give some of these other people who are struggling, who have some of the alternatives that are trying to do good things. Give them some more sport rather than try to bring on more use of force as is always your answer to every problem. You could please wrap up. Thank you. All right, our final speaker for this evening is Eric Dianne. I'm not sure if you know me. I'm from Dianne's locksmith, my family business. I've been business for 50 years in this town. I'm a third generation Burlingtonian. Went to school in this town. I'm familiar with it. I don't think you guys are very well. I know I got respectful so I won't call you guys idiots but I'll say the city council of 2020 we're freaking idiots. I'll tell you that much. I see a spiking crime. If you haven't noticed, there sure has been. My phone is ringing off the hook. People are scared. Not just your normal people are coming from out of city because they're used to all these locks in their doors because they're freaking out. But everyone, they're not just neighborhoods but all businesses they're getting broken into. They need more security. They're feeling scared. Is this new to you guys? I don't think so. Obviously we know about the shootings going on. I understand about maybe two shootings a year for the last couple of decades. Last year was spiked up to 11 or 12. We're at maybe 10 now already this year and we're just a little more halfway through the year. That's not a good trend. It's council's 2020's fall 100% and you guys are continuing it here in 2021. You know, I'll give you an example. There's a six-story tall building in this town. Some guy just went in, broke into an office, stole a mask to the whole building. They know who it was. They've approached this person. He's admitting he has a mask in the building. He won't give it back. Police won't take it from them. Your social people won't take it from you. He says, all right, I gotta leave now and he just walks away with no repercussions of what he's done. Do you think that's right? No? Not at all. So I mean, good for me, I gotta go rekey a bunch of logs and that's just for that place. You know, and then another thing is, another example of Greer's Dry Clean just this past week, they, a person broke into there with a saw zone, chopped out the whole quarter machine, stole it. My time all done. Can I please talk a little bit more? No. Please wrap up. Wrong, it's wrong. We need more, we need more police. We really do. 120 of them, not what we have now. Thank you. That concludes our public forum for this evening and we will now move into the rest of our city council agenda. If folks would like to have conversations, if you could just please go out into the hallway, we'd like to continue our meeting. I don't see him. All right, we will continue with our meeting and move on to item number four, which are climate emergency reports. Anyone, are there any councillors with climate emergency reports to offer this evening? Councillor Stromberg, go ahead. Okay, thank you. Can you hear me? Yep. Yeah, so today it's Monday and it started off like how Monday would was like a horrible, horrible, horrible report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and we are so far from being on track to actually curb our greenhouse gas emissions and I've been just reading kind of disseminations and versions of this report and just people's take on it all day and it's been really anxiety inducing and I just really urge my colleagues in our city to really start thinking even more creatively in ways that we can curb this incredibly scary thing that is coming, that's happening. We're seeing it in the air quality here. We've had days and days of hazy, weird red suns and that's just gonna happen for the rest of the summer and into the fall and even beyond then. So I just, we don't live in a bubble. This is happening and this is going to affect us and there are a lot of people in our community that are really sensitive to air quality issues. So I just, this is a very, very, very real thing and the fact that as a globe, we are so far behind of where we need to be. We really do as the largest city in Vermont, we really do need to step up and lead by example and I know that we've passed a lot of great things but we need to really like just continue to do so and think incredibly creatively and in a way that's time sensitive because it is, it really is. So I just wanted to draw folks' attention to that report. Yeah, it's scary. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Schromberg. Are there any other councillors wishing to offer a climate emergency report? Councillor Hanson. Yeah, I appreciate Councillor Schromberg for bringing up the report and if people haven't seen that, they should look at it. It's extremely alarming. In addition to that, we're also seeing the, some of the worst wildfires we've ever seen in California right now and I would agree with Councillor Schromberg that we really need to escalate the pace at which we're passing policies to move Burlington off fossil fuels because this is going to be the challenge of a lifetime and we need to step up as a community and play a leadership role on it. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else with a climate emergency report? Councillor Mason, go ahead. Not to dump on this, but I'll, I mean I got an email from Bloomberg which is probably, we all think one of the most business friendly, the headline is Code Red for Humanity. I mean, it is hard not to turn on the news and be very freaked out about what's going on and we are protected, yes. We're not Dixie, California or Italy where these horrific wildfires but as the parent or anyone that cares, like watching what's going on is very alarming and I know we haven't, we've made strides and I agree that we need to do more but also encourage state and nationally because we're just a little municipality that shouldn't stop what we're doing but it's gonna require collective effort well beyond what we can do in Burlington. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else with a climate emergency report this evening? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to our next item which is the Consent Agenda, Councillor Stromberg. May I please have a motion on the Consent Agenda? I would move to adopt the Consent Agenda as amended and take the actions indicated. Okay, we have a motion from Councillor Stromberg. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Carpenter. Any discussion? Councillor Paul. Thank you, President Tracy. I will be recusing myself from item 5.27 as I did at the Board of Finance meeting due to a personal conflict of interest. Okay, thank you. Will the record please note that recusal? Is there any further discussion on the Consent Agenda? Okay, seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor? Actually, we have a Councillor on the phone so I believe we need to do a roll call for these votes this evening. Oh, unless they're unanimous, right, exactly. Thank you, Councillor Paul. So all those in favor of adopting the Consent Agenda, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Councillor Barlow. Aye. Okay, thank you, I can hear that. That's great. All right, so that passes unanimously. Brings us into our deliberative agenda before we actually get into the deliberative agenda. Well, actually I'm gonna go to the first item on the deliberative agenda, which is the appointment of the city attorney and then we'll go into some of the other meetings that we had, but I do wanna just take care of that at the beginning of the meeting. So I'm gonna go to Mayor Weinberger first and I would invite the city attorney candidate to please join us here at the table. Thank you. Mayor, are you with us? President Tracey, I am, can you hear me okay? Yeah, we can hear you great. Thanks, Mayor. Go ahead. Okay, thank you. Excellent, thank you. I appreciate the council and the city staff making it possible to join this meeting remotely. I think it's the only second time in nine plus years that I've not been physically there for a city, in-person city council meeting and I'm on a family trip. I appreciate this opportunity to still be, it will speak to you on this item and perhaps some others tonight. Certainly, I am very pleased to bring to you this evening the appointment of Dan Richardson for city attorney for your approval. I'd like to summarize some of Dan's obligations for this critical position that is so essential for the smooth functioning of city government. First of all, Dan brings almost two decades of experience in the law to the city team, most recently as partner of Karen Gillies, Richardson and Shem, and as an adjunct professor at the Vermont Law School where remarkably he created the school's first municipal law course. I think that speaks to the unique and rare qualifications that Dan has for this position. Also, while at the Vermont Law School, Dan served as the editor-in-chief of the Vermont Law Review, notable on an important role on the clerk for the Honorable Matthew Cass and Honorable Richard Morton in the Chittany County Superior Court, just kitty corner from where you all are sitting right now across Main Street. He joined, went into private practice in 2005 at his current firm and became partner in 2009. He practiced civil litigation, municipal land use, Act 250, zoning, energy law and real estate law. And in doing that, he also represented over 20 municipalities across Vermont in various matters. It is impossible to be a lawyer that has deep expertise in all the areas that are necessary to be an effective city attorney, but Dan comes pretty close to having, I think the perfect background for this role. He's also served important community service positions that I think are worth noting here. He has served at the Vermont Superior Courts in 2003, serving as an acting judge at the Washington County Small Claims Court since 2011. And he's had a variety of leadership positions that are important within the legal community, including serving as the president of both the Vermont Bar Association and the Vermont Bar Foundation, very important legal organization here in the state. On top of all that, I'm hoping the council also sees it as a positive that for the last nearly two years, Dan, or I guess a little over a year, I think Dan has been serving as a city councilor himself for the city of Montpelier. If confirmed tonight, he will be stepping away from that role as well as his, severing his relationship with his law firm. However, I think all of those experiences will make him an outstanding addition to the city team. With that, thank you for this opportunity to see this up and I would turn the floor over to Dan Richardson himself to share a few remarks. If that's what you wish, President Tracey. All right, over to Dan Richardson now to just share some remarks with the council before we go to a motion. Sure, thank you, President Tracey, city councilors and thank you, Mayor Weinberger, for that very generous and kind introduction. My name is Dan Richardson. I am honored to be here tonight. And very excited at the opportunity to serve the city of Burlington, to work with you as city councilors, to work with the mayor's administration and city staff. As the largest city in Vermont, this is the apex of municipal law practice. Any person who puts on a hat and pretends to be a municipal attorney would give anything for the position that I find myself in tonight. So I consider myself very fortunate to be here and deeply appreciative of the opportunity. As Mayor Weinberger mentioned, I began my legal career across the street at the Superior Courthouse for Chittenden County and for two years served as the primary law clerk there. Burlington in the practice of law in Burlington shaped the lawyer that I have become and have made me the attorney that you see before you today in many ways. I stand on the shoulders of Eileen Blackwood's work and I wanted to thank her for really establishing what is a superior legal office here in the city of Burlington, second to really no other public sector law firm. The Attorney General might have more numbers, but I think for quality we go to them pound for pound. And in that, I'd like to thank all of the city staff, attorney staff that has come out here tonight, Justin St. James, who is required to be here, but nevertheless volunteered and said he'd be here anyway. Kim Sturvent over there and in the back row, Tim Devlin, Jared Pellerin and our newest hire, minus me, Haley McClennon. Slaughtered that I will get it better later if given the opportunity. Eileen has really created a superior law firm that no other city in Vermont has or can claim. And I look forward to the opportunity and I thank you all. I thank Gene Bergman for his kind words earlier. I look forward to working with council. Burlington is unique in many, many ways, but one of the ways in which it's unique in that it has a very independent city council that stands apart and stands independent from the mayor or the city administrator and makes its own deliberative decisions. And I look forward to serving the council in that respect and respecting those differences that are baked into the chart. So I will certainly open and accept any questions, but again, I simply wanna thank you for the opportunity to simply sit here and be here tonight. Thank you very much. Councillor Mason, a motion is now in order. May I ask a question first, President Tracy? Certainly, go ahead. Welcome, Dan. I'm gonna ask a private question. I got a personal question that you would probably say, was out of line if this weren't an interview, but it's relevant for the hardship exemption. I think I'm going to make Mike correct in understanding you have two children who are attending school at another location in the state of Vermont. That is correct. I have a 15-year-old daughter is entering her sophomore year at Montpelier Senior High School and my son who just turned 12 yesterday is at the Montpelier Middle School. This is the school that they've attended all their lives. And I've made a promise to them that they can continue in that school as long as they wish because the importance of family is certainly a top priority. Thank you. Thank you, President Tracy. What do you like? Shall I continue? Do you wanna? Yeah, you may continue. Thank you. At this point in time, I would like to make a motion to approve the appointment of Dan Richardson as city attorney and grant a personal hardship extension under council rule, most recently amended August 15th, 2016, based on the fact that he has two children in grades K through 12 attending school in Montpelier, Vermont and ask for the floor back briefly if there's a second. Seconded by Councillor Shannon. You may have the floor, Councillor Mason. Thank you, President Tracy. So Dan, I am excited about this opportunity. I have had, I'm a little bit older than Dan so I've had the privilege of not only working with him but watching him in his leadership extension or through the Bar Association. Dan does, I believe, offer some very unique attributes that should not be overlooked. Most importantly, his deep experience in municipal government. I'm aware of no other that has more and I think we all know that will be needed if he is affirmed. I also have had the privilege of working on the other side of Dan and found him to be very ethical, extremely competent and also efficient. We all know how much a challenge is going to be given the volume that just comes through the city attorney's office and based on my previous experience with you, I'm confident you'll be able to work within that system. So with that, I wholeheartedly will be supporting this appointment. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Mason. Are there other Councillors wishing to speak? Councillors, I mean Councillor Paul. Thank you, President Tracy. I don't think there's any doubt that you are qualified to do this work and I'm sure that if you're approved to confirm tonight that you will start with all the fervor and passion that you have for all the other things that you've done in your life and will do a wonderful job as city attorney. I've actually even had lawyers who I know who have reached out to me in the last couple of days and have said, sometimes their comments aren't exactly based on your legal abilities. They've told me you have a good sense of humor and that you will be a pleasure to work with and I appreciate that. What I've also heard from a number of constituents is that we are over time eroding the ability to have department heads that live in the city of Burlington and we give lots of, we give exceptions. We created an exception when someone didn't wanna sell their home and didn't have children. We now have broadened it to Vermont as opposed to Chittenden County or something other than that and over time what we are doing is creating so many exceptions that eventually we will be able to have department heads that will live in Rutland, that will live in Manchester, that will have family members that don't wanna move and I don't blame them. I completely understand. I'm a mother of three children. I understand that children don't want to move and I also admire and respect parents who put their children, who don't wanna put their children in a position of having to move. Sometimes you can't have everything and while I think that you will do a wonderful job as city attorney and expect that you will be confirmed this evening, I can't support a waiver. If it was in Chittenden County, I might be able to, I've done that before, even though I didn't really want to, I have done that but I think that we are opening up a, we're setting a precedent. This has never happened before that I have am aware of and once we do that, we now are making it so that anyone who has a child anywhere in Vermont, regardless of how close or how far they are, will be able to apply for this. So again, I look forward to working with you. I just can't accept that kind of a waiver. So thank you, thanks very much. Thank you, Councillor Powell. Are there any further comments from councillors? Ready to vote? Councillor Stromberg, go ahead. Thank you. Thank you so much for everything that you said. I haven't met you before this. It's been busy, obviously for you too, but I just want to welcome you. We certainly desperately need a city attorney and I'm really happy that we have somebody so qualified and so thoughtful coming forward and I'm really excited to see what we can accomplish together, so thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from councillors? Councillor Carpenter, go ahead. Thank you. I too welcome Dan and I also agree a lot with Councillor Paul. I am going to support the recommendation because I see how much we need the capacity and we need it now. I guess I'm just going to more rhetorically ask that we as a council revisit this because I think Councillor Paul is right. We have in fact given exemptions where in my external opinion, because I was not on the council at the time, there was not such a hardship and we continue to renew department head contracts on occasion where the children have gone up and gone away. So I guess we are not very consistent and so that might seem inconsistent for me to say that tonight but I'm just asking that we revisit this particularly as over the years we reappoint people and things change and so I think it's incumbent on us to sort of step back a minute and look. So as I said, I will certainly support Dan at this point because I know how important this position is to fill but I encourage us to be a little more thorough as we address this issue. Thank you, Councillor Carpenter. I have Councillor Shannon to be followed by Councillor Chang. Thank you, President Tracy and thank you so much, Mr. Richardson for being willing to come to Burlington and offer your services and your resume is stellar and I've had the opportunity to speak with you both now and in the past and really appreciate your good work and your dedication. I do think that it's important to be consistent with the residency requirement and for that reason we created a very specific rule so that we could apply it consistently and that rule says the City Council with Mayor presiding shall, shall not may. It says shall grant to a prospective appointee a personal hardship extension if one of the following circumstances is certified to exist and among those is number one, children in grades K through 12 currently attending a Vermont school other than Burlington. I think that the change, there was a change in a home ownership criteria changing it to Chittenden County but I don't recall that this was changed and it certainly has been our policy for some time and I do think that we should be consistent, that we should follow that adopted policy and I have no reservations about granting that to you. I think Burlington is very fortunate to have attracted somebody with your qualifications and I appreciate that some people find a job, especially appealing because of its challenges and we certainly offer that to you. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Shannon, Councillor Jang. Thank you, President Tracy and thank you, Mr. Dan, for being here. Sorry, I can't take my mask, but it's okay, right. So you heard all of those charter changes that we have in place and as a lawyer, you have legal expertise and are you willing to maybe consider moving to Burlington once your children graduate from high school? Once my children graduate from high school? Absolutely. And I'll simply add that my spouse has recently taken a job at UVM Medical Center and so certainly we see our future in Burlington. We've made a commitment to our children but outside of that and that's really how the hardship waiver is defined. But yes, after the kids are finished with school, I no longer fit the criteria and I would not ask the city council to magically waive a non-existing criteria. To tell you the truth, I came here prepared to not vote in support but because of this answer, I just changed my mind. Now another question is specific to why Burlington is someone who's really respected in the legal field, someone who's doing extremely well, have your own practice. Why do you choose the biggest city of Burlington to come here? Well, I've always enjoyed practicing law in Burlington. It is a city that is both dynamic and diverse. It has challenges that really no other municipality faces. I mean, let's take something that's relatively non-controversial. You have an airport. It means that the city attorney practices airport law which is very difficult to find in experiences elsewhere in Vermont and it contains unique challenges, everything from federal regulation to climate issues that are associated with it. These are things that I have always enjoyed practicing. And I have always enjoyed the city of Burlington. We have spent a great deal of time here. I look forward to it. One of the things that I enjoy about practicing the law is especially when you deal with controversial issues is to really dig into them and to start to understand what the issues are underneath the issues, the legal foundations. And then to be able to explain that to a larger group is a really important part because the power of the law doesn't come from a fiat or dictating it. It comes from explaining it and from reasoning it. Of the three branches of government, the judiciary is the sole one that has to explain itself in multiple pages why it's doing what it's doing. And I take that seriously and I take that to heart in how effective I can be as a city attorney or how effective I am in any attorney position is how effective can I communicate my reasoning or my research to a larger group. Thank you again for being here. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Chang. Mayor Weinberger, I'm gonna come to you now and then I'll go to Councillor Hanson. Mayor, I believe you're muted. Apologies for that for President Tracy, is that working now? Yep, you're good. Okay. Thank you. I have to unmute twice to make this work and my apologies for that. Some councillors have basically spoken to the concerns being raised but I would just like to restate and confirm that the extension criteria and the council rules that we are seeking a vote on tonight has not been changed, at least it's not been changed in the nine plus years that I've been engaged in this. I believe it is the way that the council rule was originally written and there have not, not during the time that I've been mayor, but this is not an unprecedented effort that someone would be appointed under that rule is certainly something that's been done multiple times. And I don't believe this is breaking some new ground. It certainly isn't a rule change. I think it's important the council understand that. This is also something I wanna make clear that there is not some steady creep and erosion of, I believe this is approximately the 35th appointment that I've made over the last nine years. If I'm crowning correctly, I believe only seven of times over the nine years have we requested a extension of this type and a couple of those were extensions of department heads that have been appointed by the previous administration. So this is something that is rare and is only requested when there is a good justification for it and then finally to echo, I think it's critical point that Councillor Shannon makes that the inconsistency here would not be granting the exemption, the extension, it would be an unprecedented and deeply damaging action for this city at this time when we are struggling with so many challenges, if this unprecedented action of the council has taken and for the first time when the council rules explicitly call out that a criteria has been met that the council would not observe the shall in the council rules and would instead reject someone. So I hope it doesn't come to that. That would be devastating. And I urge council not to take that step. Great, thanks and thanks for being here. I do think that having department heads who live in the city of Burlington is really important and I'm glad that we try to strive for that and I respect councillors who are consistent on voting in that way. It's very important to me but I don't, it's not the end all be all for me and I think right now as the mayor said we desperately need this role filled. We have a lot of critical work that we need to get done and having a city attorney in place is critical and I think we have a great opportunity tonight. I think the candidate is extremely qualified and highly regarded and so although I am uncomfortable with the residency aspect of it, I think overall it's worth it and I'll be voting yes. I look forward to working with you. Thank you, Councillor Hanson. Any further comments from councillors? Okay, seeing none. Will the city clerk please call the roll? Councillor Barlow. Yes. Councillor Carpenter. Yes. Councillor Jang. Yes. Councillor Freeman. Yes. Councillor Hanson. Yes. Councillor Mason. Yes. Councillor Paul. No. Councillor Shannon. Yes. Councillor Strongberg. Yes. City Councillor President Tracy. No. Eight eyes, two nays, one absent. The motion carries. Please join me in congratulating Dan Richardson as the next city attorney. I'll work for it. Thank you. Is he alike? Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much, Dan. I look forward to working with you. He doesn't have to start right now. No. Now that... I thought Justin got to go home. Oh, I'd love to, yeah. No. Alrighty, so let's... So before we continue on with our city council deliberative agenda, we have a number of other meeting structures under which we do city business, and so I'm going to go and take care of a couple of those different meetings. We've got pretty much all of them today this time. Not all of them, but a number of them. So we're going to go into and out of a number of different meetings before continuing on with the deliberative agenda for this meeting. So I'm going to first have us start with the city council with mayor presiding meeting. Mayor Weinberger being remote at this meeting has asked me to actually continue our preside for that meeting, though Mayor Weinberger will vote. It was just, we weren't totally sure about how it was all going to work in terms of recognizing people for motions. So I'll facilitate, but I just want to note that the mayor will be voting. So I will recess the Burlington city council meeting at 9.03 and call to order the city council meeting with mayor presiding at 9.03 p.m. The first item on the agenda for that meeting is the agenda. May I please have a motion on the agenda, Councillor Stromberg. I move to adopt the agenda. We have a motion on the agenda from Councillor Stromberg. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Mason. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that carries unanimously. We will now move into our consent agenda. Councillor Stromberg may please have a motion on the consent agenda. I move to adopt the consent agenda and take the actions indicated. We have a motion from Councillor Stromberg. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Mason. Any discussion on the consent agenda? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That too carries unanimously. It brings us to item number three, which are board and commission appointments. There is one, we are on the item 3.01, which is the board of tax appeals with a term expiring 630-22. Are there any nominations? Councillor Shannon. I'll nominate Robert Minnelli. Okay, we have a nomination. We do not need a second. Any further nominations? Okay, is Robert Minnelli here? Okay, we usually have folks come up and just give a chance to speak to the board. Okay, any further comments from councillors? Okay, seeing none, we will go to a vote whether to appoint Robert Minnelli. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Okay, that carries unanimously and Robert Minnelli is appointed to the board of tax appeals. Motion to adjourn is now in order. May it please have such a motion? Councillor Stromberg. So moved. Moved by Councillor Stromberg, seconded by Councillor Freeman. Any further discussion? Okay, hearing none, all those in favor of adjournment, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, we are now adjourned and we will, instead of going back to the full city council meeting, we'll go to the board of civil authority, which is another meeting that Mayor Weinberger would normally run, but Mayor Weinberger will be voting. It's just that we, again, with the remote, I'm gonna be facilitating this meeting, so I will call to order the board of civil authority at 9.05 p.m. First item on the agenda is the agenda. Councillor Stromberg, may it please have a motion on that? And move to adopt the agenda. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Paul. Any discussion? Hearing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That too carries unanimously and we'll now go to the consent agenda. May it please have a motion on that? I move to adopt the consent agenda and take the actions indicated. We have a motion from Councillor Stromberg. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Mason. Any further discussion on the consent agenda? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of adopting the consent agenda, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Okay, that carries unanimously. And a motion to adjourn is now in order. So moved. Moved by Councillor Stromberg. Seconded. Moved by Councillor Freeman. All those in favor, are there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously and we are adjourned. We will now move into our final other meeting structure which is the local control commission meeting. I will call to order the local control commission meeting at 9.07 PM. Councillor Mason, may it please have a motion on the agenda? Make a motion to adopt the agenda as presented. A motion from Councillor Mason. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Hanson. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. We now move into our consent agenda. May it please have a motion on that, Councillor Mason? I move to adopt the consent agenda and take the actions as indicated. A motion from Councillor Mason. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Paul. Any discussion on our consent agenda for the local control commission? Okay, hearing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor of adopting our consent agenda, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. That carries unanimously. We now move into the deliberative agenda. May it please have a motion on 3.01 Commissioner Mason? I am going to recuse myself from this matter and defer to Councillor Schanin. Okay, Commissioner Schanin. Move to approve the two-day only outside consumption permit expansion for Arts Riot, 400 Pine Street north side of building, September 10th to 11th, 5 to 11 p.m. Thank you, Commissioner Schanin. Seconded by Commissioner Freeman. Any further discussion? Okay, seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Brings us to item 3.02, Commissioner Mason. Thank you, President Tracey. I'd like to make a motion to approve the 2021-2022 first-class restaurant bar liquor license application for Sushi Mida LLC DBA Sushi Mida 152 Cherry Street with the following conditions. All city permits need to be closed out, contingent upon fire marshal approval with all standard conditions. Thank you. We have a motion and second by Commissioner Hansen. Any further discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Brings us to item 3.03, Commissioner Mason. I'd like to make a motion to approve the 2021-2022 third-class restaurant bar liquor license application for Gurung Restaurant and Bar LLC 1130 North Avenue with all standard conditions. Okay, we have a motion from Commissioner Mason, seconded by Commissioner Freeman. Any further discussion? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, any opposed? That carries unanimously, and a motion to adjourn is now in order. So moved by Commissioner Tracey. Moved by Commissioner Mason, seconded by Commissioner Hansen. All those in favor of adjournment, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Okay, that carries unanimously. We are now adjourned and we will reconvene the regular city council meeting and pick back up with our deliberative agenda where we left off, which was item 6.02, which is another appointment. Is there a motion on the appointment? Commissioner, our Councillor Shannon. Thank you, I move to re-advertise and ask for the floor back after a second. Okay, we have a motion to re-advertise. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Hansen. I mean, Councillor Mason. Councillor Shannon, you have the floor. Thank you, President Tracey. This is a position that is usually filled by somebody who has extensive experience with the city and we only have one applicant in this case who is, I think, as they say, deeply passionate and committed to the city, but doesn't have that depth of knowledge that really is required for this position. The CCRPC generally prefers it to be either a Councillor or a former Councillor serving in this position or maybe somebody similar in nature to that. And so for those reasons, I am asking to re-advertise. Thank you. Okay, any further discussion? So process-wise, I guess, I don't know how this works, but I'll be voting no on re-advertising, I guess, or I don't know if I need to amend, but I would like to take the recommended action, which was to appoint the applicant. This was a re-advertisement. We didn't have any applicants the first time around. And our main commissioner on the planning commission already serves on another commission, too. So clearly this position is difficult to fill, but our representation on CCRPC is incredibly important. I think that came up even recently with the I-89 study and the resolution we took there. I feel that Burlington is underrepresented, given our outsize role within the transportation system and the outsize impact that we face from decisions within the county around transportation, I think it's really important to have full representation and we have someone who they might not have a master's degree in urban planning or anything like that, but they're deeply passionate, they're willing and ready to serve, and it's a hard role to fill. I think we should appoint them. So I don't know if I need to amend or if I just vote no, and then I'm able to make an appointment after if it fails or what. So I haven't run into this situation since I've been on council. Acting city attorney, St. James, are you able to clarify? It seems like because your amendment would be directly at odds that it may be cleaner to vote against or vote however you're going to vote and then put another motion on the table. Okay, thank you. All right, so we will stay with the original motion, which is to re-advertise. Councilor Mason. I just thank you, President Tracy, for point of clarification. This is the alternate role, so we do have full representation by Andy Montroll who is our full-time member on CCRPC. This is just the alternate who would go and attend and vote in the absence if Andy missed a meeting. So while I agree that we do not want to have a deficiency, I'm confident if re-advertised, and shame on me for not realizing we had missed someone, but if we go out, hopefully we will be able to identify other candidates or not if Mr. Schindler reapplies. So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Mason. Are there any further comments? Councilor Hansen. Yeah, just to respond to Councilor Mason. Yeah, I understand. This is an alternate, so for folks who don't know, I mean, that means they get a seat at the table, but they only vote if our main commissioner isn't there, and I think that's an opportunity as well. We have former City Councilor Andy Montroll who serves on that role. This is a mentorship opportunity for someone to serve as that alternate. Work with Andy Montroll and build up that experience, and again, we've already re-advertised it, so I just think this is a chance for us to sort of build a bench and get someone else involved and then also ensure that if Andy Montroll can't make a meeting, we still have representation and also that we have an additional voice at the table for meetings. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. Will the city clerk please call the roll? Councilor Barlow. Yes. Councilor Carpenter. No. Councilor Jang. No. Councilor Freeman. Councilor Freeman, I do not see Councilor Freeman, I believe. Councilor Hansen. No. Councilor Mason. Yes. Councilor Powell. No. Councilor Shannon. Yes. Councilor Stromberg. No. City Council President Tracy. No. The three ayes, six nays, one absent and one not present. Okay, so the motion did not carry and we are back to the original appointment. Councilor Hansen. I'll move to a point, Max Schindler, is that Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission alternate term expiring 630-2023. Okay, thank you. Councilor Hansen, we don't need a second. Is there any further discussion? Is he here? Is Max Schindler here? Okay, do not see Max, so any further discussion? Any further discussion? Okay, we will go to a vote. All those in favor of appointing Max Schindler is the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission alternate for the term expiring 630-2023. Please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. No. Okay, will the city clerk please call the roll? Councilor Barlow. Yes. Councilor Carpenter. Yes. Councilor Jang. Yes. Councilor Hansen. Yes. Councilor Mason. No. Councilor Paul. Yes. Councilor Shannon. No. Councilor Stromberg. Yes. City Councilor President Tracy. Yes. Seven ayes, two nays, and two absents. So that carries. Congratulations to Max Schindler. We will now move on to item 6.03, which is a special event outdoor entertainment permit application. Councilor Shannon. Move to approve the two-day only special event outdoor entertainment permit application for Arts Riot 400 Pine Street parking lot north of building September 10th and 11th, 5 to 11 p.m. No dancing, amplified music, yes. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Seconded by Councilor Hansen. Any further discussion? Councilor Mason. Thank you, President Tracy. I just want to note for the record my recusal based on a professional conflict of interest. Thank you, Councilor Mason. Please have the record show that Councilor Mason is recused on this vote. Any further discussion? Okay, are we ready to go to a vote? Okay, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Okay, we will now move into item 6.04, which is a comprehensive development ordinance on short-term rentals. I will go to Councilor Mason for the motion. Thank you, President Tracy. I'd like to make a motion to consider this a first reading referred to the Ordinance Committee and ask for the floor back after a second. Okay, we have a motion from Councilor Mason. Is there a second? Seconded by Councilor Shannon. Councilor Mason. Thank you, President Tracy. So for the public's benefit, this, that we had a work session last, boy, I don't even remember, last meeting, where the Council was provided an overview of the proposed changes both by the Planning Office by Megan and Scott. I know that there remains some discussion that will continue at the Ordinance Committee relating to the owner occupancy, which seems to be the touchstone issue. So for the benefit of the public, I think there will be one, if not multiple hearings before the Ordinance Committee, where we will continue this discussion from a process perspective, the way ordinances get passed. There's a first read, it either then goes to the Ordinance Committee for further hearings, then it often will be sent back in some way, shape, or form. There's then a second read before this full body of public hearing and then adoption. So this is the first step. I don't know if any Councillors have additional questions. I note that both Scott and Megan are here to field those questions. Otherwise, I expect we'll continue this conversation at the Ordinance Committee. Thank you. Is there further discussion? Any questions for planning? Councillor Hanson. I'm sorry, was there a second on that? Yes, there was. Okay. Yeah, we've discussed this a lot. I've served on that joint committee and even before I served on it, I was following the issue and I will be voting yes to refer it to the Ordinance Committee, but folks who are in that process know that I do disagree with some of where it came down and hope to, and it is related to owner occupancy primarily, which is, I don't think that we should allow short-term rentals for non-owner occupied, but that's something I'll continue to work on in the Ordinance Committee. I think we do need to keep this policy moving because the current framework isn't really, there isn't really a great framework for regulating short-term rentals, so we need to get something in place and so I'll be voting yes, but just wanted to flag that that doesn't mean that I support the current version of it. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Hanson. Is there a further discussion? Okay. Seeing none, we will go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Just gonna call a brief five-minute recess here right now, just for one second. We need, I need to figure out an issue that's been brought to my attention, so I'm just gonna call a five-minute recess for just now and we'll pick back up with 6.05 in just a moment. Was knocked out since you can hear us now, so we will reconvene the City Council meeting on the agenda, which is item 6.05 on another Ordinance Change, Councillor Mason. Thank you, President Tracey. I'd like to consider this a first reading and refer this to the Ordinance Committee. This is the second half of the STR. Thank you, Councillor Mason. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Hanson. Any further discussion? Okay. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor of considering this a first reading and referring it to the Ordinance Committee, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Brings us to our next item, which is item 6.06 and a resolution regarding BTC Resolving Litigation with regards to BTC Mall Associates. Councillor Paul. Thanks, President Tracey. So I would waive the reading and adopt the resolution after a second. I'll just speak for a moment. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Councillor Stromberg. Councillor Paul. Thanks, President Tracey. So this was discussed at the Board of Finance meeting. It was approved unanimously. I know that Tim Samson is here and if there are any questions or the council would like a brief synopsis, I'm sure he can give us one. Yep. Tim, would you be willing to give us a brief synopsis of sort of along the lines of what was shared at Board of Finance? Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, good evening. This comes to you as the culmination of the settlement efforts that were undertaken through a couple of days of mediation in July to resolve the, what's become known as the Hundred Bank Street Litigation related to the city place development. Before you tonight are two documents that we would ask the council to authorize the mayor to sign. One is a agreement to grant easements from 100 Bank Street office building to the city that would provide for the property rights necessary for the completion of the extension of Pine Street from Bank Street to Cherry Street. We think this represents the culmination of a long sought after opportunity for the city to reconnect those streets and is kind of the missing link in the property rights in connection there with as you're quite familiar. So that set of agreements describes the acquisition by the city, the process that that would take in connection with the owners of 100 Bank. The easements would be granted proxmen in time to when the construction would start. So there wouldn't be payment for the acquisition until that point in time. So there are steps to follow. The second item before you tonight is a first amendment to the amended and resated development agreement with BTC mall associates, which is the city place developer. And this agreement really is needed to accomplish two general things. One is a few items of kind of cleanup, if you will, that have happened or are necessitated by events over the summer. And mostly related to the memorandum of understanding representing the culmination of the settlement discussions with 100 Bank and the process by which both the city and BTC mall associates would take steps to effectuate the easement agreements. So that's the summary. We do have a quick graphic presentation if you're interested, which kind of identifies the areas in question and can help explain in pictures more than words. Unfortunately, Zoom is not gonna allow us to share our screen. Presentations and a PDF in the council item. We can walk you guys through it if you're able to open it. But I don't know what else we would. Councilor Mason. While we're waiting, President Trace, I just wanna note my recusal from this matter, citing a based on our conflict of interest for a professional conflict. Thank you, Councilor Mason. Will the record please show that Councilor Mason is recused on this item? Just chat about it? Yep. Yeah. Why don't you just go ahead? Yeah. Can you zoom in on the screen? So in that, I'm Laura Wheelock with the Department of Public Works in the council packet item. This small PDF presentation is available for other viewing. So the first image is basically just an orientation of the project area. Bank Street is at the bottom. The image points north. It shows the general city place site as well as highlighted as the 100 Bank Parcel. The next page is a zoom in of 100 Banks Parcel. Highlighted on here are three easement areas. I apologize at the display screen. The bluer, which is actually a dark pink color, is the roadway easement area. The bricked area, which is light pink in the PDF image, is the sidewalk easement area. And the rectangle on the left side is the future easement area to be enclosed by 100 Bank. Thank you, Chief of Stafford L. Indicative of the perseverance. Thank you. All right, so a little bit more clearer and with the words the right way, the left side shows the roadway easement in dark pink. The light pink is the sidewalk or the public sidewalk easement area and then the future enclosed space would be owned by 100 Bank. For orientation purposes, when you look at the front of 100 Bank Street, which is the bottom of this image, the existing entrance into the parking garage was through this pink and blue area and the pedestrian walkway that led to the doors of the mall is through the dark pink area. This image shows the general Pine Street right away. It consists of three easement areas that the city has, two of which the city has already acquired, one of which we are here for tonight. The green at the bottom is 77 Pine Street. It is mostly a pedestrian area that was acquired from the corner of this parcel to be Bank Street right of way. The gray area at the top is the fee simple taking from city place, from the settlement in the escrow closing in May of this year. And then tonight we are talking about the remaining portion to be able to complete and connect Pine Street between Bank and Cherry, which is under 100 Bank. So here is my attempt as an engineer at trying to show you what we are looking to acquire. So this is the front of 100 Bank Street from Bank Street, looking down into the entrance to where the parking garage was, which is the light pink area, and then over here where the roadway will go in the proposed plan. So that is my attempt at showing you guys what that might look like with the roadway coming in on the left side, under that bay of the building, the through pedestrian corridor that will run under the building, this new space that will also be pedestrian area, and then an enclosure created by 100 Bank, just to show a little bit more of the view of the pedestrian and the future enclosure area. This is the existing ramp into the parking garage, and what will be acquired is, again, the new sidewalk, a future enclosed area, and then this is to highlight how large the space actually is under 100 Bank for the sidewalk easement. It exists within the two-story portion of the building. It ends up being actually pretty open, receives a lot of sunlight as it is south-facing. That just leaves us to our next steps, which Tim described in the beginning while we were waiting for the presentation. Excellent, thank you very much. Any further discussion or questions from counselors? Okay, seeing none, are we ready to go to a vote? Let's go to a vote. All those in favor of adopting the resolution, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you. We have another mall-related item. Councilor Call. Thanks, President Tracy. So I would make a motion to approve the, and recommend that the council approve the encumbrance application for BTC Mall Associates requesting use of the city right-of-way for permanent building features as identified and authorized the mayor to execute the second amendment to the license agreement between the city and BTC Mall Associates, LLC, for use of the right-of-way located at 75 Cherry Street in substantial conformance with the attached draft and subject to final approval by the city's attorney. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Stromberg. Mayor Weinberger. President Tracy. Council, I actually was trying to get into and make a couple of remarks about the last item. This one flows from it. This is certainly important to the project. Continue to move forward. Appreciate the council's support on the continued support on moving this major project forward. Hope that continues on this item as well. Thanks. Thank you, Mayor. Are there further comments from councilors on this item? Okay. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Thank you. Brings us to our next item, which is the Retirement Board Divestment Report. Councillor Stromberg. Thank you. I move to waive the reading, accept the report and place it on file. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Freeman. Did you want the floor back, Councillor Stromberg? I can take it back, but if you wanna refer to the folks who crafted the report first. Yep, I see that we have the folks who crafted the report. If you'd like to join us at the table, please. Thank you so much for being here with us this evening. If you could just please introduce yourselves and just share with us kind of an overview of what's included in the report. I really appreciate all your work on this. Thank you, Mr. President and Councillors. You received from the Retirement Board two items in the packet. One of them was... Representative Hooper, if you could just please speak it at the mic. You received two items from us in the packet. One was the annual report of the Retirement Board, which I think speaks for itself stellar results, unusual results, unexpected results. 31% over the last fiscal year. And more importantly, I guess, is the report that you're getting back on the Request for Information on Divestment. With us are our new investment advisors from fiduciant advisors, Kate Pizzi and Chris Rollins, with me to go into the depth of what they examined and what they would report back to us and what you have in your packet. And we'll take whatever questions have. I won't talk a lot about anything because of the lateness of the hour. Okay, fantastic. Did you have something you'd like to add? I can certainly just add some details on the fossil fuel divestment if there are any questions. Okay, if you could just give a little brief overview on that, that'd be really helpful. Sure, great. Well, good evening. Thanks for having us. We had done an analysis really on the exposure of fossil fuels within the Burr's portfolio. The analysis was done as of 1231, 2020. In that analysis, we had looked at the amount of exposure to publicly traded companies that were listed on the carbon underground 200, consistent with city's council's resolution in order to do so. When we found 4.4 million of the $235 million of the Burr's assets were invested in those companies, that was under 2% of the total portfolio. Great. Answer any questions that we have? Okay, thank you very much. So I'll be the Florida councillors. If anyone has any questions. Councillor Hansen. Great, thanks. And thanks for putting this together. This is really helpful. So maybe this is just the obvious question, but what, if any, is Burr's plan to divest from fossil fuel companies? Councillor, there is no plan to divest. We'll always take these things under consideration. The information that we got back led us to a conclusion that we could do so without substantial harm to the plan. However, the markets change always. So if we look at what happened with any given company, Exxon or GM, over the course of the last year, we've seen fossil fuel burning companies now head in the direction of producing electric cars only. These are huge companies, multinational companies. I imagine they will do whatever they need to do to survive. If we can, if the board decides, it's not my decision, it's a collective decision, that that move is good for the city and good for the retirement fund. We'll take that under consideration. There is no plan at this point. We have not taken this up. We just took on new advisors. We're taking on a quest for new bond managers. We're kind of taking this one step at a time, but it's worthy of our consideration. Okay, so there's no concrete action by Burr's yet on this, but you all are actively contemplating it? Considering it. Considering it. Okay, all right, thanks for that. Okay, I have Councillor Mason to be followed by Councillor Barlow. I'll pass, that was sort of my question as well. Okay, thank you very much. Councillor Barlow. Thank you, President Tracey. My question is, given the current investment portfolio and the returns you've seen over the last years, are there any other investment vehicles, specifically stock or bond funds that would yield the same results, but that do not have the exposure to the fossil fuels? Thank you. Thanks. So what we've looked at in our analysis was also looking at some back testing of the portfolio returns, should those names be excluded from the current portfolio? We saw again with the impact relatively low, the exposure relatively low, the impact was relatively minor. What we're looking at going forward is particularly within the fixed income area is using a flexible or a dynamic bond manager. One of the managers that we're considering does reflect ESG considerations in their evaluation of investments. So that's certainly something that we look at as we evaluate new managers. Thank you. So I guess I'm a little confused. Would they be, would the dynamic bond manager actually be picking individual issues or would they be picking alternative funds? And if they were picking either of those, I guess, would the expenses be higher and would the returns be lower than what we're currently realizing? Yes. So they pick individual bonds, individual securities. And one thing that we follow closely is really that cost. One, the cost of that additional management in reflecting that desire to either follow more ESG initiatives or within the indexing, actually exclude fossil fuel companies from the indexing approach. They've looked at the additional cost in doing so. For the dynamic bond managers, it is not a part of the mandate necessarily to be, to consider ESG. One of the fixed income managers that we're considering feels that it's from an investment perspective makes the most sense. So what we're looking at is really evaluating fossil fuel divestment with the notion that we are not willing to sacrifice return in that effort to do so. So that's a lot of the feasibility discussions that we've had at the BERS. Thank you for that answer. I would just add that my concerns remain that as we talk about divestment from particular industry sectors, it seems to me that it's gonna be done at a cost. And we should just realize that or potentially at a cost and we should weigh that when we make these decisions because any cost that we have to bear or that lower the returns that we're getting in the BERS investments are gonna be shouldered by the taxpayers. And so that's the only thing we need to just balance that. So thank you for that answer. Thank you, Councillor Barlow. Any other comments or questions from councillors? Councillor Hanson. Yeah, I would just encourage you all to keep working on this. I think we can't afford to remain invested in these companies. And it was a fellow Vermonner, Bill McKibbin, who really helped lay out this argument, I think in 2012. But these companies are, they're valued based on their fossil fuel reserves. And so their ability to create that return on investment over time does depend on their ability to burn, to burn these fossil fuels, to burn their reserves. And so from a long-term investment perspective, this doesn't make sense. And I think we should get out sooner than later. The movement for divestment has played a really pivotal role in shifting power away from these corporations. And I think it's essential that we do our part in that. So I really appreciate all the work that's done so far. And I encourage you all to keep at it. And I'm happy to help in any way that I can. Thanks. Thank you. It's a sticky situation, I think, because we find at the state level, we have been able to sit on boards and be players on the field and change some corporate structure and initiative. So I use the analogy, you're either playing on the field or you're sitting in the bleachers. We have started to become effective in that way as a group of investors. Trying to steer the ship in a different direction. These companies, though, are gonna do what they need to do to stay alive. So we might get out of a company that is heavily involved in fossil fuel now and get back in when they become heavily involved in solar production as a very, very dirty company in France did. And now they're a shining star. It's very flexible. We're gonna try to be as flexible and continue to make as much money responsibly as we can. That's just the job that you give us to do. Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments from counselors? Okay, Counselor Stromberg. Yeah, I'll just say thank you so much for providing this report. Yeah, and I also just would echo that a lot of what Counselor Hansen said, but also the fact that it is less than 2% of the portfolio. So it's like, that is something, 4.4 million dollars could go to a lot of good and can be invested in a lot of green startup creative ideas that we're gonna inevitably need here in Burlington. We have a very hot city in terms of our urban heat and things like that. And like 4.4 million dollars can go to something to help mitigate that, right? For instance. So to me, it's not a lot of money that can be pulled out and put elsewhere. And it's just, I feel like it's just very important that that be a priority. I know it doesn't seem like a lot compared to a lot of our other expenses, but we are at that time where like every cent really does count. So yeah, thank you so much for considering this and working with us. And yeah, this will continue. And I'd like to say I'm certainly available anytime. Any of you have questions, you have my number, feel free to call. Okay, any further comments from counselors? Okay, seeing none, let's go to a vote on accepting the communication and placing it on file. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Thank you very much, really appreciate your work on this. Thank you. Okay, we are now to item 6.09, which is a communication from CAO Shad and City Assessor Vickery with regards to the reappraisal. So we have City Assessor Vickery here with us in person and then we have CAO Shad joining us remotely. Turn it over to you, City Assessor Vickery. Hi, thank you, I have a PowerPoint presentation I'd like to pull up on the screen, your screen share. Okay, go right ahead. Thank you for having me, appreciate it. It's been quite a project and that has affected everybody that owns a property in the city of Burlington. So this reappraisal, I'll go back to the history of this reappraisal, background. Not sure why it's pulling up, but several years ago in late 2017, we were mandated by the state of Vermont. Oh, I see how it's coming, okay. In late 2017, we were mandated by the state of Vermont to start this city-wide reappraisal and it's a multi-year project, which we have finished. We were mandated by the state of Vermont because our common level of appraisal, a ratio, dropped below 80%. It was 79.4, 2% at that time. Since that time, the market continued to appreciate and values of single-family homes and most all properties continue to increase. As an example, in 2000, our level, our assessments were at $275,000, but those same homes we're selling on average are $379,000. 2021, after the city-wide reappraisal, the CLA that, as a result of this reappraisal, the state has given us a common level of appraisal of 105, which is through their methodology. And that's common, there are most other towns that have conducted city-wide re-evaluations that usually end up above 100%. But the true level of appraisal, I call it the level of appraisal, not common level of appraisal, is based on most recent Burlington sales and the older sales are adjusted for time. Our true level is at 97%, just under 100%, which is within the target that we wanted. This graph, I think, is really interesting. It shows our appraised values on the bottom line from 2006 to 2020, right before the new values came out. And you'll see the lowest line is the city of Burlington's appraised values before the reappraisal, yet the other two lines, one is the Zillow estimated valuation and the other one is the state's reported, basically market value of properties. And you'll see that that is around $370,000 versus $270,000. So the city-wide reappraisal corrected that. Took the former values and brought them to what properties they're selling for. Key findings of this reappraisal. There was a shifting of the tax burden. I was just for a second. Some property values, most property values increased. Some, not so much. And the impact of that was that what most people saw was just under $400 of an increase in their municipal taxes from pre-reappraisal to post-reappraisal. In total, if you include the education rate as well as the municipal rate, the average increase was $917 because of the increased market demand of residential properties and decreasing demand for commercial properties, the value of residential properties increased at a higher rate. So this is an example of the shifting of the tax burden from one type of property to the next. Before this reappraisal and before the pandemic started, the commercial properties were still not appreciating quite at the rate that single family homes were, but they were closer in comparison. And then we had COVID and commercial properties, especially some types of commercial properties actually saw some decline in market value. And then we have this reappraisal and the shifting of the tax burden moves towards duplexes, specifically single family homes and condos and apartments to some extent as well. Key findings, for residential properties, most homeowners saw a moderate increase in municipal taxes. This is just municipal taxes in this example, $142 increase for condominiums, 404 for single family homes, $618 for multifamily homes. And then the average for mobile homes, they pretty much stayed level with the market. Their increase was $87. On average, there were also for municipal tax of commercial properties decreasing by on average about $311. Mixed use, which had mostly commercial, mostly residential apartments that saw an increase. This graph here is another demonstration of the tax bill in the shifting of the tax burden that I think that folks have been asking about. You'll see, well, the commercial and industrial, there was a decline in their taxes as a change of the tax rate and less appreciation over time. Single family homes on the far bottom side and you'll see that they had an increase, multifamily as well, and to some extent condos and apartments. I'll move to appeals and you can ask questions of me after. Overall, there were 74% of property owners that appealed their commercial value had a deduction. The reason why they had a deduction is because a lot of commercial properties, their value is based on their cash flow, their rental income and their expenses. And we had asked for rental income and expenses and about 20% provided that. So folks received their new assessment and then they provide the information. I think if everybody had provided it early on, there would probably be not 74% of those properties being adjusted. It would have been a smaller amount. Residential, on the other hand, of their just under 1,500 appeals, approximately 33% were adjusted as a result of their appeal. In total, I guess that's about 43%. Median changes in value after appraisal. Commercials tend to be of higher value and their values were larger. Again, it has a lot to do with the approach to value which is the income approach to value and you start looking at the rental income and the cash flow and that's capitalized. If they didn't provide their actuals, their value was table-driven. Residentials tend to be lower value than commercial properties and their adjustments tend to be smaller, $30,000. I think this is another good point to bring up. The lagging state property tax credit, so approximately 70% of Burlington homeowners receive an income-based property tax credit that found on their tax bill if they have declared their property their homestead. 70%, that's a pretty big number. The problem that we understand is that it's a look-back and their property tax adjustment is based on the prior year's appraisal, so it's not adjusted to their higher value and that is another impact on property owners. It follows states a lot, it's not a city rule, so we have this problem, not sure how to resolve it. Conversations going on with the mayor's office and my office and we knew that we were wanted to consider reassessing commercial properties that were adjusted downward because of a COVID effect. If we find that post-COVID that their revenues are changing and because they're valued by the income approach to value. A good example would be hotels. Their revenues dropped to about 20 or 30% of what they did the prior year before COVID, so their adjustment or their values were not adjusted. They're seeing a tax decrease, but as they start to stabilize and have higher occupancy rates, we want to adjust those values higher. We're not just picking on hotels, we'll look at offices and retail and other properties that have been affected by as a result of COVID. Understand that many property owners are suffering from lower or less predictable incomes due to the pandemic. I think this is, maybe I'm speaking for the administration at this point, but I know that the Chief Administrative Officer, Shad and the Director of Economic Recovery, they are looking at other options and how to provide people some relief from proven hardships. And then the mayor will be hosting a third housing summit and housing is a serious problem in Burlington. We need more of it. I'll pause there. I don't know if someone else wants to speak or if they'd like me to answer some questions. Councilor Shannon. To be followed by Mason and Carpenter. Thank you, President Tracy. Thank you, Assessor Vickery for this presentation. The lag in the state pre-bate program is a big concern to many of my constituents. And I wondered if maybe it's not you, but perhaps CAO Shad could speak to what the options are that they're looking into. I was not aware that that's a possibility. I'm glad to hear that it's a possibility. It doesn't sound like it's by any stretch a done deal. But my understanding is that the state pre-bate, these are, the state determines what the city of Burlington owes to the state. And so when property tax, when property owners have this increased tax burden that is not reflective of their income because that has not been included in the determination of what they owe for this year, it still has to be paid by the city. So I'm wondering what are some of the options that are being looked at with that? Is CAO Shad? I am happy to answer that. There are not very many options available to us because as you mentioned, Councilor Shannon, this is a state-run program with this look back. So not to be deterred, we are getting creative and looking at something like a one year grant program that would get money into the hands of affected taxpayers. So that's something that I'm working on with Director Arnold Squarrie. And I think you and the public should expect more information in the next couple of weeks about that. Okay, thank you. And one of the big concerns that I have had is with regards to the number of appeals and the number of adjustments. So in the case of the commercial appeals, 74% of those who appealed got adjustments. In the case of residential property, only 33% of those who appealed had their values adjusted, which I cannot comprehend how that is possible because I always explain to people that assessment is a broad brushstroke. It doesn't have the level of detailed consideration that a bank appraisal would have when you buy a property. And when the taxpayers come and appeal, they provide new information that the city probably didn't have. And I know that some of the information that was brought forward was simply incorrect data that didn't get corrected in the appeals process. And I would like to know, this was done through a consultant. I would like to know how the consultant is justifying lack of consideration and lack of correction of simple facts. I think your point is very good. We're looking at the data and we have approximately 680 people or property owners appealing and moving forward. And as they move forward, we are looking at the information. I would say that we're probably gonna do a more thorough job of looking over every single property that is being appealed. And I wanna make note of items that appear to have, that seem so clearly should have been adjusted if there are appraisals with solid information that were recently conducted. Why didn't the company make that adjustment? And or if someone pointed out that they removed their garage and yet the garage was still on their assessment, why wasn't that removed early on? Because it's an inconvenience for my office as well as for taxpayers. And we don't wanna be doing extra work, but we're gonna keep a tally of these items and then see if it's a real problem or not. So, Councillor Shannon, before you continue, it's past 10.30, so we're just gonna need a motion on. I would be happy to make that motion. All right, Councillor Pauls. Sorry. Go ahead. I would move to wave the rules and extend the meeting to consider all of our deliberative items. Okay, thank you for that. We have a motion on the unwaving the rules. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Mason. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none. All those in favor of suspending the rules, just to complete our deliberative agenda, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously and we've suspended our rules, so we'll hear the rest of this item in the following resolution and then be done for the night. Please continue, Councillor Shannon. Thank you. I would say just the fact that no adjustments were made. We know that when people appeal, their values can go up or they can go down, but the fact that two thirds of the appeals seem to have, they would have to have produced no credible new evidence to change in one direction or the other and that's just not believable to me and I hope that the consultant is being held accountable for that. It puts a huge burden on your office, as you just said. It puts a very substantial burden on the Tax Appeals Board, which is a group of volunteer citizens that have committed to make things right for the taxpayers of Burlington and we paid them good money to do this. We shouldn't be having to do this for them. There's one last thing I wanted to mention that has been brought to my attention and that is that in one neighborhood in Burlington, in the Five Sisters neighborhood, two streets within the neighborhood have lot values that far exceed the other streets in the same neighborhood and my understanding is that you've looked at lots by neighborhood and gave a base value for the lots in that neighborhood and then kind of adjusted from that base value so when you compare per square foot values, from one neighborhood to the next, they may look odd but within the same neighborhood, you should have pretty similar per square foot lot values and I wondered if you were aware that Catherine Street and Caroline Street apparently have much higher lot values within the neighborhood and how that will get corrected, not only for those that appeal but for those that don't appeal as that was a difficult thing to ferret out for taxpayers because that's a more global problem than their individual appeal. If you might if I address the council, please do. Thank you. That neighborhood or the greater part of that neighborhood used to be called the South Wynusky neighborhood, I believe and that neighborhood is quite diverse actually in property values and there's this section of that neighborhood where property values sell higher than other parts of that neighborhood so it's interestingly but it's a complex neighborhood. Yes, we'll take a look at that again and look at the market of those properties and see if that there's a real irregularity and something unfair that has been done and if there is, we'll correct it. Could I just ask what the timing on that is? Does it happen within the appeal process even for those who didn't appeal or is that something that happens after the fact if that's a clear error in the kind of data that's been input? I don't know if I can answer the question immediately. There's a lot of work to be done and those folks that have an open appeal, hopefully exercise that right to appeal, we wanna make sure that we get through those, the property owners that have active appeals. I guess that would be the next thing to do is to examine that area and see if that is incorrect as you're stating. I do know there was an adjustment to a part of that neighborhood, as you say, of the land valuation that you're talking about. Thank you, Councillor Shannon. I have Councillor Mason to be followed by Councillor Carpenter. Thank you, President Tracy. Thanks, Mr. Vickery for being here. I wanna start my comments first with picking up where Councillor Shannon started on process. I would add to the sort of list of things to take up with Tyler for, we pay them over a half million dollars. I have heard nothing but extreme negative things from every constituent that's reached out to me, that leaving aside that it was done via Zoom, but dealing with someone who up front would say, I know nothing about the city of Burlington, had not read the materials that were submitted in advance. I just, I mean, one or two, I would say, okay, we had an anomaly with a bad hearing officer, but I would say every person that's reached out to me with concerns has relayed an awful experience with Tyler and the challenges, it's tainted everything going forward. So I know you're aware of that. I know you're getting those emails as well, but at least I don't know how to respond other than I hope you appealed and you still have your bite before the Board of Tax Appeals, which is a local body who actually will come and look at your house and listen to what you're saying. I don't know if my next sort of question or comment if you have this data, I'm looking at the key findings of the reappraisal and seeing the average, what's characterized as a moderate increase of $604, that is not consistent with anything that I've heard from anyone on Ward 5. So I don't know if it's Ward 5 is different because I'm hearing the thousands, not $400. So I don't know if you have the data that can break down or maybe you could just tell me. I mean, I shouldn't say that. My expectation was Ward 5 was going to be adversely impacted, but the level that it was was a surprise. So I don't know if Ward 5 was unique because I've seen no one's reached out to me that got a $400 increase, they're all in the thousands. I'll address both questions that you asked. The Tyler Technologies, their review process, they're a large company and the appraisers that were holding hearings, they were called hearing officers, that's what they were working on. They were not part of the reappraisal project of Burlington until the hearings. The project manager was through the whole project. So the hearing officers, they're taught to ask questions about the property, talk to the persons, try to guide them through what they need to submit and what their grievance is and then they move on to the next. They weren't intimately involved in Burlington, I would imagine that some of them probably had never even laid foot in Vermont or had ever, maybe didn't even know where Burlington was. Their job was to ask questions, that's what they were trained for and then they move on to the next municipality that the company does. It's their process. I know that they were courteous, from my understanding and I felt like that they were somewhat honest saying no, I haven't looked at this information. Please provide information so that it moves to the person which would be Blaine Bolen, the project manager, was supposed to be doing the review of those residential hearings, which I believe he did. I can't attest to how thorough or if he did a wonderful job or not. All I know is that we're very busy in our office and it seems like we have a lot of work to do and I'm hearing those same appeals and same grievances. To your second point, before this reappraisal, we knew parts of town that were appreciating at more of a greater rate than other parts of town as far as residential property and so over time you could tell that the South End, Ward 5, if you shall be, had pretty much the most appreciation compared to all the other neighborhoods in the city of Burlington and the new North End had probably the least amount of appreciation and then the middle part of the city about the average. That was early projections that I did before the reappraisal, knowing that the greatest change would be for South End properties. Maybe we should have done a better job of communicating that. My last question, John, if I'm not sure how to understand the graph, if we could turn that for a second, I don't understand what this is showing. For example, I mean it says for commercial median change, negative 25.5, is that am I to interpret that in essence there was a reduction in the total revenue raised from property tax in the amount of 25% for commercial properties or what is that telling me? So commercial properties had, overall commercial properties had a lot less than the average appreciation and then the tax rate was adjusted downward for revenue neutrality and so they were seeing they're actually benefiting from this reappraisal. And maybe I shouldn't use the word benefiting. Reappraisal's job is to put properties at what they would sell for. Let's hopefully that we've done that. Statistically, it shows that we have done that job or the Tyler company was successful in that and I looking at their data, I agree with it. That's what that means. Their burden is as a result of this reappraisal has gotten easier. I guess do we, now I'm sort of seeing a little bit better but I'm sorry to interrupt, but do we have a pie chart? I mean, what I think happened, I'm trying to figure out like how much went from commercial to residential and I don't see that number here and then, because I'm not trying to, the numbers are the numbers but as you can imagine, we're getting some the most emotional and frustrated emails I've received in 10 years and I don't know how to respond to that so I'm trying to figure out like what is the response to that and being my guess which is just a guess is that exactly that. We've seen a shift of if we have a pie, that's all of the tax revenue raised, I'm trying to figure out how much has shifted from commercial to residential in the last year and I don't need you to answer that off the top of your head but that's the sort if I could get that data out of your office or out of Catherine's office that would be helpful because I'm not able to answer that question right now. Thank you. We will provide that, we're working on that and I think that's a, I think that's, that needs to be put out there. We just, it's somewhat complex in the sense that there are state payments to a lot of residential properties and how do you justify that or do you just look at the municipal rate? Yeah. Do you not include the state payment adjustments? Just not exactly sure. We want to make sure the data is solid when we do put it out there. It's coming. My last very quick question, am I correct in assuming that the valuation time for everything across the board is April 1, 2021, right? That's correct, okay. So that's the concern on the, sort of the COVID impact, you know, commercial revenue, you know, as general hotels, et cetera, are down simply because we're in the midst of COVID. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Mason. I have Councilor Carpenter to be followed by Councilor Hanson. Thank you. And I want to follow up, I guess, a little bit on Councilor Mason's issue and ask this sort of fairly specifically. I appreciate what you've done and I appreciate how busy you've been, but we really need more data to drill down on some of this. I mean, I see here saying average change in property was 917. What does, if I pay 4,000 more and they pay 4,100 less, does that average out? I mean, I think we really need, as I understand it, there were almost $15 million of tax increases. So some people got some big decreases and we don't have the dollars to match up the number of increases to the number of decreases. There were 8,000 people who had increases, 6,000 of them had increases over 15%. How much? I mean, 400 of them had increases over 50%. I really think we need to get that level. It doesn't change the numbers and it won't make certain people happy, but we need to understand that whole shift process. When I saw the, I think that was 25% decrease in commercial, that's a percent of increase, but of what dollars does that mean? You know, how did the shift of dollars? So I guess I would ask John, and I have talked to CAO Shad about this and John as well, we really need to drill down and understand these shifts. It's not gonna be happy for certain people. We just don't seem to have the data and I just encourage us. Medians and averages only work when you understand them and those are some pretty steep pitches, so to speak. It's not like it's a median on a sloping curve. It means somebody went up and somebody went down. So I just would ask that we really continue this process and get us the data because people are asking and I think unfortunately people aren't believing us when we say it's revenue neutral. I mean, I believe that it is, but I also believe there was the shifts which we all know. I guess another question I had and this is more going in the future, I would like to hear a little more on the process. I look at that chart you had with the Zillow values and the property transfer values and you see a big spike starting in 2012. I mean, I question why we weren't doing an appraisal in 2013 or 14 and how do we not let this happen again in terms of this surprise to so many property owners about the value of their property and then obviously the subsequent shift of that. President Trepey, could I interject? I'm so sorry, it's so awkward to be on the phone. I would actually like to ask that Nancy Stesson be recognized and I think she is on the phone and she has just started to work with John and I on some of the, excuse me, on some of the data analysis. So I thought it would be helpful. She could answer the first part of counselor Carpenter's question and then we could turn it over to John. Fine. Yes, I'm here. Okay, if you could just please address Councilor Carpenter's question, that'd be wonderful. So I think the question was why the appraisal didn't start in 2013. I'm sure John can speak to it too, but I think why it seems like it should have in this chart is that the y-axis doesn't start at zero. So it looks like they're very far apart in 2013, but the common level of appraisal hasn't, the gap hasn't actually gotten as big as it needed to be before the state managed it. Does that help? Nancy, could you just speak a little bit about some of the ongoing data mining that you're doing and some of the things that Councilor Carpenter has asked for, are those things that we would be able to produce this week? Yeah, we can definitely make more charts with this and look at how the actual total values for revenue raise changed based on those properties. I did wanna just add on the other chart, there was a question about whether the median change represented a change in revenue, but it just represents a change in any one tax bill, so the median amount of tax raise. So it would depend on whether larger or smaller properties had that larger or smaller changes in their tax bill. Look at this chart that's up right now. In late 2017 is when we were mandated by the state to do the revaluation, and it was based on the data from the three years prior. That's how the state does that work. So from 2017, 18, 19, 20, that's where you're seeing a great rise in the Zillow line as well as the market line. And so we were told to do the reappraisal before the market really took off. And of course, we finish it as there's a great separation there. I see that, what I see on that chart are home values and what is happening on some parallel level would have been change in commercial values and common level of appraisals, just that come. And so the phenomenon I think we had is we had one sector spiking and one plateauing, and so it's not so much that our entire level of appraisal was off, is it, it's again the shifting and the shifting of the burden and how do we prohibit that? And I guess we can't go backwards, but I'm asking and not tonight, but a plan for going forward, I would interestingly talk to a fellow from today from Maryland where they do review appraisals every three years to make sure that no one homeowner has these jumps that they can't sustain. And that, like counselor Shannon and Mason, even in our end of town where it's not gone up quite as much, I have seen some pretty big jumps in tax bills. Some of it is exacerbated by this phenomena with the homestead credit, which is a state issue and I wish representative Hooper would see it again. But we need to understand how to fix that going forward, but I guess I'm just making a case for us to have a really good plan on how we prohibit these massive jumps for people and then stepping backwards and I appreciate that we get the data to understand where that happened or where that happened. Thank you, Councilor Carpenter, appreciate that. Councilor Hanson to be followed by Councilor Jayne. Great, thanks. So kind of going back to some of what counselor Mason had raised about some of these instances where, because I've heard a number of these stories as well, where the local conditions were overlooked by the reassessment and by Tyler Technologies, the example common in Ward 1 is just the folks who are directly under the flight path of the F-35, for example, that obviously has an impact on their ability to sell and the value of their home, but that wasn't necessarily taken to an account, but there's other examples aside from that as well and so I just wanna understand what you were saying on that is if folks in that type of scenario were denied their appeal, is there still some way for them to correct that or address that or help me understand what the process is in those scenarios? Yes, I think it's important for people to know that they are allowed by law to appraise their property each year, so they'll have an opportunity next year if they missed out this year to appeal their property value and if there's something wrong with evaluation or data, we wanna correct it as well, so I would encourage that. Okay, so if they were denied this year, essentially the next specs thing would be for them to come back next year? They have that opportunity to, yes, they do. Okay, and the corrective work that your team is doing, that is specific to properties with an open appeal or what is that regarding? Like the neighborhood example that Councillor Shannon raised and some of those examples? Well, first off, our first priority is to deal with the open appeals and that's the process that we're in and we will be in this process until the end of December. After December, then we can start looking at other issues if there are issues. I think by and large, there are not a lot of other issues except for the impact on taxes, but if there's pockets of the town that need correction, I would correct it. We'll work on correcting it. Okay, and that correction would come into effect following that or would it wait until the next? Next fiscal year. Okay, okay. And then this shift from commercial to residential, do we know how much of that shift was due to COVID? Have we evaluated that? No, commercial properties tend not to appreciate at the same rate as single family homes in general, but like hotels and office buildings retail and where folks demonstrated a good demonstration that their value was impacted from lost revenues or vacancies and so forth. We have those properties noted. Mostly it was probably about a 20%. Overall, it's different depending on property types. Okay, and is there any way to sort of correct that? You know, the fact that because we did this during the pandemic, there is some, it's distorting in that way and in such a way that exacerbates the shift from commercial to residential of the tax burden. Is there any way that we might correct that before the next reappraisal? Well, the plan is is that those values were adjusted based on the perceived value of what they would sell for. So the assessment as of April 1st, we hope that the assessment represents what they're actually worth, what they would sell for in the market. Now, say if a hotel's occupancy rate goes back up to 80%, 75, 80% is the standard, then their assessments should be changed because their current assessment is based on a disruptive cash flow and low occupancy at the time of April 1st. Same for an office building, if an office building's 50% occupied because they lost tenants, well, that value should be lower. But if the occupancy increases and improves over the course of this next year or the year after, then there should be an adjustment to that. And that adjustment would happen next year? Yes. Oh, okay. And then I'm wondering, do we have any data on like across the socioeconomic spectrum, the tax burden shifts? Like for example, do we have it broken down by property value? So in other words, looking at the cheapest or the least valuable properties and how much they saw an increase or a decrease versus the most expensive properties and how much they saw an increase or decrease, do we know how the tax burden has shifted across sort of that type of wealth? Can you answer that? I don't think we do have it on they're basing it on their income, which we don't have that data. And the tax burden we know has changed, but there's also 70% of people that claim Homestead get an adjustment. So to make it more income-based, the values are supposed to be based on what they would sell for regardless of how high the value is or where low it is or anything in between. Right, no, I appreciate that. And I know it would be hard to do it for income and plus there is the tax credit, but I guess what I still think would be helpful if you all could provide is just across the values, who was seeing the biggest jump or not? Does that make sense? Based on like the spectrum of the least valuable properties to the most valuable across that spectrum, what were we seeing? You know, do you understand? Yeah, if we look at the prior year's value to the current value, then we can start breaking that out by property type and location and so forth. We could provide that. That'd be great. I appreciate it. And then do we have any idea when the next re-appraisal will be? No, I don't. The rules have changed. It's 85% is the level of appraisal. If we drop below that, then we'll have another mandate by the state of Vermont. They tightened up the rules. It used to be 80% so likely if the market continues, but the market fluctuates up and down if you remember 2008, 2009, there were the market was pretty much stabilized, dropped in some places a little bit. And then we had a flat market for a handful of years before it started increasing and then gaining momentum as of late. So it depends on what happens in the market. Right, question. We could choose to do it sooner, right? The city could do that, yes. Okay, all right. All right, well thank you. I appreciate it. You're welcome. Thank you, Councilor Hanson. I have Councilor Jay. It's late at night and thank you for being here. And I know that all of these questions you have answered it in some way or the other. But thank you for coming publicly. If there are three lessons you have learned with this process, what are those three lessons? And what are the plans also to adjust next time? One lesson would be better communication and telling the story of where things are at before, where you think that where things are gonna go as a result of this, but also be clear that it's mandated and you have to move forward. You can't delay this. I think that might have been clear. I don't know if that was two things or one thing, but certainly there's a lot of lessons to be learned. I think during the process, it was very hard to communicate, very hard to communicate by Zoom and have those hearings in that format. I think that the folks, the online appeal process is pretty good, it works very well. I think the part that where we failed is the setting up a hearings and that was a big failure with not being able to get appointments on time and people calling and waiting and waiting and then losing their call and having to call again, that was a big failure in my opinion. And how about a thorough investigation of a consultant we wanna hire too because it seems it's not the city, but it seems the consultant we hired should not do a thorough job. Is it the person? Have you learned that basically next time we need to do a thorough investigation around the company we wanna hire to do the work for us? Is that something we need to work on better next time? Yeah, we had several companies bid and they have a team. We had some parts of the team that I thought did a stellar job that came with vast knowledge and understanding. The modeler that did the residential modeling is one of the best modelers in New England for sure. He's been at it for a long time. The commercial appraiser did a fantastic job. I don't wanna put anybody down or say anything or point anybody out, but there's other parts where I think that a more thorough job could have been had. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, are we all set? Let's see any other counselors. All right, thank you very much, city assessor Vickery, CEO Shad, appreciate that report. We'll move on to our final item of the evening, which is a resolution adoption of police commission's recommendations. Counselor Shannon. Thank you, President Tracey. I move to adopt the resolution and ask for the floor back after a second. Okay, we have a motion from Counselor Shannon. Is there a second? Seconded by Counselor Mason. Go ahead, Counselor Shannon. Thank you, President Tracey. This action was picked up by Counselor Barlow and I immediately following the police commission's determination that this action was necessary by unanimous vote. And I do think that the police commission has been listening carefully to what the situation is with the Burlington Police staff, with the burdens on that staff, and with the general public safety of our community. And they took that to heart as they passed their resolution asking us to take this action. I also think that there is some new information, the biggest of which is that there was not an expectation that attrition would happen at the pace that it has been happening at. And that converging with the fact that there was an expectation that we would have this assessment done much sooner than we're able to get this assessment done. And I know that some people would like to wait for the assessment prior to taking action. But we took action without that assessment to begin with. I think that there is some logic in having an assessment before you take action. But the status quo is that we have taken action that continues to have an impact and continues to change whether or not we take a counteraction. And so the desire here is really to stop the downward spiral more than it is to spiral back up. This is not expected to increase our police department the size of the force. This is really just a measure to stabilize it where it is until we get that assessment. So some of the additional new information that we're getting is the Burlington Police Officers Association Survey, which showed that I actually don't have the exact numbers. And I wonder if could I have Chief Murad come up to speak to that issue? Sure. Thank you. So I just want to briefly go over. I look forward to hearing from Chief Murad on that. But there's also things that came out tonight that we're hearing. We're hearing from the street outreach is overwhelmed and not equipped to respond to the nature and number of calls. We're hearing about increased violent crime. We're hearing that our local daycares, and I know my daughter participated in daycares downtown and they always came to City Hall Park to have lunch. And there's always been, we know that for a long time there have been various elements in our downtown that might not look so good, but that did not deter the YMCA and other camps that were happening downtown. This is, there's a change when our daycares are no longer feeling comfortable bringing kids to our downtown. And we're hearing from Sandy Baird tonight, long time domestic, long time advocate for victims of domestic violence and how the current situation is affecting those folks. I think that we have an obligation to act on the new facts that are before us. And somebody had said, when you have a cut, you need a band-aid and that's all that this is. But I think what we have is more than a cut and I think it requires a tourniquet. We really do need to stop the bleeding. And that's my hope for this resolution. And I'd like to turn it over to the chief to talk about both the BPOA survey and where we are headed in terms of the number of police officers and how I think that there's some concern probably from a lot of people at this table that even if we allow for hiring that we won't be able to hire. So if you could speak to what would this mean in terms of the hiring process, I would appreciate that. Thank you very much, counselor. And thank you city council for letting me speak. I'll address the first part that you discussed which is the BPOA survey. So this is not a survey that was conducted by the Burlington Police Department and it's not mine. Frankly, it should be a member of the BPOA relating this and I'm just going to be giving the raw numbers that came from their survey. They conducted it in late June. They presented on it to the police commission last week on Tuesday of last week and the data that they, excuse me, two weeks ago, so two Tuesdays ago. The data that they presented included several questions. I think the most pertinent and the mayor has reflected this in a press release that he's just released is a question that was are you actively seeking new employment? And that question was answered by, was answered, yes, by 56% of officers and yes, by a third of supervisors. So the total number of combined officers and supervisors was 52%. 52% of the department is currently actively seeking new employment. I think that was the figure that most struck the police commission. I don't necessarily want to speak for them but it was what they relayed in that public session which is available to be seen on YouTube and it certainly struck me when I saw these results in early July and shared them with the mayor in early July. As to your other question, does this affect our ability to bring people aboard? Frankly, it does. If we have a change in the headcount, it allows us to give true conditional offer letters to prospective employees. Currently, we are at 75 officers on the books. That is one shy of the 74 that this body determined was the appropriate number for the sake of the resolution last year. So I have to lose another two officers in order to really be able to hire a new officer. We have been seeking to hire. We have been posting the position. We have been interviewing candidates, not interviewing, we've been accepting applications and doing preliminary vetting on these applications but there's certain things that we can't really do without a conditional letter of employment and we can't offer those conditional letters until we are actually below 74. So right now we have some candidates who are in preliminary stages. I can't offer them conditional letters until we lose another two employees but we're going to. We're going to lose those employees by certainly by the end of September, I envision that we will probably be below 70. What going higher than 74 allows is a buffer that we discussed in previous instances when we've presented to this body and that buffer allows us to be able to actually offer letters to, for example, people who are coming from farther away, people who are going to be perhaps lateral officers that can bypass the entirety of the police academy. We wouldn't be married to the current state police academy schedule which is a limiting factor and is playing into some of the things that we're seeing across the state with regard to recruitment and retention as delineated in a letter by the acting US attorney for Vermont. Those pressures are decreased significantly with regard to a changed cap and I really can't emphasize enough a factor that I can't quantify which is a sense of reassurance to the men and women in the department that there is a future for that department and that is going to be strengthened by an acknowledgement of a move in that cap and it will help us retain because, frankly, retention is the single most important issue in front of us right now. If I can't keep the officers we have, we will radically change how we function. We've already changed it. We've presented the public safety continuity plan. We've presented a priority response model. We're working on other things. We're working on onboarding the positions that you allocated to us. The community service officer, the community support liaison, and those are important. But without the officers, we can't train those positions. Without the officers, we don't have a backstop for those positions when they do certain kinds of priority three response and community outreach and then say to themselves, oh, we can't handle this one and we do need to call in other officers. And we are at a stage where as the mayor's press release makes clear, there is an avenue, a throughway that we can see here where we don't have a police department. Councillor Shannon. Thank you. Thank you. I have Councillor Barla to be followed by Mayor Weinberger. Thank you, President Tracy. This action shouldn't be viewed as a political reversal so much as a thoughtful response to an emergent set of circumstances. Nobody ever thought we'd be moving toward an officer count of 70, only 14 months after their racial justice resolution was passed. And nobody thought we'd be still waiting to formulate a plan to address what our public safety infrastructure looks like at this point. Everybody thought we'd be further along. And so to me, this is basically like organizational management 101. If we have a target number of city employees in a department and we know we're going to be below that target soon, we need to start hiring before we are below. And additionally, if we know that not everyone we hire is going to make it through training and some that aren't going to stay, then we need to hire a few more to maintain the staff at that target level. The unfortunate reality is that we likely will see continued attrition in BPD regardless of what we do tonight. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't begin to start shoring up the, beginning to shore up the department now. It also doesn't mean that if we act tonight to begin the process of adding additional department staff, we can't revisit the staffing. Once we've received the CNA report and had time to process it and formulate a plan. The current attrition levels, like the chief said, are a symptom of poor department morale and the additional consequence for those who remain are significant over time on a regular basis. So we should also be worried about burning out the remaining staff. And if we're having this staffing conversation about any other city department, I wonder if we'd allow these conditions to continue. I really hope we can pass this resolution tonight. And I hope everyone can support it. Thank you. Thank you, President Tracy. As council Shannon noted, it is action by the police commission that has brought this issue to the council. Once again, unlike when it came before you in February, when I can chief mirad and I brought forward this issue for action. I believe the commission acted. Last week because of the stark staffing situation the department now faces and to, to, to summarize, in just over a year, we have lost nearly 20 of our police officers. And today we faced a very real possibility of losing an amount, an equal amount or more in the weeks and months to come. According to a recent survey completed by the DPO, which revealed that more than 50% of our remaining officers are actively working to leave the department. As chief mirad also just summarized, if that happens, we will cease to have a functional police department in the city of Burlington. Furthermore, the fact that we are reckoning with the consequences of a badly diminished city department at the same time, but also, the fact that we're not able to help them get to the point that we are, Burlingtonians are feeling the first dollar impacts the reappraisal as we just discussed for last hour. In the unwelcome irony not lost on voters. Public safety is the top responsibility of city government. And we are approaching the point where we can no longer fulfill that responsibility. A council vote to support tonight's resolution would not fix this grave situation, but it would send the message to the public and our officers a viable department remain goals of this council. Even after raising the officer cap back to a higher level, as a police commission unanimously supported last week, and as I have formally proposed twice, we will still have much more work to do to stabilize the department, strengthen, and transform it. I want to assure you the administration is working hard to bring forward further retention and recruitment incentives for approval at your next meeting. We are working hard to implement both the CSO and the mental health response programs, and Chief Murad could give further detail on those efforts if that is of interest. I'm confident there will be much more public safety transformation work to pursue when the operational and functional assessment department is done in the coming weeks. While this resolution does not finish our work, it does represent an important start. Delaying this action for further analysis will only make our major challenges even harder. Our city has a long and proud record of early adoption of transformational police reforms. To mention just a few recent examples, we severed our ties to the military far earlier than many police departments. We adopted a harm reduction approach to the opioid crisis far ahead of many police departments. We mandated the use of body cameras before most New England city departments did, and significantly reduced our officer initiated stops in manner that I've heard a few other cities approach. We have much more work to do. Everyone agrees on that. A vote against this resolution will seriously jeopardize the legacy of those reforms, our ability to make further advancements, and possibly even the very viability of the Burlington Police Department. I urge the Council to act so it does not come to that. Thank you, President Tracey. To be followed by Councillor Stromberg. Thank you, President Tracey. The hour is late and my ability to stamina is not what it was pre-COVID. But I will, I want to speak to this. I will be supporting this resolution. I respect, or I will be doing for a variety of reasons. The first of which is from my perspective of public safety. I don't, for those of us that are getting the press releases that are coming out of the chief's office, I don't know how we can look at them and feel we're being gaslighted. It is real. I'm watching video of a shooting, you know, screaming and shootings going on on the corner of the street that I work. Happens to be two in the morning and I'm not there. But I work there. We're all seeing that. There are a dozen shootings in the city of Burlington this year or 10 this year, a dozen all of last year. I appreciate some feel that's gaslighting and a fictitious crisis that's been created. But if it's not just based on the violent crime, how can we look Kelly Devine and other church street owners who are afraid to, you know, are getting escorts to accompany their female workers as they walk down church street. That's real and that's happening. Or the dozens of emails that I'm sure you're getting just as I am where noise complaints or, you know, a disorderly conduct or graffiti are being met with responses from the police department that we simply are drug investigations. We don't have the manpower. Those are real. There's no gaslighting going on there. But even if you don't believe in that, we've been made aware of information today, you know, 52% of the department wants to leave. We were told by Karen Durfey today that they're being forced to work 15 hours of overtime. That's not us. We don't believe in that. Finally, in terms of this belief that somehow September 30th in CNA's reports gonna come out and magically solve everything, that is blind by, A, the number of applicants, qualified applicants that have moved through the CSO process. It's two people. It's taken a voluminous amount of time. And I was very disturbed at the Howard, you know, the Howard stepping up. And Councillor Nodell didn't get to read the end of the report, which I'd like to do right now, which gets to the timeline. The end of the report that we all got in our email while we were in this meeting says to sum it up, with the current resources, the street outreach is struggling. It is struggling to meet the number of calls that come in and it's struggling to address the emergency nature of the calls given the program's mission. And the program is struggling to expand our team. Please consider that when making decisions about BPD staffing needs. Also consider that it takes a long time to find good candidates and train them to be ready to serve in all sectors of the social and emergency service centers. I don't see taking this action as an abandonment of the effort we've started on. I see it as a necessary temporary step. September 30th is not gonna come and magically this problem goes away. And if we delay action now, that's just six to seven more weeks. And the reality is contrary to Councillor Barlow, some of us did predict this. I felt a year or whatever when we voted on the budget in 2020 that this was going to happen. And it's not too late to fix it. But I would ask this to move past. We can't do so because that's contrary to the initial vote and start dealing with the reality that's on the ground and hopefully fix it or start. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Mason. I have Councillor Stromer. Thanks. So I'm very tired as well and I have kind of a headache. So bear with me. But so we're all having this conversation because of the need for transformative change within the police department. And in this past year, I've learned a lot as a new councillor, as somebody who's focused on public safety more so than I had prior. And we, nobody sitting here did that. I'm sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you. Sorry, can you hear me now? Good. So I just wanted to say that nobody in this process did this perfectly, right? Last summer, that resolution was not perfect. There's a lot of this that I understand where the frustration lies. And yeah, I do get the press releases. And the thing is I understand what's taking place. I see the events that are happening. They're terrifying. I watched one happen from my bedroom window the other night. I live right near City Market. And I understand that they're within the moral issue within the police department and our rhetoric not necessarily helping that. And that is something that to some extent we should own up to. And I don't want people in our community getting hurt at any hour of the day. And I don't want this uptick to continue. I see that there is, for sure. I mean, just look at the facts, right? There is that type of uptick. But I also, I'm not saying that those events don't exist. When I'm asked by the media, how do you feel about the chiefs or just any rhetoric around this? It's not that I'm denying the fact that these things are happening. It's the language around it. And this happened and just kind of pivoting to the fact that we defunded the police. And it just seems like, yes, we're holding on to the frustration of that taking place, but is that really productive? Because does that move us forward? And I want to own up to the fact that there are some aspects of this that I am not informed on. I haven't gone on a ride along. I will say that. I have not. And but I do know that public safety should encompass everyone. And the fact that we're even here having this conversation and the fact that we even had this original conversation last summer is because we weren't implementing public safety for everyone. There were people entirely left out of that and feeling extremely marginalized and in danger. And that feeling hasn't gone away for so many of those folks. And it's like that. And that's not going to go away because that's systemic and that's an issue across the country. And we were having that conversation last summer and now it's 14 months later, we're seeing this uptick, where, yes, there's a lot of other factors going on and I wouldn't say that it's necessarily, like I don't, I don't, I don't, I just want to, I want to make a very informed decision. And so I would feel more comfortable having this report at the end of September to make the decision whether to raise the cap or not. I will raise the cap if I see data where I'm like that it makes sense to do so. Right now I can't make an informed decision and that's all I want to do as a counselor is use that information. I do see the press releases. I do understand that these events are taking place and I, you know, I appreciate, you know, the service of police officers and the fact that, yeah, there are, there's a lot going on in our city and there's from mental health to just violent crimes, there's a lot going on. And, you know, I don't want that but I just, I really want to not let go of why we're here in the first place talking about this because it's easy for us to make this progress and then do a back step and then have to have this again. This is not going to go away. This is systemic racism within our public safety system as a country. Like it's not just gonna, you know, in the next 10 years we're gonna find ourselves with maybe new counselors to bring forward another resolution like the racial justice resolution from last summer. So I just want to hold onto that thought. Like I definitely see both sides of this. I understand where the frustration is coming from. I understand where the fear is coming from but I just, the rhetoric on both sides isn't helping anything for our city and that's something I want to admit as a counselor and that's something that I think that we all can admit here. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stromberg. I don't have anyone else in the queue. I have Councillor Carpenter to be followed by Councillor Shannon. Thanks. I want to agree a lot with Councillor Stromberg. Has been saying, although I'm seeing it a little bit differently, I think we're here tonight. Somebody said to sort of stop the bleeding. We set a goal of 74 officers and we can't even hardly meet it. We can't stabilize the force. We can't stabilize the attrition. We've given the department no option or wiggle room or ways to keep the workflow set and that's what I see this doing tonight. It's an attempt to stabilize and it's a temporary step to stabilize. We still do need the report. We still need to see what they're going to offer but right now we have to stabilize the police department and I don't think the headcount is going to get Councillor Stromberg, you're right to where we want to be. There are so many things we need to do in transforming the department but they don't contradict each other. We need to stabilize force of sworn officers. We need to hire those CSOs and we definitely need to hire the CSLs. We need to get the CAHOOTS program up and running. We need to support Howard. There's a dozen other things. When I re-listened to the police commission last week, there was a ton of focus on what we need to do as a community to support people to rid ourselves of systemic racism and I heard all of that. Our newest members on the police commission are speaking about their frustration about those things but on the other hand, that body that we asked for advice is saying for now, this is what we need to do for now, we need to stabilize where we're at so we can do all the other things that we need to do. I think Sandy Baird put it well, others. And so that's what I see this doing tonight, stabilizing where we're at so that we can do the other things that we really need to do. Thank you, Councilor Carpenter. I have Councilor Shannon. Thank you, President Tracey. I just wanted to speak to a couple of things that were raised. I agree that it's much better to make decisions with data but the decision that we made that brought us to where we are now was not made with data and I do think that we can re-envision policing and we can come out of this with being a leader in public safety. I won't even call it police reform but in public safety and looking at new ways of doing things but all of that is a process and we didn't go through that process. We took an action somewhat blindly and I agree we should have data before taking those actions but now we're continuing to see the effects of that action and we need to just put a hold on where we are. This isn't actually taking an action to make change. This is taking an action to just hold where we are and that is what I ask you to consider. I also agree that these decisions should include everyone but our police commission is a much more BIPOC and diverse group than this council is and they unanimously asked us to take this action and lastly I'd just like to hear from the chief about what the effects of the forced overtime are because I am very concerned that that in and of itself is not leading to better outcomes for those that we're most concerned about with regards to policing. When people are grossly overworked and being forced to, I think my sense of the work is that it's much more intense than it ever was and it was always intense but now it's not only more intense, it's that increased volume of work that is unfair to our workers and they are workers. So would you be able to speak to that chief Murad, how the forced overtime is affecting the police force and policing? Absolutely, so in normal times overtime is sometimes something that officers seek. It's additional money, especially if it's taken on their terms. What we're talking about here is not overtime that is taken on the officers terms, it's holdover overtime. It is overtime that is essentially ordered to the officer and we do as much as we can to make certain that for example, it's a seniority-based system. Technically the least senior member is going to be held over for overtime more often than others but we do our best to distribute it fairly to try to find volunteers for it but there are times where we can't, where we have to say we do not have sufficient coverage for the coming shift and therefore people on this shift must be held over and it's gonna be you and you because I don't have any volunteers. And we have gone from having on average in 2018, it was 7.37 hours per day of holdover overtime. That's not per officer, that's per day, that's how much happened. In 2019, it was 8.67. In 2020, it was 5.57. We dropped a lot because there wasn't as much owing to changes in volume from the pandemic. That averaged to 7.2 hours of ordered holdover overtime per day for the past three years. Since May, it has been 14.86. And that is a radical change. And when we talk about the volume, I've been very clear overall volume is down. It's drastically down. It has been trending down over the past several years. I've spoken to that about this body in previous meetings. A large percentage of that trend down was driven by a reduction in proactive enforcement by officers, primarily traffic stops. Traffic stops alone constituted almost half of the decrease from about 2016 through about 2019. But the volume total is drastically down. What hasn't changed at all is the priority one volume. The priority one volume is steady. And what we have now is a situation where it is distributed among many fewer officers. And those officers are handling the same volume priority one work, which is the bread and butter of police. It is the most important calls. It's the calls that we would respond to irrespective of whether or not we had a dozen CSOs or 20 CSOs and that we will never send CSOs or CSLs to. And that volume has not changed. It is now distributed among far fewer officers. We've gone from when I gave you a presentation in June on the emergency staffing plan as a possibility for where we might go, we had 52 officers available for patrol response. In the coming tour, that is how we divide our staffing year, it starts in September, we will have about 28 officers available for patrol response. And the reason for that is that I can't change the number of officers I dedicate to the airport. I cannot change the number of officers by contract that I dedicate to our detective bureau. Although at some point I may have to break the contract and start doing that. If I diminish our detective bureau, frankly, I've sent a sign that there's no real career progression in our agency. And I've also afflicted one of the single best things that we have in this city. We have the best detective bureau in the state, bar none. I have no doubt saying that. They do excellent, excellent work. I don't want to minimize that bureau, but I also don't want to minimize my road, but that's where I minimize as these reductions occur, as these departures occur. And one of the important things that we saw in the survey also is that really, it breaks down to officers remain because of the schedule, which is different than other police agencies, and they like that four day schedule. Officers remain because of the salary, which is competitive, but is out of date, we're up for a renegotiation. Officers remain because of their friends. And every time somebody else leaves, that one becomes a little bit less. And they stay because of the mission. They want to serve this city. They've dedicated a lot to this city. They have been working for this city for as many years as they are all here. They want to continue to serve this city, but they don't feel like there is a future. And every time we get smaller and more overburdened and we see those overtime numbers go up, it's a little bit less to have them stay. And the big risk that we have right now is that we are losing irreplaceable experience. We are losing officers. Tenure retirements always happen. And if I look at the past several years, we have been very good as an agency about bringing in as many as we have lost. That's what an agency wants to do. You achieve personnel homeostasis. And we've done that over the past many years. Obviously in 2020, it was limited and we couldn't do that. And in 2021, we haven't been able to do it at all. The last officer we were able to hire was in April, excuse me, April of 2020. But we are losing officers who are tremendously experienced and we're not losing them to retirement. We're losing them in the middle of their career. Very, very talented, dedicated officers who are just saying enough, either to going to another agency or to another profession. And anything that we can do together, all of us, to try to prevent that is tremendously important. And I believe that this reevaluation and an acknowledgement that we were saying, you know what, facts on the ground changed in different ways, perhaps than we saw. We are looking at a different situation than we foresaw. And we have avenues of the kinds of improvement that we want, but we need to stem, frankly, we need to stanch the bleeding. All right, Councilor Sheehan. Okay, Councilor Hanson. Great, thanks. There's a lot to say. I'll try to, just let me know if I'm going over time, President Tracy. I think it's important, as some have mentioned a little bit, just to contextualize and remember why we're doing what we're doing, why we took the action we did last summer, because I feel like I hear a lot of talk, criticizing that action. I understand I'm listening, I'm taking all this in, I understand that there are serious issues that we're faced with right now, but I do want us to remember what that vote was all about, what we were trying to do, and really the transition that I hope we're still committed to. In my, from my perspective, that was one of the proudest things that I've seen this body. One of the things I'm the proudest of that we've done as a body, and I say that knowing that they're, again, acknowledging that there are issues right now, but what we were doing and why we did it was really to try to completely transform how we address public safety in the community and specifically change a system that has, has for so long in Burlington and in this country had disparate outcomes and really harmed people who are already the most marginalized and the most vulnerable in the community have disproportionately not been kept safe by the system or even endangered by the public safety system and as a local government, we took one of the biggest steps that we've ever taken to try to move towards a new model that was less based as one of the, I think the last public commenter said, was less based on just responding to crime with bringing in force and sort of punishment, but trying to not only create a response to incidences in the community that is more trauma informed, that is more appropriate, people who have different training, who aren't necessarily armed, who can de-escalate, who have adequate training in mental health. I think it's a really important thing that we're grappling with and that we're trying to do and I hope that we keep that in mind as we confront the challenges that we're facing. And I guess what I, and part of it too is the whole concept of why we reduced the force, why that was part of the action we took, had to do as well with freeing up resources that we could reallocate, not only towards a different response, but also towards trying to use resources, use taxpayer resources to undercut some of the root causes of these issues in our community in the first place, these public safety issues and trying to invest more in housing and mental health and anti-poverty measures, education, specifically getting resources to vulnerable populations. So I hope we don't sort of run away from what we did. I think not only did we do all of that and that's very important, but we also were responding to this unprecedented and enormous outcry from our constituents and from our community that were, I mean, we listened to over a thousand people that felt extremely strong about this and I hope we still remember what a lot of those folks were saying and what they've been living with in this community with the current system. So I want us to stay focused on this path of building a new system. In terms of all that being said, I understand that we're facing challenges right now and I don't want to diminish that or dismiss that. I guess my one question I have is just, Chief Mirad, if you could give us an update on, just give us a little insight on the hiring of the CSLs and the CSOs because in February was when we approved the three CSOs and four to 10 CSOs and I'm not sure exactly where we're at with that. Thanks for that opportunity, counselor. So in January, when I gave you the memo on the public safety continuity plan, which at that point was really the only plan that had been proposed to address these kinds of issues, I pointed out that we would not be able to hire these positions until fiscal year, the current fiscal year. And I said that on page three, you can find it right there. So we moved as quickly as we could, we've identified candidates, we had about 30 total candidates and what we currently have are two who have been able to pass the initial vetting that's done largely by HR, the initial test which we provided and created a new test to devise that was devised to test for the new kinds of skill sets that were expanding the CSO role to address. And then we will begin a background check. We're in background process now. That's a lengthy background process because they have unfettered access to our systems and our building and while they don't have law enforcement powers, they are part of our law enforcement team and we have a lot of requirements for that. We want to be stringent about our standards on that. So we're gonna be working on that and then training them and as I, the budget allows me to hire a total of six by the end of the first half of this fiscal year. We've got these two. I'm hopeful to be able to identify some others but it is as I said in the presentations in December of 2020 and January of 2021, when we did this last time, the ratio was about 10 to 15% of being able to bring people aboard. So we need big pools and we're not necessarily seeing all those pools. Now with regard to the CSL position, the community support liaison, the mental health position, we have identified and hired the one that we were allotted by your acceptance of parts of the public safety continuity plan in January and February of this year. There are two additionals who would be excellent hires that we found during the process for the one. I think that part of the police commission request revolves around bringing those aboard and not waiting to figure out automatically where they're permanently going to reside and instead saying we can co-train them, we can realize some economies of scale with regard to training them all together, having the invaluable, Lisa Smith be able to work with them, have a training role and ultimately in all likelihood a supervisory role over those positions, irrespective of whether they are in whatever part of the city they reside. And so that's where we are with those processes. I'm very enthusiastic about those. I think that that will help us re-engage with some of the priority three calls that we have essentially been unable to address over the past, increasingly over the past several weeks and months. Just the priority response model that we had to institute, we started in May, in May we had 0.8% of our calls for service were deferred or stacked according to the priority response model. In June it was 8. something percent and in July it was 16% and we're at that same level so far for August. So in other words, we're forced to stack more and more calls for service. I'm hopeful the CSOs will be able to address some of those but it's gonna be a while before they're out and before we are having trained and before we understand what they can do. And in the meantime, we can't afford to lose more police officers and we can't afford to keep overworking the ones that we've got. I had an officer fall asleep on the way home after over time. I've had, we was mentioned by Council Shannon that over time there's studies about the creation of forced errors and the greater likelihood of problems with performance when people are in that state. And we need to do what we can to reduce that. There are many avenues that we're exploring and I have been working on developing these avenues. We're also working of course with the mayor on a look at a Kahootz type model. That's happening parallel to this. And all of these things have the department's engagement and the department's desire for them to work because our mission is keeping people safe by preventing and responding to crime and disorder with and for our neighbors. And we're in a position right now where that is becoming more difficult. And again, there is a foreseeable avenue where we can't do it at all. Councilor Hanson. Thank you, I appreciate that. So just to clarify, so essentially one CSL and two CSOs that have been offered, but they still need to go through background check for all three, is that where we're at there? So the background check, yes, through the full investigatory background check. And that's conducted by an investigator in the police department, it involves a very long form called a personal history questionnaire or personal history inventory that the applicant fills out and then the detective goes through and checks on all those, their references, they are childhood sweethearts and parents and families and old neighbors. It's an elaborate process. Okay, and that's the case for all three of these? Affirmative. Okay, all right. And how long do you expect that will take? As I said, for CSOs, I said the total process was about 7.5 months from the application process through being a solo CSL on the road. I don't know for CSLs. We've never done that before. You know, Lacey's position is very similar to what we envisioned for the CSL, but we haven't done it. I think that's probably a little bit less intensive with regard to training. So it probably won't be as long a period of time, but CSOs, those two that we currently have identified, I'm hopeful that we will have them in training sometime this autumn, early autumn, but frankly, I am also worried about who I'm going to have to train them because some of my best officers are our field training officers and many of those have expressed interest in going. That's another factor. We don't lose the officers who have nowhere else to go. We lose the officers who have fungible, who have marketable skills, and those officers are not fungible. It's the word that I brought out. Okay, thanks. Yeah, I think I definitely hear all that, and I do acknowledge that, you know, when we passed this resolution last summer, at least speaking for myself, I didn't expect the attrition to happen at the rate that it has happened at all. So I understand that things have changed. One thing I would push back on that I've been hearing from members of the public and just throughout this narrative is I feel that there is an assumption being made that there's this very direct correlation between more officers equals less crime, less officers equal more crime. I don't think that that, I think that's very hotly disputed. Just from the research I've done, it varies by community and over time, and I think we shouldn't just sort of jump to that conclusion or that assumption. What I am, so I don't know what the exact right number is, and I don't want to fall into sort of that assumption, but what I am very worried about is this rate of attrition and the fact that in the overtime aspect, in the morale aspect and what that means for public safety right now, if we have this force that people are leaving but also people are stressed and overworked and unhappy and how is that gonna deliver for our community? So I think for sure we need to come out of tonight with approving these CSLs and just reminding people that these roles are, most of the 9-1 calls that happen are not violent in nature, and so the more we can bring on these positions and deal with those calls, it then does free up the traditional officers to respond to these more severe calls, and I think that needs to still be the approach in the model and I hope we come away from tonight and kind of agree on that and move forward on that. In terms of the officer cap level, I guess my concern around it is just that it is sort of, we're saying it's temporary, but it is sort of, I don't know that that's true. It's hard to predict and I don't think that that's set within the resolution that it would be temporary, and again, we're about to get so much more data and information that we've been waiting on for so long, we're about to get that, and could make a much more informed decision because my concern is that what we change that cap to will potentially stick, and it is hard to reverse and undo that, and we don't wanna be sort of bouncing around from month to month and putting the community and the department through that, so that's my biggest concern and wanting to have that information, but I'll leave it there for now because I've gone on and on, thanks. Thank you, Councilor Hanson. I don't have anyone else in the queue. Councilor Jain, to be followed by Councilor Shannon. Thank you, President Tracy. Thank you, Chief Mirad for being here, and I hope that we all recognize that we have made some mistakes. And so far, I only heard one city council who voted on the police attrition reduction that took that courage to say, I made a mistake because the rest, what is missing about this whole conversation is the level of accountability. As elected official, we are called to govern, to lead, to make sure that everyone is safe and to do it to the best of our abilities, based also on data, on facts. But not on fear mongering at the same time. This is our mistake, including the mayor of Burlington who signed that resolution. This is not only progressives, this is also Democrats who signed that racial justice resolution. This fits so many amendments to not cut the police until we do the study. But now, where are the 1,000 people that were calling every single day to ask you to defend the police? Where are the organizations that were behind them to push them? Have they made even any statement about the shootings happening in the city of Burlington? You don't hear them, they're all gone, and we are here, right? What we have done, we just definitely failed. We failed. This is very embarrassing. When I see all the municipalities sending their staff to support our Burlington Police Department, the economic driver of the state of Vermont, we failed. We have to acknowledge that. At least have some level of accountability. I made a mistake, I'm sorry. That's what we need to do. And no one is even talking about that or mentioning it, and it's just wrong. But at the same time, I also do believe that this city should not be run by local organization. It should not also be run by union, including the police union. I would not want to see the study of police officers leaving, not from the union conducting that study. I wanted an independent, and I thought that that was supposed to be the work of the Police Transformation Manager. We have so many things happen, this is Police Department, that I cannot even know. I don't even know where to start. But I will never continue to be consistent. Data, inclusivity, and when I brought here a resolution asking for the voters of Burlington to weigh on this issue, to just advise us. This council put it down, no vote, not even a second. Nobody. And now there is shootings in the city of Burlington and everybody wanna, even the public, you're part of the responsibility too. Because when racial justice alliance people were speaking to the council, anyone else stay at their homes, you could have called, expressed your views, speak up. Public safety is the responsibility of every single one of us. It's not the responsibility of 80 officers, 50 officers, it happens every day, and every day we have to step up to make sure you safe, my neighbors safe, my kids safe, my police officers are safe. It's our responsibility. Public, we have a part of responsibility. Elected officials in including the police commission. All of it, if you look at this issue, it's so complex and I don't even know where it started. But I completely do agree that we need police transformation. Yeah, we can no longer sit here and just brag now we have 100 police officers. I know I heard of this, of similar statements right here. We, since I came to office, I added 60 more officers, seven more officers. And now the problem in front of us, everybody wanna run away. This is not good. What we have done to these police officers is not fair. What we have done to the school, the children, it's not fair. And nobody's taking any responsibility. And nobody's talking about what need to be done. We need to come together. We need some level of reparation, of apologies, truth and reconciliation, proposed, but no action. I am so angry right now. But I'm gonna try to ask you respectfully one question. We are going to have a study coming up soon. Basically it's in 18 days. In 18 days that study from CNA will be coming to the city. The first draft at least. 18 days, two weeks and three days. Yes, it's due September 30th, but it's in 18 days we will receive the first draft. You will receive the memo from Taisha Green today. 18 days, I do not think we should bring this resolution to the floor tonight. I think we need to postpone action until we at least understand what that study is telling us. This resolution is as dangerous as a racial justice resolution. As dangerous as it. Because two people got shot, nobody got even killed. Shootings happened in the city and now boom. Let's stop being reactive and be proactive. Nobody's coming to solve our problems. We were elected 12 people to do that work. Hiring a police officer is not hiring a crossing guard. It takes a lot of vetting, a lot of training, a lot of, it takes a lot of time. It's not as easy as hiring another person. So if we increase the cap today, when do you think we should have a new police officer in our rank? If we increase the cap, we should allow you to hire at least one police officer today. When will that person be on our rank? Where our badge? Thank you, council, for the question. Based on our current applicant pool, we would be able to, the best case scenario is that we would be able to put an individual into a police academy that is planned for October of this year, 2021, and that we would then, that person would graduate sometime early in the next year and go through field training and be a solo officer on patrol sometime in the late spring or early summer of 2022. That's the best case scenario. It is also possible that the academy for October is already filled by other departments who have had people ready to go longer. It's like showing up at a restaurant. If your whole party isn't there, you don't get seated. So these other agencies have had their whole party waiting for a bit longer and will get sent home with a little buzzer and it'll go off in February of 2022, at which point we'll be able to put that candidate in and hopefully other candidates that we have. And then we're talking probably solo patrol sometime in the autumn of 2022. There are the possibilities of laterals. Those are officers who are already trained either here in Vermont, frankly, very unlikely based on our current status within the state or from other locations. Director Durfee has talked about potential upselling with regard to going to other localities and saying the state has done better on COVID. The state has other issues that make it attractive and trying to bring people in laterally. We're gonna need to incentivize that in specific ways. I've been talking with the mayor about those kinds of incentive plans in addition to incentive plans for retention. But those could be quicker. We could bring somebody in and have them theoretically, you could have them almost immediately. You still have to do all the same background checks. You still have to do all those things, but we could give offer letters much more quickly to those individuals and begin background checks. And then their training process, they go through basically three days at the academy to become certified lateral level threes from other states. That's what I did. And then I spend the rest of the year going down to the academy or doing training here on a regular basis over the course of the year to catch up with an entire training regime. But I'm eligible to be an officer on the street much more quickly than a recruit officer who's a new hire. So those are the two sort of pictures of that. So basically the soonest will be February, 2020. The soonest, no, there is a possibility of getting somebody in in October. But I do wanna make it clear that in the meantime, our numbers, as I said, the September shift is going to be 20, a high 20s for the patrol response. And that is going to cause significant changes in how we deploy. And that's going to happen irrespective to a certain extent. What we need to do is make certain that that's as bad as it gets. And then maintain what we have. And that can be done in part by sending a message of collaboration and cooperation and the sense that we're all invested in actually having a future for these officers, a path forward for them. I think, personally, I do think that the message of collaboration and all of that, the way we have done it, that's what brought us to where we are. And I think I wanna be proactive. And I think that in by September, maybe 15, 20th, we will receive that study. I don't wanna kill this resolution at the same time. But for the sake of consistency, of good governance, I am not ready to vote in support of this resolution tonight. So I would wanna make a motion, President Tracy, for the city council to postpone action about this resolution until our first meeting in September. Okay, we have a motion to postpone. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Councillor Stromberg. Any discussion of the motion to postpone? Yeah, I'm definitely open to that, as I alluded to before, I think. But what I don't wanna wait on is the CSLs. And so, I don't have a solution right now. I need to think about it while others talk, but I want us to move forward on that tonight. I think that's important. I think we all support that, or at least a majority of us support that action. I think we should take that action. But I'm open to postponing the other aspect until we have that information. I have Mayor Weinberger in the queue to be followed by Councillor Mason. Thank you, President Tracy. Yes, thank you, President Tracy. I would really strongly urge the council against postponement tonight and urge you to think about the message that would send to the community and officers that have come out and demanded action. At the very least, I think we, the council owes them a decision. And postponement has the potential for grave consequences. This has come back to you tonight because the police commission has on their own volition raised this and put it before you. They have done so out of a concern about what we are facing as a community. We have seen an enormous increase in the amount of shooting incidents in this city and the public is demanding a response. And to, in the face of that, simply delay and ask for more analysis, ask for more time is not meeting the moment. It's not meeting what the public expects from us. It's basically saying there's nothing we can do about this very disturbing increase in shootings. We've been fortunate how little, we have not seen deaths yet from these shots. It is, but that's been good fortune. It's amazing to look at some of those videos that no one was hurt or killed. Let's not say to the public and our police department that in the face of this, we're not gonna take any action until we get more time goes by, more incidents happen, more analysis. It is reflecting back on the way in which the council took this action with no analysis, essentially no analysis done with three days of deliberation. It just is very challenging to hear now that this action that has been called for by your citizen police commission that has been called for by dozens of past elected officials who have served the city and know that more than 74 officers is needed. That is even in the limited initial analysis of the 74 officers. There was never any account of the eight police officers at the airport that never taken into effect. There are so many justifications that you have for voting yes on this fall resolution tonight. Don't allow, I urge you not to allow yourself to be distracted by the frustrations and the really extraneous issues that we all feel let's focus on the issue before us now. The commission, the public, our officers are demanding action. It's within your power right now to do something meaningful and to set us in a new trajectory. Please vote no on postponement and yes on this resolution tonight. Thank you President Tracy. I'm just not understanding the timing quite honestly. If the report's not coming out for 19 days with all due respect, my understanding is it's gotta be reviewed by the administration, by the chairs with a target of September 30th, I think setting an artificial deadline of I don't know what our meeting is in September but this is doomed, and we say this, if it's anything like the Talitha report that's not even out yet, we don't know what's in the report. So I don't understand how we can commit to September 30th, whatever the timing of our first 13th, the 30th is the target date. I don't understand how we can artificially decide to move that date forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Mason and Councilor Jay. Yes, so I do definitely think that voting on this resolution tonight based on what I'm reading, it will die and that's what I wanna prevent as that's what I'm against, right? If September is too early, then let's move it back to October, right? A study has to be done in order for us to make a decision. Otherwise, this is as dangerous because two more shootings can happen and we want 200 officers. It's not the way we govern. Consistency, to me, it murders and this is where it's required right now. All right, I just wanted to add that. Thank you, Councilor Jay and Councilor Shannon. Thank you, President Tracy. This resolution is not in response to the CNA report, obviously, because we don't have the CNA report. When we have the CNA report, I think we want to go through some thoughtful process to respond to it and we have no reason to believe we will have it anytime before September 30th. So I was going to say something to Councilor Hanson's comment that it's not clear that this is temporary. I did not put the word temporary in this really just because I don't think it really means anything unless that's defined. And I think that there's common agreement at the table that we're going to do something different after getting that report. What that different thing is, I really don't know. But this only holds until we do something else. So it is by nature temporary. And I will again plead with the Council to just stop the bleeding now. You can't postpone it and then stop the bleeding when the patient's already dead. And we don't have the opportunity to get into the police academy that we're hoping happens in October. To do that, we can miss that opportunity by postponing to September. I think that's the most likely thing. But the sooner, the better because it fills up. So it's not like there's a day that you can say you have to do it by this date. We don't know what that is from what Chief Murad just told us. So let's give ourselves the opportunity to stop the bleeding. Thank you. Okay, Councilor Barlow. Yes, thank you President Tracy. I'd just like to add that this resolution will not result in a police force with 82 officers. We'll be lucky if we can keep the force between 70 and 74. What this will do is send a message to the department that we are committed to safe working conditions for them to staffing that will allow them to do their jobs effectively and potentially keep us from falling further than we're already going to fall as a result of current attrition. Thank you. Thank you. I have no one else in the queue. Are we ready to vote on the motion to postpone? Councilor Hanson. Yeah, I just want to brief so we can just get to a vote on this. Yeah, I want to reiterate because it came back again. I think it's really important the rhetoric and just not tying the shootings and the violence to this as if it's this one-to-one. If we take action tonight, that will go away. If we don't, that will continue. I think that's really dangerous rhetoric. We should not be putting that out into the community and that's just not the reality. A, because of the logistics of how this would play out in either scenario, this change wouldn't happen immediately. But B, that's not proven out. That's a very heavily disputed fact, whether or not more police or less police leads to more crime. I was visiting family in Chicago two weeks ago and there were 70 shootings in a weekend and that's a very heavily policed community. But police are responding to these shootings. They're not preventing them in many cases. So I think it's important that we don't go there with this and I agree with what Councillor Jang had to say. Okay, Mayor Weinberger and then Councillor Jang again, encouraging folks to be brief so that we can start to get to a vote on this motion to postpone. Mayor Weinberger. Thank you, President Tracey. I just want to make the point very quickly that the September 30th date is the outside date per the contract. I know that Taisha and the REIB team are working hard to bring it in in advance of that and it may well be earlier in September. I think it's likely given how hard they're working on it. It will be in earlier in September. So I just want to make that clarification while not, of course, in any way changing my other points. I thought that was important clarification. Thank you Mayor. Councillor Jang and again, please be brief. Very quick. So yes, I think I also have to recognize the police officers that responded effectively to those shootings and again criminals are being caught by our police officers. I think that needs to be very clear. And also to Councillor Hanson's point, this is right because many community members they feel as if we vote yesterday, tomorrow we'll have new police officers and that's not the case. Completely not the case. And lastly, the term let's stop the bleeding I think is overrated. There is no blood to be stopped right here. There is just the consequences of our mistake that we are dealing with. Thank you. Okay, are you ready to vote on the motion to postpone? Okay, seeing none, let's go to a vote. Councillor Hanson, please be brief. This is the third. I just want to understand if we vote to postpone, is there any way to move forward on the CSL component? No. Okay, thank you. Okay, are you ready to vote? Will the city clerk please call the roll? Councillor Barlow. No. Councillor Carpenter. No. No. Councillor Jang. Yes. Councillor Freeman. Yes. Councillor Hanson. No. Councillor Mason. No. Councillor Paul. No. Councillor Shannon. No. Councillor Strongberg. Yes. City Council President Tracy. Yes. Rise, six nays, one absent. The motion to postpone fails and we are back to debate now. Thank you. I asked for the original motion. I have Councillor Shanan and Mayor Weinberger to on that. I'll just briefly say that my reference to the patient dying wasn't referencing a person, but rather the hemorrhaging from the police department and that the police department is the patient dying in the analogy. Thank you. you earlier. Okay, thank you. Just wanted to come back and make sure. All right, Councilor Paul. In the interest of time, I'll pass. Okay, I don't have anyone else in the queue. Are we ready to go to a vote? Councilor Hanson. If we're about to vote, I guess I would ask that we divide the question then. Okay. I mean the two. What is your motion to divide? It would be the second resolve. Well, yeah, the first and second resolve clause being divided from the third and fourth resolve clause. So grouping the first two and the third and fourth. Can you please state the lines, Councilor Hanson, that you're looking to divide? So the division would take place after line, at the end of line 29. Okay. So cutting out lines 30 through 34, separating those out from lines 26 through 29. Okay. All right. So we have a motion to divide the question. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Councillor Stromberg. City Attorney St. James, is motion to divide is not debatable. Correct? That's correct. Okay. So we have a motion and a second on the item to divide on the question to divide. The motion to divide the question between the first two resolve clauses and the latter two resolve clauses. Is everybody clear on that? Okay. Will the city clerk please call the role on the motion to divide the question? Councillor Barlow. No. Councillor Carpenter. Yes. Councillor Jang. No. Councillor Freeman. Yes. Councillor Hanson. Yes. Councillor Mason. No. Councillor Paul. Yes. Councillor Shannon. No. Councillor Strongberg. Yes. City Council President Tracy. Yes. Six eyes, four names, one accent. Okay. So the question has been divided and we will now go to a vote on the motion as the question as divided. Councillor Paul. So President Tracy, just so I understand the motion to divide is not debatable. However, now that we've done that motion, isn't there an opportunity for further discussion or no? Sure. Yeah. Actually, you're right. Correct. Is that right? Okay. I think I'm well, I think with the exception of Councillor Freeman, I may be the only one that has not spoken this evening about this. It's just a very interesting dynamic of what is going on here in terms of even just a motion to divide. I find fascinating. You know, to me, what is compelling is that, you know, there's been a lot of discussion tonight about, you know, the decision on the racial justice resolution, whether or not there was data, whether or not that was a good decision, you know, a year ago, we were in a very different place than potentially we are this evening. And those who voted for it felt that it was the right decision to make. You know, have things changed at all since then? I think some things have. And I think that it is incumbent upon leaders to acknowledge when, you know, things haven't played out exactly as we might have thought they were going to play out a year ago and to acknowledge what is going on in this community now. One of the things that is, so there's two things that I just wanted to mention, and that is first that I was surprised that the police commission unanimously passed the resolution that they passed. I really was. And in fact, I mean, I've known some of the people on the police commission for, in some cases, a decade and would never have thought that they would have voted for that resolution, but they did. And the people that are on the police commission are a very broadly, a broad group of people who represent all parts of the city come from all different walks of life, have spoken passionately about a number of items that have come before them over the past year. And yet they all voted to pass this resolution. So I think that's a pretty compelling argument. The other thing I just also wanted to mention, and I think Councilor Stromberg mentioned this as well as a few others, is that I think it's unfortunate that we're getting ourselves sort of mired in the whole thing about the number of officers. It's unfortunate. I know that it's reality, but I think it's unfortunate because what this really is really about is transformative change. And we still need to tackle the issue of the way that officers are trained, clearer accountability, oversight, which we have all hotly debated about how we deal with oversight and how we deal with community control on the way that officers interact with the community. How are we going to rebuild trust with our community and the officers so that there is a collaborative approach? We still haven't answered those most important questions. We're spending a lot of time talking about the difference between 74 and 82. And it's interesting because last year, the racial justice resolution went to 74. Two days later, we were voting on the budget. And there was a discussion in the budget about giving ourselves a little bit of wiggle room because we didn't know how quickly we would get to 74. And someone had wanted 84. I know for myself I had planned to introduce an amendment to get to 82. We never got that far because by a vote of seven to five, we got to the 74. And that's sort of why I think we find ourselves in the position to some degree that we're in tonight. I do think this is temporary and I am willing to support this to a large degree based on the police commission's decision. The fact that it is temporary, the fact that we have made progress and are continuing to make progress with the CSL, CSOs, and particularly with the CAHOOTS model, which I think we have all advocated strongly for. I am glad that we are dividing the question because I want people to have the opportunity to vote yes, if they can possibly vote yes. And I hope that they will do that this evening. And I appreciate the discourse and everyone's perspective. I hope we can get ourselves to a better place this evening. And thank you again for listening to me. Thank you, Councillor Paul. Any further comments? Okay, seeing none, are we ready to go to a vote? Point of information. I'm not sure what we're voting on the first two resolve classes. Correct? I'm going to get to that. Thank you. So we're going to be... But I'm sorry, are we talking only about the first or is there going to be open discussion on the second? No, please. Yeah, so what I'm saying is that we're going to be going to a vote on... One and then the other. One and then... One immediately followed by the other. Thank you. May I... Sorry, briefly get in the queue then. I am somewhat struggling to go through the intellectual gymnastics to understand why we would vote... Or why anyone would vote down 82 before the report comes in, but then move forward on other hirings before the report comes in. I'm just... That's from my process. I'm not... I mean, other than one's a sworn officer, one's a CSL, my expectation is the report will address anticipated hirings on both. So I don't understand how one could get to that place. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Mason. Ready to go to a vote on both of the question as divided. Okay. Point of order. We're voting on the first two resolve clauses first. Yes. Can I please just read the questions? I'll get to the questions and then we'll vote. So I will read the question. So now what we're going to vote on first is that are the two resolve clauses that state now therefore be it resolved that the Burlington City Council concurs and supports the recommendations of the police commission and be it further resolved that the city council respectfully request that the police chief and the mayor immediately begin the long process of hiring officers up to a new cap of 82 officers. And that is what we're voting on in this first vote. Is everybody clear? Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So is everybody clear? Okay. Let's go to a vote on those first two resolve clauses. Will the city clerk please call the roll. Councillor Barlow. Yes. Councillor Carpenter. Yes. Councillor Jang. No. Councillor Freeman. No. Councillor Hanson. No. Councillor Mason. Yes. Councillor Paul. Yes. Councillor Shannon. Yes. Councillor Stronger. No. City Council President Tracy. No. The ayes five nays one absent. The first question fails. We will now move into a vote on the second resolved clause. The third and fourth resolve clause that state be it further resolved that the city council approves the immediate hiring of two community support service liaisons by BPD to be placed at CJC with the provision that the placement be reviewed in three months by the public safety committee and be it further resolved that the mayor and police chief shall report back to the city council at its next meeting with the strategy for recruitment and retention of police officers. Everybody clear? Okay. Will the city clerk please call the roll. Councillor Barlow. Yes. Councillor Carpenter. Yes. Councillor Jang. No. Councillor Hanson. Yes. Councillor Mason. No. Councillor Mason. No. Councillor Paul. Yes. Councillor Shannon. Yes. Councillor Strongberg. Yes. City Council President Tracy. Yes. Ayes two nays one absent. The motion carries. So that portion of the question passes. So we have now completed our deliberative agenda. A motion to adjourn is in order. So moved. Moved by Councillor Stromberg. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Hanson. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favour please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously and we are adjourned at 12. 36 a.m.