Burlington to Essex as part of a prioritized reestablishment of the Western Rail Corridor. This upgrade could happen over a single construction season. The fact that this upgrade will allow the Ethan Allen to simply just stop in Burlington and continue on through was never taken into consideration in the study on a location to service and park Amtrak. Even though the pending upgrade will render such Amtrak overnighting as unnecessary. Or at least just a stopgap situation. So this first issue overnighting and servicing Amtrak in Burlington should just be a window until the train can continue north to St. Albans in the largest rail yard in Vermont. Our rail council tabled its recommendation on overnighting Amtrak until December when your city's voice could be a major influence on that decision. The second issue, a second track extending actually past College Street is a decision that the city has considerable weight in considering. The track would be laid on state land, not railroad land. The double track will cross both College and King Streets effectively creating more separation of Burlington's main streets from the lake. Don't let anyone tell you this is a done deal. The sources to pay for this building second track, all the costs associated with it have not been identified. In fact, the total costs for the double track to the state and to the city have yet to be itemized and presented. Your voice, the city's voice will be a major factor as the legislature continues this yet to be proposed expenditure. So thanks again for your consideration. Thank you, Mr. Moulton, Brad Penningill to be followed by Cindy Cook. Good evening, Mr. Penningill, welcome. I thought I had three minutes, but I only have two, correct? Two minutes. Okay. I'm Brad Penningill, I work at one main street. And in the past 30 years, main street landing has transformed an industrial wasteland into a bright, smart, people-friendly area teaming with activity. The businesses brought to the area, the bike path, the echo center, the boat house and the waterfront park have become Burlington's new cultural center. Thousands enjoy this beautiful area that celebrates our natural environment and inspires me to see this area revitalized. People come here for leisure, recreation, education, community activity, exercise, tourism and business. It's an open, uninterrupted space which encourages access to Lake Champlain, our city's greatest acts asset. Adding another rail line is a waste of money and precious space. It will be an eyesore, it would impede foot traffic, people would be subjected to diesel fumes, sewage disposal, unnecessary crowding, noise and confusion. The chaos and construction would disrupt daily life and alienate people who walk and shop here. Businesses, depending on this foot traffic, would also suffer and it's unnecessary since there is already a rail yard two minutes south. The bike path comfortably accommodates cyclists, runners, families with strollers, seniors, kids, wheelchairs and people walking their dogs all at the same time. At a second rail line, all that goes away. The international fire codes as a fire department access road has to be at least 20 feet wide so how can this path possibly be reduced to a claustrophobic eight feet? How does a nine foot wide fire trucker, an eight foot wide ambulance, make an emergency call down an eight foot wide corridor between a train and a building and still have room for firefighters and EMTs to do their job? We are known as a city for our quality of life. Fresh air and mountain views, a beautiful lake and emphasis on a healthy activity and a great place to raise a family. We're pioneers in sustainable energy, environmental stewards and we must protect this extraordinary area. Let's not go backwards and return it to a monotone of steel, smoke and stink. Let's continue to improve and grow this unique. Thank you, Mr. Pattengill. Preserve it for our children. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Pattengill. Cindy Cook, to be followed by Erica Redick. Good evening, Ms. Cook, welcome. Good evening. Well, these wheels are a little tricky here. Good evening, everyone. I'm here to speak to the proposed housing policy reform so you'll be voting on later tonight. And I think these are an excellent start, but I'd encourage you to have active stakeholder engagement to really look at the details to it because I think that some of them have unintended consequences. And the one I'll speak to is the short-term rentals because that's the one that I have most direct experience with. Two thirds of the short-term rental hosts are women. One third of them are over 60. I fit in both demographics. And for us, for this demographic, I think the income from short-term rentals is something that's essential for us to be able to continue to own our homes and continue to age in place. Obviously, we're already aging in place because we're over 60, but we'd like to continue to do that. I'm an active member of my neighborhood, my community. I think most of hosts who live in the area are. I use short-term rental income to make improvements to the property that helps both the property itself and enhances the neighborhood. If changes are made so that my short-term income is reduced, I'll have to sell my house. And it's a duplex. It's very likely that some absentee landlord will buy it because it's great income potential for that. And we know what that looks like when neighborhoods have more and more houses that are flipped from residential to absentee landlord facilities. So let's see. I guess I just want to make sure I haven't missed any points here. I guess what I'd encourage you to do is to take a serious look at making sure that the drafters make it possible for residents to continue to own their homes, make it possible for people to age in place and maintain the character and quality of the neighborhoods. Thanks. Thank you, Ms. Cook. Erica Redick to be followed by Ellen Hunt. Good evening, Ms. Redick. Welcome. Simple addition dictates that if you make it more expensive for me to own my property, the more I will have to charge in rent. This will be the inevitable effect of most of the initiatives outlined at the Housing Summit. Another example of the city of Burlington deflecting blame for its part in causing the affordability crisis. I implore the council to vote no on every initiative other than ADUs. My tenants already have more rights to my property than I do. I assume all of the cost and all of the risk for everything that can and does go wrong. Yet if I have a tenant who refuses to pay rent, I'm the one who loses my home. One real solution that would make it feasible for residents and businesses to start new and infill construction projects is to decrease the regulations. Right now, only huge, big, bad corporations like Brookfield can afford to assume the risk of building here.  Another obvious solution is to force UVM to build housing on campus and require students to live there. The University and Medical Center hold 20% of Burlington's assessed property, yet they only contribute about $770,000 of what would be an $8.2 million property tax bill to the city. In other words, they pay almost nothing for the infrastructure they utilize while owning over $1 billion in assets. In addition to what the university owns, it commandeers the rest of Burlington for its dormitories. Long-term residents are essentially subsidizing the housing cost for wealthy teenagers from out of state to attend our award-winning party school. Said college students, whom I can't discriminate against, destroy their apartments, and us landlords have to pay thousands of dollars in repairs over and above the deposit we're allowed to collect. I ask again that the city council say no to all of these initiatives and that renters and landlords fight together against their common enemy, the city and the state, rather than each other. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Radick. Alan Hunt is up next to be followed by Patrick Murphy. Good evening, Mr. Hunt. Welcome. Good evening. Point of clarification. I was here to talk about the Form 5 public hearing. It's going to be held rather than, should I wait? It's up to you. You can speak now, or you can speak when we have that public hearing coming up in a short while. I'll speak now. I'll speak now. This is concerning the public hearing on the Form 5 boundaries. I live on Maple Street, 89 Maple. I've been following this issue for pretty much as long as it's been going on. And I have to tell you, I'm very concerned about sort of the process, not necessarily the properties that are involved, but the process seemed to be a case where a group of people, presumably city employees in the planning department, decided that they wanted to encourage the development or the upgrading of certain parcels of land in and around Ward 5. And to me, it wasn't an open process. There was no process for anybody to come forward and say, I'd like my property to be considered. I happen to have one that I think should be considered. I was told by the city the committee wasn't interested. So it really smacks of spot zoning, frankly. There wasn't a process for allowing the public, or certainly people that own property within this area, to come forward and ask for inclusion. And as you might guess, if you get into this Form 5 thing, property values are going to increase significantly. So I questioned the process more than the actual properties that were picked out. I did attend meetings, and there was this back and forth. Well, let's put that property in. Let's take that property out, et cetera, et cetera. So I ask you to consider that when you look at this process. All right. Thank you, Mr. Hunt. Patrick Murphy, to be followed by Jessica Oskie. Any luck, General 17? We're on, because OK, great. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Murphy. Welcome. Thank you. Thanks, sir, our mayor, city council, city staff, particularly at BED and DPW for their support of car sharing thus far. Not surprisingly, we think that with even more support in policy and in practice, we can greatly increase the impact of our collective efforts. There are a fair number of policies we propose, which we think could help better create conditions for car sharing and, in turn, encourage more walking, biking, and transit trips as a result. A way of time constraints, though, I want to focus on the issue where many others converge, namely parking. We offer our support for our current efforts on tonight's agenda to reduce parking minimums, to explore parking maximums, to properly price parking, and to require that developers better manage transportation and parking rather than build more of it and allow it to spill onto the street. All of this stems from the notion that the resources of public and private space are better spent on good things, like housing people rather than cars. And in order for Cauchy-Vermont to help achieve shared city goals around energy reduction, housing affordability, and production, sustainable transportation, and social equity, we also need access to a relatively small amount of that space to expand our operations, our membership, a number of people who might not own cars, whether by circumstances or choice. Just one of our spaces can serve over 200 members of the local public in a given year. And so by reserving a few spaces, more for shared vehicles instead of those privately owned, we're able to open these up to a broader group of people. And so I thank you very much for your time, for looking forward to discussing more of these issues, specifically at a committee at a later date, and to working with all of you in the months and years to come. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Jessica Oskie, come on down. You're up next. Welcome. Jack Daggett is up next. Jessica Oskie, 37 year resident of Burlington. I came when I was just an infant. I live in the South End, and I've been involved with Cauchy-Vermont since its inception in 2008 as a member and as a board member. And I just wanna say that I'm really proud of what Cauchy-Vermont has accomplished. It's not easy. This work is not easy. And Burlington is one of the most rural or low density communities in the world that's hosting a successful nonprofit car sharing organization. If it was easy and if it was profitable, you can be sure that Zipcar would be here and would be taking advantage of this opportunity. It's not an easy place to operate. So I want Burlington to take a moment and be proud of what we've accomplished and to know that together, if we're gonna work to achieve our climate goals, that car sharing needs to be part of that solution. And it's not easy to change behavior, but we've shown that we can do it and we can move it along, especially with the mayor's leadership. He's a great user of our service and we really appreciate that. So we look forward to you all being innovative and staying the course and thinking outside the box and working hard to improve the service for everybody. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Oskie and a happy belated 37th birthday to you. Jack Daggett is up next to be followed by Richie Burger. Good evening, Mr. Daggett. Welcome. Thank you. I'm Jack Daggett. I live in Burlington in Ward three. And the Church Street mural contains symbols that promotes a false narrative about Native Americans and people of color. The mural is clearly offensive and it's been up there seven years, enough's enough. And I think it's time that it came down. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Daggett. Richie Burger to be followed by Donnie and Julie LaFountain. Good evening, welcome. Good evening, thanks for having me. I'd like to speak about the plan by the Agency of Transportation to force the city of Burlington to tear up the bike pedestrian path between King and College Streets and why it's unnecessary. And I know Melinda has shared a notebook with a memorandum and documents and I know it's a long read, but I would encourage everyone to read it. I don't blame the city administration in this because they've been muscled, deceived and frankly pushed into the situation of acquiescing essentially into tearing up that bike path when it's unnecessary to bring Amtrak here. Totally unnecessary. It's proven by the documents that Melinda provided you. Once that bike path is torn up, that pedestrian path is torn up, you're never gonna get it back. And it may be impossible for the city council to stop it. I don't think it is impossible, but I really truly believe it's in the interest of the city, its citizens, its future residents to say no to AOT on this. The lack of transparency and candidly, the frank deception by the agency of transportation since 2016 as to the shifting explanations as to why the city should be forced to do that have each been proven false, inaccurate and unnecessary and time is short. The city council, if it's gonna stand up for the city and for the bike path and the waterfront needs to do it soon. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Berger. Good evening, welcome. Good evening, thank you. We're Julie and Donnie LaFountain. We are longtime car share members and we are honored to be speaking on behalf of Car Share Vermont. As- We're having trouble hearing you. This one does. As testimony to Car Share. But you, sorry, you got, there you go. It used to be a two car family until one by one they broke down and needed thousands of dollars of repair at the same time our son needed braces and was going off to college. So we were a no car family which worked all right for the most part except for there was always something we needed to get lumber at Lowe's or we needed to take our son to college or take our animals to the vets which left us to be holding on friends and family to drive us around which sometimes worked and sometimes didn't. So we were looking at purchasing another car or some other option and then we met Annie. And Annie worked with my wife and we became involved in car share in part because we have pets and it's really difficult to get somebody to say, oh yeah, go ahead, you know, take my car, drive your pet to the vet when they're really sick. So that opened up a world of opportunity for us. Now we're avid car share users. We don't have a car. We definitely use it quite often. We do the share a lot part of the program and what that's part of we helped us to do is not only do we use public transportation, not only do we use the car share but we have saved so much money by using these alternative methods on a personal note, we're able to buy a house. On other stuff we're able to donate back to the community through Hunger Free Vermont. It just has afforded us much more flexibility than we could have ever had if we had a $250 car payment with insurance, with the maintenance and the upkeep. So we wanted to just come here and praise car share. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much. Rick Sharp is up next to be followed by Jeff Comstock. I do wanna make sure that people understand that the moving of the bike path does not necessarily mean that means that we're going with the option of Amtrak being done at the location that the committee picked. That is not necessarily connected together. Just so everybody understands that. Good evening, Mr. Sharp, welcome. Good evening, thanks for the explanation. My name is Rick Sharp. My wife Ruth and I run Burlington Segways 277 Pine Street on Burlington, so we're on the waterfront all the time and we see what goes on down there all the time. As most of you know, I've been active over the past 35 years in promoting the bike path. I've watched with great interest as our waterfront was miraculously converted from a derelict industrial wasteland to the park bike path and the waterfront we all enjoy today. The city has made some very wise investments over the last 35 years with the bike path, the waterfront and the church street marketplace. The result is an explosion of new hotels downtown. The city went from one hotel to four hotels in the space of eight years. That's a remarkable event proof of a flourishing downtown. Clearly the future of our waterfront is tourism, recreation, festivals, events, people-oriented activities, not new unnecessary rail sightings. I support Melinda Moulton in her opposition to the addition of a rail siding in front of Union Station. Rail sightings belong at rail yards, not behind the students treatment plant or up in St. Albans. There are much better alternatives here. So I hope you clearly take a close look at this issue and I think the city does not have to buckle under to the railroad or to the Department of Transportation. What Mr. Berger had to say tonight is very important for you to recognize there are other options there. I also think Mr. Fowler's idea of having the trains stored up in St. Albans, much better plan. Even if that takes longer to do it, that leads to a connection from Rutland all the way through Burlington to St. Albans and eventually to Montreal. Much blood planned for the city of the long run. So I hope you will be mindful of the investment that you made over the last 35 years and has resulted in the beautiful city we have today and not take a step backwards by putting another rail line in at Union Station. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sharp. Mr. Jeff Comstock is up next to be followed by Cindy White. Good evening, Mr. Comstock, welcome. Good evening, I live in Ward 7. I have three thoughts about the non-citizen voting resolution. The resolution states that approximately 3,200 Burlington residents are ineligible to vote because they're refugees not yet eligible for US citizenship. Not yet eligible really has nothing to do with it. They simply are not US citizens. Eligibility doesn't mean people become citizens. There is a path to citizenship for a reason and the right to vote is one of the most valuable prices. Non-voting citizens in this case with a focus on refugees is nothing more than political pandering, in my opinion. On town meeting day, Burlington had 40,426 registered voters and guess what, only 8,112 people voted.  The resolution has grand introductory language about community building through engagement. Based on town meeting day participation, the city is failing miserably to engage the voters it already has. The city council is trying to fix the wrong problem. In addition, the population of Burlington is approximately 43,000. How is it that we have 40,000 plus registered voters? How many of those are non-resident college students that vote on our property taxes, our legislators, our city leadership, which includes all of you and much more and then move away? More political pandering and again, the city council is trying to fix the wrong problem. And finally, my wife and I work as polling place volunteers on election day. Based on that experience, how does the city clerk plan to accommodate the need for multiple voter checklist? To vote in city-only elections and receive the correct ballots, voters will have to self-identify as non-residents. Think about that for a moment. We don't even ask people to declare their political party when we vote in primary elections. The identity logistic in this proposal is not okay just because Burlington wants to create special treatment for one class of people. If non-residents are required to identify for the purpose of voting, how is that any different than requiring them to use a special check-out line at the grocery store? The hypocrisy of this proposal is obvious if you think about it. Therefore, I contend that the ordinance committee should not waste its time on this proposal. Thank you. Cindy White is to be followed by Sydney Ovid. Good evening, Ms. White, welcome. Thank you. So I'm here in my role as Director of Park Recreation Waterfront. I just wanted to thank John Bossange. He's not here now, but I wanted to thank John for his eight years of service on the Park Recreation Commission. John went to the dark side. He moved to South Burlington. So he could no longer be on the commission, but John did a lot of work for our department. He very often would be passionately if there was a Park Recreation Initiative going on right here that we wanted his support on. He was always willing to come to the meetings and speak up as he spoke up on other topics tonight. So big thanks to John and we're fortunate though in that the Park Foundation does not have any lines drawn as far as where you can be from. So he continues to serve with the Parks Foundation doing great work for the city of Burlington. Thank you, Ms. White. And we all, I think, agree with that sentiment about John Bossange and a little round of applause for all that. I wish he was still here. We did thank him down in the Board of Finance, but he has done an incredible amount for the city of Burlington. And also, Ms. White, we'll pass on your kind remarks to the South Burlington City Council. Sydney Ovid is up next. Hi, I'm Sydney. I'm a student at UVM. I'm here to speak about the downtown mural, like many others here today. I have only been here for three years, but I didn't find out about it until this year. Excuse me, my colleague Lee brought it up in our racism and race relations class. I am studying to be a social worker. So as someone who intends to work with communities in need, I find it incredibly offensive that the city would not or would, excuse me, refuse to take down a mural that is whitewashed and that neglects the history of the Abanaqui people whose land we are on today. Sorry, I'm very underprepared. I feel like as a city that prides itself constantly on being extremely welcoming to refugees and new Americans that this mural does not portray that welcomeness. I think if I were a new American and saw a mural that was supposed to depict the history of this new scary town that I arrived in, I would be terrified because it is full of white people and not a single person of color. And yeah, I think it's offensive and I think that it should be moved to be taken down as soon as possible so that less people can see it. It just reinforces white supremacy which we already seem to have a big enough problem with. Thank you. Thank you very much. Lisa LaRocque is up next to be followed by Trisha Gray. Good evening, welcome. Hello, I'm Liza. You're close though. I'm also here today to discuss the mural.  You and I have the privilege of looking at this mural and seeing ourselves represented in this city's history. We see a nice picture. For those who do not identify as white, it is a glaringly obvious about who is being excluded. This mural is a whitewashed version of our city's history and fully disregards the presence and contributions of people of color in this city. I'm here to advocate for the immediate removal of this mural and thus the condemnation of white supremacy by the city. Thank you. Thank you very much. Trisha Gray to be followed by Kelly Devine. Good evening, Miss Gray, welcome. Thank you. I would like to address some of the housing policy reform. Specifically, I would like to address how STRs are currently being defined, that's short-term rentals. Specifically that they are being considered non-residential in use. Short-term rentals actually are and continue to be residential rentals and should be treated as such by the city. Owners and tenants who offer rooms or units should comply with the city housing standards for rental property and register as you would any rental. Those offering short-term rentals should also be compliant with the state and local requirements for rooms and meals taxes and fire safety. Rental properties should not be forced to obtain a change of use to rent on a short-term basis as they are truly not hotels or bed and breakfasts. Short-term rentals are residential uses of the property. Renters are using the property for ordinary living purposes such as peaceful occupancy, sleeping and eating. This use remains residential no matter how short the rental duration. A home, apartment or room is used for residential purposes any time it is used as a place of abode even if the persons occupying the dwelling are residing there temporarily during a vacation or business visit. Short-term rentals should be considered in the same classification as residential rentals due to the fact that even if the properties are rented to different persons every night the renters are using the property solely for ordinary living purposes. The need for long-term housing is understood and please acknowledge the value of short-term rentals as flexible housing whether it be for a night or six months or a year. Consider that restrictive policies also tread very closely to denying property owners the free and unrestricted use of their real property. In closing, please recognize that short-term rentals are residential rentals and should be governed by the same or very similar guidelines and laws as long-term rentals. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Gray. Kelly Devine is up next to be followed by the final speaker for tonight, Regina Mahoney. Kelly and Ms. Devine. Good evening, thank you, President Wright. Just here to speak on behalf of Moving Forward 6.05, the slate of housing initiatives. As some of you know, our organization is very interested in figuring out ways together that we can expand the housing base. We've been working on this since 2014 when we held a housing summit because really the level of vacancy and the quality of housing does not meet the real need we have in this city mainly for anyone who wants to live here but especially as we look at the problems of workforce development and trying to keep our young people here, they seem to be particularly challenged in finding adequate housing. As many of you know and thanks again for the support on the work we're doing on parking and transportation management, we've been working on that since 2015 and we had talked back then about the parking minimums and I think we've made some really good strides working in partnership with the city and the Department of Public Works and we'd like to see a robust discussion about the parking minimum piece and see how that figures into a real solution for our community that both allows more housing, helps reduce the cost burden of housing and also helps encourage alternative modes. I loved hearing from that couple who just were big fans of car share. I think it's a good example of how when people are motivated to have transportation choice, the community has resources for them. It's really a great coming together and I do think that piece in particular can help us take our transportation solutions to the next level. We're particularly interested in accessory dwelling units which is a way to allow people to, we heard a woman speak about age in place and allow more housing opportunities and a variety of housing opportunities and then finally the short term rental regulation really needs to be looked at. It seems really clear from the data that that's having an impact on our available housing stock. So we're really looking forward to having a further discussion and seeing these things go to committee and being part of that dialogue. So thank you for moving it forward. Thank you, Ms. Devine. Regina Mahoney is up next to be followed by the final speaker, Erhard Maki. Good evening and welcome. Hello, thank you. Charlie Baker from Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission sent you folks some comments on the housing reforms last week. So I'm just gonna touch on a few of those. We are in support of the housing reform resolution. We really think they're going in the right direction for smart growth and will help increase more homes, decrease single occupancy vehicle travel and make improvements to energy efficiency. Particularly the Housing Trust Fund, we are in support of that and maybe even more so as a resident, let you know that I am in support of that. With the Building Homes Together campaign in the first three years, we have met the total housing target, but we have continued to fall short on the affordable target and a lack of capital is one of the reasons for that. So any help that you can do here would be great. ADUs, they're a really great way to try to address our housing shortage without having a big land use impact. So anything you can do to reduce the regulatory barriers on those would be great. Short-term rentals, I love staying in Airbnb is when I go travel places. So I understand the value of them, but I do think in our tight housing market, we do need to take a look at what impact they're having on our actual housing supply. We support the elimination of parking minimums and along with that really support implementation of the parking study. One of the things in the parking study was to try to put some wayfinding in place so that when residents and visitors come to the downtown, they can easily try to find where parking is available. We think that would be a helpful thing to go along with that. And we support the energy efficiency work in the rental housing as well. And just wanna say we've got about at least by our count, 14 municipalities in the county really working on this stuff. So we appreciate your leadership and just know you're not alone. Thank you very much. Final speaker, Erhard Monkey. Good evening, welcome. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Good evening, council members, mayor. Thank you for this resolution, mayor. Thanks for your leadership on bringing these initiatives forward through the summit, the two-part summit. I'm speaking, by the way, just on behalf of myself as a long-time person involved in affordable housing and community development in the area, not representing any organization. Support in concept, all of the initiatives, especially the Housing Trust Fund, it's been a long time coming. Mayor, thanks for including the extra money in the budget for the last few years. I think it's high time to ensure that that's immune to any kind of policy changes and that it's embedded in the charter and that it's done in a way that is gonna survive the next reappraisal to make sure that the same amount remains in it, unlike the last reappraisal where we lost ground and basically the value of a penny for the Housing Trust Fund was severely devalued to almost half a penny. I totally support ADUs as another way of increasing the housing stock. I would urge you to look at when you get to the details and the committee structure looks at these things to make sure that they don't become a new vehicle for short-term rentals. I am very concerned about short-term rentals, as I know many of you are. I think we do need to protect owner occupants, especially people who are renting short-term rentals within their home, rooms in their home, and I would say up to possibly one or two whole units in a multi-family apartment building. I would not go much more than one or two units. I really think that you're taking away from the real need, which is the long-term rental market. So in looking at the detail memo from staff about the proposal for short-term rentals, I think there are many fine points there. There's many protections in there. I like making it subject to the demolition replacement ordinance, but I urge you to take a look at really severely limiting the absolute number of units because I'm concerned about the erosion. And thank you, Mr. Monkey. How was it? Thank you. That concludes tonight's public forum. Thank you to everyone for giving us your viewpoints and doing it respectfully. For the most part, item number five. The next item is the Consent Agenda. Councillor Busher. Yes, I'd like to move to adopt the Consent Agenda and take the actions indicated. Councillor Busher has moved the Consent Agenda. Is there a second? Someone? Seconded by Councillor Pine. Any discussion? All those in favor of passing the Consent Agenda, taking the actions indicated, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We have passed the Consent Agenda. I am now going to recess at 831. Mr. Mayor. Thanks, President Wright. I'll call the order of the Board of Tax Abavement at 832 and would welcome a motion on the agenda. So thank you, Councillor Polino. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Paul. Discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. And that brings us to the Consent Agenda. And I recognize President Wright for a motion on the Consent Agenda. Move to pass the Consent Agenda and take the actions indicated. Excellent. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Hanson. Discussion? Councillor Busher. Just wanted to see if anyone, if either of the individuals were here, the appellants were here tonight and wanted to speak before we acted. Is there anyone who would like to speak to the two Board of Tax Abavement Consent Items? Seeing no interest in that, I will go back to the motion on the floor. And if there's no further discussion, we'll take a vote. All those in favor of improving the Consent Agenda, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. And we are adjourned as a Board of Tax Abavement at 833 PM. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Very efficient. Back to the deliberative agenda. Item number five point, excuse me, 6.01, special event outdoor entertainment permit. Councillor Roof. Thank you, President Wright. We'd like to move 6.01, a special event outdoor entertainment permit application, one day only church street marketplace district in front of outdoor gear exchange at 37 Church on the block between Bank and Cherry. Thursday, October 17, 2019, 7 PM to 10 PM for a film screening. Moved by Councillor Roof. Seconded by Councillor Polino. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Item number 6.02 is a special event outdoor entertainment permit. Councillor Roof. They can move approval of a 24-hour total special event outdoor entertainment permit application for the Flint Center for the Performing Arts. Church Street outside of City Hall by the fountain, 102419 to 102519, 12 PM to 12 PM, 24 hours total. 24-hour protest song, violinist amplified music, yes, but restricted amplified music, no amplified music between the hours of 2 AM and 7 AM. Moved by Councillor Roof. Seconded by Councillor Hanson. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Item 6.03 is a public hearing regarding the Comprehensive Development Ordinance, ZA-20-01, Form District 5 Boundaries. Councillor Mason. I believe the appropriate action will just be open to public hearing. So open to public hearing, anyone who wishes to speak on that ordinance. Come on up. And just identify yourself, please. Good evening. My name is Jonathan Farrell. I'm here in the capacity as Facilities Director for the Committee on Temporary Shelter. We are the owners of 187189 Church Street, better known to many of you as the Wilson Hotel. And we are in favor of our parcel being included into the Form District 5 boundaries. As Burlington grows and changes, we would like to also have the ability to follow Form District code and potentially expand the most affordable housing in our city. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else would like to speak in the public hearing? Hearing none, going once, going twice, gone. And we will close that public hearing and move to the actual ordinance 6.04, Councilor Mason. Thank you, President Wright. I'd like to make a motion to waive the second reading, adopt the ordinance, and ask for the floor back after a second. Seconded by Councilor Bushier. Councilor Mason, you have the floor back. Thank you, President Wright. The amendment before us seeks to modify the proposed boundaries of Form District 5 to include additional properties located along the boundaries of the current district, which is pretty much downtown for those watching. Properties considered for inclusion in FD5 district were evaluated for their current use, future potential use, development intensity, and compatibility with adjacent properties. They've been recommended to be included in the FD5 in order to include the type and intensity of future infill or redevelopment with adjacent properties to enable greater flexibility for expansion or reuse of existing uses and structures and to reduce existing non-conforming, excuse me, non-conformities. There are 19 parcels that are being recommended for advancement. I think it's important to sort of talk about procedure and how we got here before turning it over to the Planning Commission. So to go into the way back time machine, we started the conversation on adopting form-based code, I don't even know, 2015. This council adopted after substantial conversations form-based code in 2017. At that time, before the Joint Committee, they were recommended that the form district be actually larger than what was advanced. And that was based on the Joint Committee's recommendation that let's start small, see how this goes, and then come back to the table to consider those additional parcels. This was started as a result of that conversation and was spurred in part by Mike Trombley at Advanced Music, who reached out to the Planning Commission with some limitations in terms of what he was able to do with his property, and that has one of, that spurred a larger conversation by the Planning Commission. Again, looking at specific blocks and trying to figure out in terms of our goal, in terms of incentivizing infill development, should we be looking at allowing greater density in those surrounding parcels. So the Planning Commission did that, I've gotta look, in 2018, our ordinance committee, city councils held a series of hearings in 2018. That was a different ordinance committee, the one that is constituted now. We advanced that forward, subsequent in 2018, subsequent to that, I will admit that the public input at that point was limited, to say the least. Subsequent to that, there were a number of neighbors, particularly on South Champlain Street that approached, and King Street that approached, and that forced the ordinance committee to go back and revisit some of the recommendations in terms of the parcels. Based on that conversation that ended, actually there were a series of hearings that ended in June, that is a result of the 19 parcels that were put forth back to the Planning Commission, again, because we changed what they were recommending. The Planning Commission then advanced this, which was verbatim what the ordinance committee had recommended in August. However, I will note for the record that they've reserved the right to say, look, we may not agree with you, that the parcels you pulled out shouldn't be included, and they sort of reserved their right down the road to ask us to put those back in. So that's the process of why we got here. I wanna speak a little bit to some of the public, and I appreciate it may have been a little confusing, but Ms. Tuttle did walk our ordinance committee as she did with the Planning Commission, literally property by property to see, is this right? Does this, you know, is this a parcel that we, as a body, are going to recommend be subject to form District Five? I will say, from my perspective, it was a reasoned process, and it was also, I think, responsive to objections and concerns that we heard from the public. So with that, I would ask sort of, I think we're on a good move here in terms of trying to move the infill development, the affordable housing needle forward, and I think this is an important step to continuing those efforts. I would note Ms. Tuttle is here to answer any technical questions, or also turn it over if you have a statement to make above and beyond what I've stated. Megan, do you have anything to add or? One small thing, I think Councilor Mason did a wonderful job of summarizing the history of this amendment and all of the changes that it's gone through. One thing that I will add is that in the, both in the Planning Commission's discussions and in the City Council Ordinance Committee discussions, as Councilor Mason said, we looked at every single property and the very specific reasons why each property was being recommended to be included in this district. In many cases, we did the same thing for properties that were ultimately not recommended to be in this district. And of the criteria that Councilor Mason noted, the Planning Commission was looking at, the compatibility and the relationship to neighboring properties was one of the biggest factors in determining where the Planning Commission and the City Council Ordinance Committee ended those boundary lines for these proposed changes. Oftentimes, the potential for commercial uses to expand further into residential areas was a great limiting factor. That said, the Planning Commission has identified the need to revisit the conversation in these neighborhoods that are right immediately adjacent to the downtown area and look at essentially a form district four kind of district which allows some more of that flexibility for the intensity of development, the number of units, but maybe not all of the commercial benefits of the form district five boundary. So I anticipate this will be a discussion that we will have again. All right, thank you. Start out with Councilor Shannon. Thank you, President Wright. I wanna thank Megan Tuttle and David White and Councilor Mason and the Ordinance Committee all for being really very responsive, I think, to public concerns about this. And the basis of a lot of that concern is that form district five is a commercial district. There was concern in the neighborhood that they were going from a residential district to a commercial district. And I think that that was a legitimate concern. And I appreciate, Megan, especially your responsiveness both in email and personally to explaining kind of why you had reached the conclusions that you had and taking another look at this. I think it is better for all of that effort and not everybody will agree. But I actually was pleased with this process and would note to Mr. Hunt that it is an ongoing process and that we can still have more discussions going forward. FD4 is a more residential form district. And so perhaps that offers something that the neighbors would see as more amenable to preserving their neighborhood character, really. And I just wanted, I was hoping that Councillor Mason might clarify my understanding from reading this is that the Cots building Wilson hotel is included in this FD5, correct? Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Shannon. Councillor Pine. Thank you, Mr. President. I have succeeded in knocking this cup over all night. Luckily it's empty. Having been involved in several of these processes over my, during my tenure at CEDO, I know how painstaking it is. There are some parcels and I unfortunately recognize every parcel here, practically I can tell you who owns it maybe, but there's a bunch that don't seem to make a lot of sense to me because you've straddled two different residential properties and yet you left out a surface parking lot. So I'm just trying to, in the south end, there's some sites that look like I don't really understand how they were characterized as suitable for commercial redevelopment. So Councillor Pine, I think that the challenge is knowing which parcel specifically you're referring to. I mean, because I will say, for example, King Street, like there's tortured history in terms of why we did this or didn't do that. So I don't know if it's possible to... Yeah, I could pick one. If I could, it's at the very bottom of Maple Street. It's a single family house next to a duplex. All the way at the bottom on the right across from Magdalenaero, that's the one that stands out. Yes, why it was recommended to be included, yes. So those two properties and the surface parking lot that you mentioned were all part of the discussions that Councillors Mason and Shannon referred to. Originally, when the Planning Commission forwarded this recommendation, all of those properties on the west side of South Champlain Street between King and Maple were recommended to be included in the Form District 5 boundaries. They were particularly looking at those sites both in terms of their present use today. Many of the developed properties on that side of the street are non-conforming for various reasons. And they were also looking at the future potential of that parking lot. How would we like to see that developed if it were to ever be redeveloped? So a lot of the concerns were more around some of the development intensity requirements that are part of Form District 5 versus part of the residential high density zone. Ultimately, in working through the recommendations with the Council Ordnance Committee, we heard a lot of feedback from residents that live on the other side of South Champlain Street about the concern about the encroachment of commercial uses. So we ultimately removed those properties that front on South Champlain Street from the proposal. And then the same question, if we could just move one block north and I hate to be a stickler, but that's a brand new social housing building called the Debtman Place. And I wanna know why would that be included when the surface parking lots that span the entire rest of the block that go up to August 1st wouldn't be included? The parking lots that span up to August 1st are already included. Well, they're in there. Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Pine. Councillor Busher. Yes, I just wanted to say that this was a challenging process and it was not meant to exclude anybody who wanted their property to be considered. But as a member of the Ordnance Committee, it had come from planning with those properties already identified. So I can't really speak to that process that began in planning that was then handed off to the Ordnance Committee. Although the history, as I understood it, was that during the whole big city council planning process with form district five, there had been, as Councillor Mason said, some requests to expand the boundary that was being discussed and make it broader. And so these properties were part of that conversation. But I wanted to remind, as Councillor Shannon did already, but I think it's really important to state that zoning isn't stagnant, zoning is fluid. There's opportunity for you to ask to have your property looked at and if you want it to be rezoned and it's contiguous with a zone currently in place, so it's not spot zoning, that conversation can occur. That happened for me and my ward where zoning didn't make sense and I brought it through the Planning Commission and ultimately got that zoning changed to be more reflective of the use and the potential for that property. So I just think it's really important. I think also that Councillor Mason did say that during this whole time, after we made a decision in the Ordnance Committee, we did go back to the residents themselves to make sure they were aware of the changes that we had made to give them once again another opportunity to weigh in. So we tried to be as inclusive as possible. It's not a perfect process and so obviously some people didn't feel like their voices got heard, but we do the best we can and try to give people the opportunity for zoning changes that begins in planning, comes to the city in ordinance and then finally comes here for final adoption. So I'm hoping people are aware of their chance to weigh in. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Buscher. Are we ready to vote? The motion on the table is to waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Great work to the team and the Ordnance Committee and Councillor Mason. Thank you as chair. 5.05 is the resolution on the housing policy reforms. Councillor Mason. Thank you, President Wright. I'd like to make the motion to waive the reading. Oh, I gotta get it caught up. I'm sorry. I'd like to make a motion to waive the reading and adopt the resolution as drafted. Moved by Councillor Mason. Seconded by Councillor Paul. You have the floor back, Councillor Mason. Thank you. I'm sorry, I got messed up because I thought that was a referral, but that's included in the resolution. Well, buckle up just based on public comment. This is gonna be a controversial process. The resolution before us is a series of proposals that would be referred or at least four of the five to the Joint Ordnance Planning Commission for subsequent public hearing and the final proposed reform to the Charter Change Committee for its consideration. These proposals are direct result of the BTV Housing Summit held on June 11th and the BTV Housing Summit to held on September 4th, 2019. At each of these two public hearings, input was heard from residents, stakeholders, and the public on these proposals specifically related to housing policy. This resolution recognizes that in addition to the four proposals to be referenced, the administration has asked CEDO to complete a review of tenant protections and deliver that review and recommendations to the council by month end. It also recognizes our efforts on an ancillary related but tied to the city's net zero energy goals. At a very high level, these four proposals can be summarized as follows. The first calls for an updating of our standards for energy efficiency and rental housing in order to support our climate goals and protect renters from unreasonably high utility costs. The second proposal encourages the creation of accessory dwelling units to support homeowners aging in place, help owners continue to afford their homes and add affordable housing options within neighborhoods. The third proposal asks to consider implementation of a regulatory framework for short-term rentals that reduce the impact on long-term housing availability while recognizing the economic that certain Berlin-tonians are currently enjoying. The fourth proposal seeks to revise the city's approach to minimum parking requirements in order to reduce the cost to construct, maintain and lease housing units, allow more space for additional housing units and support a robust system of transportation alternatives. The final proposal asks the Charter Change to consider the restoration and increase in the city's level of funding in order to support the Housing Trust Fund. I think for the public to understand this is because I got a lot of flurry of emails today thinking that we were adopting all of this and I think it's important to note that if this does pass, there will be significant additional public process. There are already scheduled two or three or more hearings before the joint committee and I assume the Charter Change committee will also have, it will also come back before this council for adoption. So I think it's important to send that we are not moving forward, you know, other than to recommend that these different groups take up the proposals and I would expect based on the input we received tonight and the flurry of emails I got today, there will be a very robust public discussion on a number of these initiatives. I think it's important to recognize the cross departmental team of city staff that not only, you know, helped advance these proposals and formulate them but also, you know, did it from my estimation an excellent job in terms of managing the public forums and engaging the public. I'd also like to thank counselors Paul, Zhang, Roof, Paulino for their co-sponsorship as well as counselors Hanson, Shannon and Pine for the active string of recommendations that came across over the past week. And with that, I hope you will consider joining me and moving this resolution forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Mason. Open to the council, to discussion with the city council who wants to jump in. Ready to vote? Councillor Pusher. So. I took a shot. This is a resolution that a lot of I really support and I support the mayor and his housing summits and I support the work that the departments did to distill all of that information and come up with some recommendations. What the problem I had with this is probably what Councillor Mason received emails about is that it felt to me when I read it that it was telling me that my role was to implement all of this without discussion. It was to implement to, I'll take the ADUs to make it at 30% or 800 feet and 800 square feet, not 800 feet. And I don't know if I'm there. I need to think about that. I need to think about all of these. I need the input from the community to understand if this is the right way to go. Yes, we want to make ADUs more available. One of the barriers that we haven't dealt with is the affordability piece, which was one of the things we identified that people can't necessarily create those. And so my point is not to belabor it because I could go through a number of these and say yes, I think yes for this and no, I have reservations about that. I need more discussion. So I'm hesitant to sign on to a resolution that says that I am supportive of all of these initiatives when in full conscience, I believe that we're going in the right direction but I'm not sure I'm there with the final outcome. And so here I am stuck with a process that I wholeheartedly believe in and want to engage in and feel reluctant to say yes to a resolution before me. That's very challenging. I've been here before and I am not sure how I'm going to handle it but I wanted to speak to that so that the rest of the council understood my reservation. So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Bush. My apologies, I was starting this off with remarks from the mayor. So we'll just do that now. We'll mark from the mayor and then we'll go to Megan and then back to the council. Great, thank you President Wright and excuse me. Thank you Councilor Mason for and then the other co-sponsors for bringing this to the floor and for introducing it Councilor Mason. I want to start by echoing the point that there has been a huge team of multi-departmental team really more so than any initiative I can remember over the last seven and a half years that has been working on this effort since the spring. Megan and Olivia in my office I think have been the leaders of that team in a lot of ways but it has also taken huge efforts from Chris Burns of the Berlin Electric Department, David White at the planning department has a planning director of course and Ian and Cito has been a leader, continued to be a leader with the ADU effort and I've started down this path and I'm going to forget, omit people not forget omit people, key people who have played roles throughout and have really made it possible to get through two major summits and involved contributions from hundreds of Berlin Tonians and get this tonight. Even that doesn't really fully capture the effort that has gone into this of course in that a lot of ways I see tonight is taking a step towards finishing the housing action plan that the council unanimously approved in 2015 and that Councillor Pine reminded me in a lot of ways started out in the early days of this administration when Councillor Pine was still our housing go-to person within Cito and conversations about what we could do to jumpstart this, take another run at improving housing affordability and equity in Burlington and there's a reason that these items, these five items or four of them were in the housing action plan. We really hadn't grappled, I don't believe with the short-term rental issue in the housing action plan but the other four items were all noted in one way or another in the housing action plan. There's a reason I think that these are sort of the last ones. They are in some sense, some of the harder work to do to address our housing issues. On the other hand, I think they are changes that could have an enormous impact if we can buckle down and get to consensus and get this right. I think there's the opportunity to create hundreds of new homes for Burlington residents in the years ahead, in the relatively few years ahead if we are able to make some of these changes and significantly expand our permanently affordable housing stock as well as do more to protect and support tenants that are living in this community and facing very high housing costs including utilities costs. I'm gonna turn this over in a moment for Megan to walk through a few of the details. Not many, we wanna get to the discussion. We've been talking for a long time. Since the spring it's now the council's turn with this. I would just like to inject a note of optimism as we start this. Housing can be an issue that the challenges have been around so long, that it can feel like an unsolvable issue, something that we really can't make much progress on. In fact, despite our all efforts and by some measures it seems like housing affordability just keeps getting worse and worse. I urge the council to see this as a problem that we can solve. In fact, I think if you look at recent years there is a lot of evidence that we are making considerable progress. We have built or preserved more than 500 permanently affordable homes over the last seven years in Burlington. We have continuing on, I really stress, hurry to add, continuing what has been a very proud Burlington tradition of Burlington, building permanently affordable housing for at least three decades. We have made improvements with our code enforcement efforts. The code enforcement office is functioning better than it has ever and we are doing more to protect tenants living in Burlington rental houses from being victimized or unresponded to than we ever have and continue to improve those systems. We have notably, I think as a departure from some of the relatively recent history, we have made progress addressing the housing, our problems within the housing market of having the market actually create more homes and that has created more than 600 new market rate apartments in the last, in recent years and it has doubled the housing vacancy level, still at unacceptably low levels and it has started to have an impact on rising rental inflation. We actually are seeing rental inflation now, at least in the last couple of years, lower than broader inflation, which is a sign of some progress. I say all this to urge us to double down on the strategies that are having an impact and keep moving forward and have the courage that we can do something about this issue. Final point I wanna make before handing it over to Megan is to say what is not here because I found in talking about this for the last six months that it is important to acknowledge right up front that this is, although this is a comprehensive package and does do many things, it does not address all issues of the housing crisis and it is important, I think, for the public to know that we are working on those other critical elements. We are working, in fact, the last time we convened as a council, we extended our housing agreement with the UVM with the explicit intent of amending that agreement within this extension period, which is until next summer, so that we do see more progress on the creation of purpose-built student rentals. Not in this resolution, or it's reference in the resolution, but not one of the action items, not one of the resolve clauses is further efforts on tenant protection, rent or protection work. We have simultaneous with this task, I have tasked CEDA with coming to this council by the end of this month with having reviewed all the tenant protection work that is going on, that has been suggested in the housing summits and that has been going on elsewhere in the country to make sure that Burlington is doing all that it should to protect tenants in the community. So with those caveats, I hand it over to Megan for some additional detail. A few additional comments, Megan. Only a few. Again, Councilor Mason did an excellent job of summarizing what we've provided to you here tonight. Just go over those really quickly again. The recommendation, the first recommendation regarding energy efficiency and rental housing is specifically to look at amending our current time of sale ordinance to make it applicable as part of the minimum housing code in order to achieve those goals that Councilor Mason talked about. Strengthening our response to the split incentive paradigm, improving energy efficiency and quality for rental housing, lowering utility costs, and making a significant improvement on our energy efficiency goals. The proposal to expand the construction of accessory dwelling units is specifically to amend parts of our zoning ordinance to further our work. We've been doing this for a few years to make it more permissible for ADUs to be built in the city in order to afford all of those benefits that Councilor Mason talked about for aging in place and adding affordable housing options within our neighborhoods. Creating a regulatory framework for short-term rentals is a really important one in that the proposal that has been put in front of you recognizes that there are different types of short-term rentals that offer varying degrees of benefit and impact within Burlington. And the proposal that we have shared helps us to actually disincentivize the most impactful of those uses in order to limit the impact on the city's long-term housing stock, but ensure that some of those conversions can still take place because we recognize that, like ADUs and other forms of housing, these can have benefits to the hosts and to the Burlington economy. Regarding the requirements for parking, we would like to amend our zoning ordinance once again to look at how many new parking spaces must be created as part of new development within certain parts of the city in order to help us reduce some of those barriers that drive up cost and actually, in some ways, dampen the creation of homes within our community. While we also look at other mechanisms for us to support investment in alternative forms of transportation and the systems that support that. And then finally, looking at how we can increase and sustain the level of investment in the Housing Trust Fund to a level that this council and the administration have been committing to the fund, but to make sure that that level of investment is sustainable over time and is not devalued by inflation and other changes in the market. And then finally, related to this, we'll be coming before you the proposal or the recommendation, the review and recommendations around rent or protections. So the last thing I just wanna say is to build off of the comments that counselors Mason and Boucher shared is that this resolution is not a final vote on these issues. It's actually asking us to begin the hard work of digging into each of these issues and evaluating exactly how we want to move these forward. We have, as counselor Mason noted, we have been working with the Planning Commission and the City Council Ordinance Committee to get them prepped to have some meetings as soon as we're able to, to start talking about the three amendments that have to do with zoning. The short-term rental, the accessory dwelling unit and the parking proposals so that we can really work through the details of that. The City Council Ordinance Committee itself will then look at the energy efficiency in rental housing proposal. We will have the Charter Change Committee look at proposed language that would help us to ensure the stability of the Housing Trust Fund. And then ultimately the Community Development and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee will review those recommendations on tenant protections. So a lot of work in the months ahead. We're just kicking, we're asking for you to kick off that process with the resolution here tonight. And then the last thing I'll say just for the benefit of those that might be watching is that there is a web link on the screen for people to follow along with the process that we hope will follow from tonight. Thank you. Just before we start going to the counselors, I just want a process question just to be clear. And I know you just said this is just the beginning of the process. So if a counselor, me or any other counselor has, supports a lot of this but has concerns about any particular item, this will all be coming back to us, it's got to go, be worked on. And how will it come back? And will it come back as there will be opportunities to vote on each one of the different items at some point or as one big proposal? So each one of these will have a different deliverable, I guess I'll call it, in terms of what the counsel will actually take action on in the future. In some cases that will be the approval of language for a charter change question to be put on the ballot. In other cases it might be an actual red line version of a zoning amendment that you would look at and consider through the typical process that any zoning amendment would go through. So the deliverable for each one of them will be, for many of them will be different and will be distinct. So the line about supporting the administration's goal of pursuing the above reference housing policy reforms, we're just supporting the administration's goal but not necessarily the final product until it comes back. Exactly, you will have a chance to vote on each one of those when it comes back. All right, thank you. Counselor Shannon. Thank you President Wright. This does seem a little bit unusual to me in that it's starting as a resolution with a great deal of specificity. And usually we see this kind of specificity in a first reading of an ordinance but I think that that's also okay because it kind of adds, I think it presents these ideas very specifically for discussion and I assume that it comes back to the, you will draft an ordinance for the things that are going to be an ordinance that it will come back for a first reading. We'll have opportunity to have input on that first draft of the ordinance and then it goes back to the committee and we'll have it for more work and then it will come back as a second reading. Is that all correct? I'm kind of getting nods but President Wright, is it okay if Ms. Tuttle responds? Yes. Yes, so each of these in the sense of zoning amendments that do first and second read, these will come back to the council for that process as any zoning amendment typically would. One of the things that we have been working with Counselor Mason on is to actually bring the city council's ordinance committee into a joint process with the planning commission so that they can work on the zoning related pieces of this together but again, when their work and their recommendations come forward to the city council, there will still be the opportunity for the council to have the first and second read and if they would like to make more changes to those proposals. Okay, thank you. With that, I share all of Counselor Busher's concerns. My conclusion is I'm going to support this because I think that it starts a discussion in a very good way and there are, I would like to just state for the record some of the concerns that I have in the specificity of this language. So the first concern I have is line 88 eliminating the parking requirement for ADUs. Also, since I created my own red line draft here, it's possible that there's been some amendments and I have the lines wrong, but eliminating the parking requirements for ADUs. I am not necessarily opposed to that but I think there may be other options worth considering as well, such as allowing tandem parking to meet the requirement. So I'm not sure that eliminating the parking requirement is the best idea or that it has to be one solution in all areas, there might be some areas where different solution is better. The next concern I had is line 104, limiting the number of whole unit short-term rentals within a building so that any building with four or more short-term rentals is considered a hotel. Actually, I would like to consider other options and possibly more restrictive, not allowing these short-term rentals in many cases because what we really need is housing for people who live here more than we need housing for our tourists. And I think that there was a lot of discussion about that at the work session. So I just, I don't object to that particular solution but think other solutions should also be considered. And then lastly, line 116, eliminating the requirement for a minimum number of parking spaces for new development that is within downtown neighborhood activity center and neighborhood mixed use zoning districts. I think that that should be reviewed but again, I'm not convinced that eliminating parking requirements is the best answer. I know that some people believe that eliminating parking requirements will reduce our carbon footprint but I'm not sure that that's really the case. I'm not sure that people will drive less cars. I think that sometimes they'll just, the impact is transferred elsewhere, where they, it puts a lot of stress on the community when people can't find parking spaces where they need to find parking spaces and often pushes the problem to the next neighborhood. So I would like that to be more broadly considered. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Shannon. Councilor Hanson, are you prepared to put your amendment forward? That wasn't next to the staff question. I'm too excited. All right, let's get that on the table. Okay, yeah. So it's attached in the, it's attached online, proposed amendments. I don't know if we can put them on the screen or not but I'll start with the first one. So I think, and just speaking more generally, I'm really glad to see that we've included more work around renter protections, tenant protections and really wanna thank a lot of the tenants who came out to the Housing Summit and really pushed for that inclusion. I think it's really critical that we don't forget about that as we move forward in other ways. So the first amendment that I'd like to introduce is on line 26, insert after the word rating, comma, and the city is committed to increasing awareness of this information and making it more accessible and user friendly. And I would ask for the floor back after a second on that. I was asking for the floor back after a second. Okay, so the motion, the amendments have been moved seconded by Councilor Freeman. Councilor Hanson, you have the floor back. So this amendment is, there's a whereas pause, line 26 discussing, let me just read it. So whereas the city has also continued to strengthen, it begins on line 24, ends on line 26. The city has also continued to strengthen its enforcement efforts, including implementing the five star rating system that allows tenants to see the compliance history of a rental before they sign a lease and indicates the property's compliance with minimum housing standards by way of a one to five rating. I find that very misleading and having attempted to use what we're referring to here through the city website, it's very hard for someone who's not deeply, deeply involved in city processes to understand what they're looking at when you pull up the document. Even for me, I don't fully understand what I'm looking at here. And the meaningful component of it that I can see, which is there's a line buried in other information, COC expires, expiration date, and then in parentheses, one year COC. I know what that means. I know that one year COC means this is a property that has had issues with code enforcement, so much so that they were put on the faster cycle, but I don't think most people are gonna read that line and understand that. I'm glad that we're moving in this direction, but we really shouldn't say that we're there yet. This isn't a system that is usable for prospective tenants yet at this point. So I think it's really critical that we not only say that and acknowledge that, but also that we do commit to working towards making it user friendly accessible because it's really critical that people understand what they're getting into before signing a lease. That's all I've got on that one. Okay, do you, have you completed, do your amendments? Just the first one. Just the first one. Okay, all right, Councillor Paul. Thank you, thank you, President Wright. So the five star system came as a result of a resolution that was done in 2012 on landlord accountability. I remember it well because I wrote it and the idea was to have a system so that tenants would have one more tool to be able to evaluate properties. In order for us to be able to use the system in the way that you are encouraging, Councillor Hanson, is that or to President Wright to Councillor Hanson is all of the properties had to be evaluated. It wouldn't be fair for some to be evaluated and not all to be evaluated and be using the same system. So it took three years to do that. That was just done in the last couple of months. I have been in touch with Brian Lowe, our Chief Innovation Officer. It does take a fair amount of effort to get all of that online. And I'm waiting to hear back from him on whether or not that can be done by the end of the year. That will be put into a resolution that I'm working on for a subsequent meeting. I mean, I'm happy to support this now but I do want the public to know that that is actively being worked on. It is not something that we just simply had the five star system and now we're going to leave the entire idea behind the system was for it to be another tool for tenants to be able to evaluate a property. And the idea behind the five star rating system was not to shame landlords or property owners. It was to raise the bar in the hopes that all properties would become five stars. That being said, those properties that are one star, the public deserves to know what those properties are. And that's the idea behind getting all of it online so that it can be looked at in a way that you're referring to. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Powell. Councillor Roof. Just super quickly, following up on Council, I see this, I'm going to support this. I see it as non-controversial. If anyone looks up community innovation proposal on the city website, you'll see something that's put out by the Chief Brian Low's office and as well as my professional work, BTB Ignite, is partnering on this to create a lightweight app that's going to take much of what is being talked about here and put it into an app that can be disseminated for free out into the public so people can make those judgments as they go into the rental market. So this is good right on the mark. The work is happening. I think this is non-controversial. Thank you. Great. I think that it seems like we have solid support for this. Do we may be ready to vote? I'll be quick. All right, Councillor Hanson. I just wanted to say briefly, I just thank you for that additional information. And I think, as you said, I think that plays right into this language of the ongoing commitment to improving this. So let's vote on this one. We can move to the next one. All those in favor of this amendment, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. So that amendment has passed. They'll give us the next one. Okay, great. So the next amendment is after line 129, insert derevising parking maximums so as to prevent an overbuilding of parking that would undermine the goals of this policy change. So this is in relation to the elimination of minimum parking requirements in certain zones. And I think we've laid out clearly tonight and we got to hear from several folks during public comment and from Karsha Vermont on the importance of transportation demand management and really shifting the system to disincentivize individual car ownership and single-occupancy vehicle while simultaneously incentivizing alternatives, including car share, including biking, public transit, walking. And I think one of the goals stated out in this policy is to really reduce the overbuilding of parking because not only does it have an adverse impact on our transportation system but also on the cost of housing as well. So I think with that being the goal and wanting to avoid this overbuilding of parking that we've seen, I think a simple way to help to do that is to have appropriate maximums that literally prevent that overbuilding. And I think we can identify a level that allows us to do that through continued work. So that's the idea behind this. I think just to throw out there, probably whatever level we would land on, I personally would probably still see it as too high. I think it's gonna be a compromise but I do think we can get to a place where this is relevant and this helps us towards these goals. Okay, we need a second to this, seconded by Councillor Tracy. And now we'll open up anyone, any comments on this? All right, hearing none, we're ready to vote. All those in favor of this amendment, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimous. No, no, no. Oh, okay. Great, raise your hands if you're opposed again, please. Councilors, there's two no votes. Councilors Polino and Councillor Shannon. So that passes by a vote of 10 to two. Councilor Hanson. Those are my two amendments, so thank you. All right, thank you, Councilor Hanson and we are now back to the resolution as amended. So I go back to the, Councilor Jang, you are up next to be followed by Councilor Tracy and then Freeman. Thank you, President. So I think what I'm about to say is also I've been, I shared it with the mayor and also asked a couple of questions to a couple of the city councils to try to understand the number 12, whereas these strategies have also focused on reducing chronic homelessness, including implementing a coordinating entry system. And the housing support to, the housing support and resources for people experiencing homelessness. I think based upon my understanding, it was a little bit, for lack of a better word, weird how we have a summit about housing and not mention homelessness anywhere. People discuss in groups, but homelessness, the people did not talk about it at all. And to me, I think that there is a tie to it. And in this resolution, it's saying that these strategies are proposing, are strategically applying to it. So, and I wanted to understand to date, Mr. Mayor, how much of a, in terms of resources, have we been allocated to the issue of homelessness and why that issue was not included in this effort? Question for the mayor. Great. Well, first of all, I think it's important to note that in a very significant way, homelessness is part of the resolution and that we're talking about expanding the housing trust fund significantly, expanding the housing trust fund is the main mechanism the city has to invest local resources in anti-homelessness efforts, which we have done in recent years, for example, with the, using really for the first time, local funds to expand the operations of the winter warming shelter. So, I very much see, this is really one of the most direct things as a city can do to address homelessness is put more resources into it and that's exactly what the housing trust fund expansion is in part aimed at doing. So, I guess that's one important point. I don't quite accept the premise of the, I think it's important to note that homelessness is very much part of the discussion. If the question is like, what else has this city done or why is that whereas clause in there? Well, the city has made, had been the city and the many partners who are involved in working on homelessness have made some real progress with respect to homelessness in recent years. The chronic homelessness numbers are down significantly from their peak several years ago. The families living with homelessness has gone down consistently for many years, year after year now in terms of the number of families with children living in homelessness. This progress has resulted from specific policy changes that the city has either led or supported, been a part of notably the housing first model which was a real shift in the way the very substantial amount of local and state resources and federal resources that we have to combat homelessness the way that they are addressed and the way they are prioritized has had a big impact on that. Final point, the other, I think major change to the landscape and the reason why that whereas clause is in there is that for five years in a row now we have had a winter warming shelter. That was something the community had not moved forward with until five years ago. This council and the administration came together to support moving that direction. That's been a very critical change that I think has saved lives and which the city is actively for several years now worked to expand and work to create some sort of low barrier option during the warm weather months. So I hope that addresses what Councillor Jang is driving it. Not really, but it's okay. I think we can continue to explore ways that we can reduce homelessness. And I think to your report, it seems that what we, what have been reported in this community is actually chronic homelessness is on the rise while homelessness is going down. I think there is, it's important to make that distinction. But I wanted to also just really say to the member of the community that like many of you all that we have been receiving in terms of communication is the city council is going to make these recommendation and today. And I think Megan outlined it clearly that this is just the second step. And I think the first step went incredibly well. This room was packed of people, the community members who came here divided in groups and then that led to this resolution. But still we are now in the phase of refining it and also to bring real concrete proposal and that will allow us to move forward. And I think since Brian Pine, Mr. Councillor Brian Pine was the director of CEDO around housing, the issue has been here. I want to salute this effort because it is going to move us to the next step. Thank you all and thank you especially Chip Mason and Mayor's Chiefs of Staff, communication person for being very diligent in reaching out to us in making sure that what we want to see. I think it was well thought. This is something that I'm very proud to support. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jang. Councillor Tracy, then Freeman and Pine. Thank you, President Wright, appreciate it. And I am, I definitely share a lot of the concerns that have been raised about these and I look at this as sort of a first step in terms of considering a number of these issues. But a couple of things that stand out to me are specifically around the parking minimums and really wanting to see a trade off because there is a real savings on the part of developers when you don't require them to build in parking. That's really recognized in a lot of the documentation that we've heard. And so I would like to see us consider balancing that out with some sort of something to really incentivize and create the funds to help us to essentially drive that forward. So that's something that I think needs more consideration and more balance as far as this ordinance goes. On the accessory dwelling units, I really agree with the concern that's been echoed specifically around the conversion of entire units. I certainly hear the folks who are saying that they need to rent out a room in their house on a short-term basis in order to stay in their house. But the conversion of entire units and in fact multiple units within buildings has a really detrimental impact on affordable housing stock and just on neighborhood fabric. So I think that we need to put more pressure on short-term rentals when it comes to those entire unit conversions. And then finally, and this is really, this comes more in the line of a question which has to do with the last point which has to deal with the housing trust fund which is that Burlington residents in a town meeting day referendum several years ago very strongly supported looking specifically at progressive forms of taxation to increase the housing trust fund. So what I'm wondering and perhaps the mayor can answer this, perhaps Megan can answer this is if you can answer the degree to which the tax that is being contemplated to be sent to the Charter Change Committee would in fact be a progressive form of taxation meaning that wealthier folks would pay more. And if so, how it actually does that. And then also in addition to that what other forms of progressive taxation were looked at before this particular choice was made? Mr. Mayor, did you wanna respond to that or Megan, River? So I appreciate the questions from Councillor Tercey. So I've understood the housing trust fund funding that has been eroded over time to be seen as a, restoring that funding, creating a mechanism whereby that funding, that base funding can expand over time, rise, not be eroded by inflation has been a long held goal. I think it is something that is on the property tax or I think there can be some debate. It is progressive in some ways and that there is higher income households are more likely to be owners than lower income households but I think we all know the limitations of the progressivity of the property tax as well. However, this has been something that has been a long held goal I think of the community to increase this base level as being something that should be part of our property tax structure. We are on two fronts looking at additional ways of supplementing that kind of base funding of the housing trust fund that tonight's action would move forward one of those in that the proposed short term rental regulation has the potential of creating a very substantial new revenue stream for the housing trust fund. If we don't know how great it will be but because it is expected that there will be some households, some property owners that will pursue the conversion that will potentially, every time a conversion takes place the estimates are $15,000 to $40,000 of new housing trust fund income will be generated that is large to compare when we only fund even if this proposal goes through on the order of $400, $500,000 a year in one unit you could be adding 10% to that total. The other possible significant new revenue source that is you probably could debate I think there are progressive elements of it is the new inclusionary zoning proposals that have been debated at the committee level for substantial period of time and also represent the possibility of creating substantial new perhaps one can envision if a major project were to come forward it could be a doubling of the annual amount in the housing trust fund. So what the resolution currently contemplates I think kind of bring it back to the question that council Tracy has asked. You know, those are the active funding considerations for the housing trust fund currently that there has been a significant amount of process and effort that has gone into. What the resolution contemplates is that if the housing that we build in we commit ourselves to a further review of the funding for the housing trust fund in three years after these changes have been implemented to see what level of new revenue that creates and whether further measures are warranted and needed. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. May I just ask a follow up? So do you, Mr. Mayor, see this resolution as precluding the Charter Change Committee from doing such a review now? Like why do you think that it wouldn't make sense to look at other progressive forms of contributing to this in concert with this particular mechanism just to make sure that all the effort that we're gonna put into this one is in fact merited? I don't see how this resolution precludes the council from and committees from pursuing other work. I do think, you know, the timeline, I would hope that additional work would be seen as supplemental and additional to taking some action to address this, I think, longstanding deficiency of sorts in the way the housing trust fund is funded in the way that the, you know, that we currently have on the books in the Charter something that allows for the housing trust fund funding to be eroded substantially by inflation over time. I don't think it's something we wanna remain on the books. I think we wanna find a way for it to be increased and for it to rise with inflation. And I don't think, and the timeline for doing that and getting on this town meeting ballot is tight. We will have to take pretty prompt action from here. The, I think would be difficult. The review that I was just talking about, I don't see how we can do it now in that we, I don't think there's anyone can tell you how much new revenue is going to be created by the not yet implemented inclusionary zoning change or by the not yet implemented short-term rental change. So we can, certainly we would welcome, I think, you know, and staff probably could do some work to do more kind of scenario forecasting than we have today about what kind of revenue that might generate. But I don't, I think the reason we have framed it as a review is I think we're gonna need to see how these changes work for a little while to know what kind of revenue they generate. If the council wanted, I'm not aware of any other revenue generator for the housing trust fund that has gotten substantial kind of due diligence and work to date. But certainly if committees wanna, you know, I'm not against us doing that kind of additional due diligence and the additional exploration. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. I appreciate those answers. And I look forward to having a robust conversation at the Charter Change Committee, hopefully looking at a variety of different scenarios, getting a lot of different information on the table about this particular change. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Tracy. Councilor Freeman and then Councilor Pine. And we may be ready. Thank you, President Wright. I wanted to introduce two amendments. The first is on line 146 and this is after one and a half cents per $100, I'd like to add the language of two cents per 100 of assessed property value. Could you repeat that please? Yes, absolutely. So it's on line 146 with the possibility of this tax increasing to one and a half cents per $100 and two cents per 100 of assessed property value. Sorry, $200. Does the clerk's office have that? Do you need me to repeat it? Sure. So line 146 with the possibility of this tax increasing to one and a half cents per $100 and two cents per $100 of assessed property value. I'm not actually grammatically, I think it's and not or. Essentially, I'd like to add the value of looking at both values, the possibility of increasing to half cents per $100, one and a half, sorry, or two. So and two cents per $100. Is there a second to that motion amendment? Councilor Pine seconds. Councilor Freeman, do you have more to say? Yeah, I just, you know, two, we were just talking, you know, Councilor Tracy brought up the aspect of, revenue towards housing. And I think it's clear that voters support, it's substantial increase to our housing. And I just don't think we should wait to look at those sort of revenue options. So that's why I'd like to add this value. All right, thank you, Councilor Freeman. I'll put it up to the council to discussion on this amendment, on the amendment specifically. Any councilor have anything, we're ready to vote? I think we're ready to vote. No one's raising their hand. All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Councilor Freeman, what's your next amendment? Thank you. I would like to go to line, it's 129. I would like to strike lines 138 and 139. And I would like to add after line 129, or a former 129, I believe the amended resolution would be a different line after Councilor.  You wanted to strike lines 128. 138 and 139. 138 and 139. And then what, in addition to that? And then from the original, I'm not sure. I don't have the amended line numbers after Councilor Hanson's amended version. So it's the lines that say an exploration of other possible regulatory mechanisms, including transportation demand management requirements to ensure additional investment, alternate. Do you have this written down that you could send to the clerk's office? I can, but it's going to have the lines from before Councilor Hanson's amendments passed. So I don't, before the amendment passed. So. I would say if you. Point of order. Point of order. Who said point of order? Council Polina. The motion to strike the lines. And. Wait a minute. Council Polina. Strike and replace. I was just confused. That's more of a point of information. So point of information is you are moving to strike those lines and add another line in place of those two. Yes. And could you repeat the words that you are looking to add to the resolution, please? So I want to add after point. The amendment that Councilor Hanson just made after line 129 point D. I'd like to add after that a final point, which would be when I have the language here, creating a transportation demand management requirement to ensure additional investment in alternative transportation. Do you need me to say it? Did the clerk's? No, please say it again. Did you send it to the clerk's office? This is why we get in trouble when we have these down the floor button. I know, I'm sorry. Anyone clear about the amendment? No, no one, no one is clear about this. Councilor Busher, you shed some light on this for us. Well, so what I had thought was the intent but was to actually to move lines 138 and 139 with that language up and put them underneath what now would be a BCDE, I guess would be. And that was what I thought was going to be proposed but I don't understand it now. It's only to look at transportation demand management requirements. Well, we're not going back and forth. President right, I want to understand. I understand that. Yeah, so. Councilors need to be recognized. Councilor Freeman. I see what you're saying. So yeah, so striking lines 138 and 139 and moving it under section four and one, which was line 118 to say. Does the clerk's office have this? Does the clerk's office have this yet? I have to. I'm sorry, we're taking a recess for five minutes and only five minutes for you to get this straightened out of the clerk's office and come back and have this so that we all can understand it recess for five minutes. You have to be up in six hours to get to work. Councilors, please take your seats. No problem. Okay. We are back and hopefully we have this straightened out and know what we're doing. Councilor Freeman. Thank you. Yes, and I sent the language to. Go ahead, Councilor Freeman and make sure you speak right into the microphone so we can hear you. So the motion is to create a line above existing line 130 that reads creating other possible regulatory mechanisms including transportation demand management requirements to ensure additional investment and alternative transportation and then striking lines 138 and 139 to replace it with this line. All right, thank you. And the clerk's office now has that. All right, and it's up on the board. Mr. Mayor, do we have a second for this? You seconded, Councilor Pine. Okay, so it's the amendment is on the board. Is it on the board? And. I've seen it. I think I understand it, but I'd like to actually see it. Are we getting that up on the, are we getting that up on the board? Have you sent that to the clerk's office yet? So we can get that up on the board. I sent it, yes, at 9.52 minutes. Does the clerk's office have it? This is what should have been taken care of during the recess. We are starting to fall into the not looking good again here. Good information. Councilor Bushier, what is your point of information? President Wright, if the council understands the amendment, would it be appropriate for the council to act on that and let the clerk's office catch up with the transmission? Are we ready to, are we ready to the city attorney shaking your head? No. No, the minute taker has to be clear on what the motion is. Okay, understood. One more time, and if we don't have this, then we're gonna have to take another recess.  Do you have it? It's on the board. Okay, it's on the board now. President Wright, I think, I think we'll speak this night. Yeah, so. Mr. Mayor, remarks by the mayor on this amendment. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this because what is being proposed here is something that quite a bit of staff time and analysis has gone into. The transportation demand management plans are something that can be very helpful tools for new development and in general, the city is supportive in many situations when they are done. Unfortunately, it is not such a simple thing simply to require them as this amendment suggests. After substantial time with the regulatory, people that are responsible in the planning and zoning office responsible for enforcing regulations, no good way of achieving what this, no way that has been found that the planning and zoning office, well, the now the zoning office or I guess both the two offices see a good way to implement this. There are concerns. There are just concerns about how we would actually attempt to do it and what the impacts would be and whether it would be creating a major new tool by which opponents of any development could simply stop any project. So we are not recommending this at this time. We after significant conversations with Councilor Hanson, what is in this resolution now is a commitment by the administration to spend between now and the end of the year to see if there is anything else than what is already contemplated here. And let's be really clear cause there was some suggestion I think maybe confusion or suggestion to the contrary earlier. What is proposed in this resolution is that as we are at the same time that we are removing parking minimums from our regulatory effort, we would also be starting the lengthy statutory process necessary to put in place a new alternative transportation impact fee. Process in this resolution is projected to conclude by October of next year. That is the clearest way that we have seen to ensure that what several counselors have expressed wanting to have, which is to have at the same time we are getting rid of parking minimums, we are moving forward with alternative transportation. That's the clearest way we can see you to achieve that goal. It may be that there's other ways to support that goal as well. We've committed over the next 90 days to do some work and bring back a report on that and whether anything can be added here. I would encourage, I think it's important that we go in that direction as opposed to put this new requirement in place which we don't see any good way of implementing it in current time. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councillor Tracy. I'd just like to see this example weighed in the committee work. I see this is the beginning of that process so I would like to see us put this on the table and hear more about those reasons because we as a council have not been provided the conversations that you've been having in the administration, Mr. Mayor. So I think it would be helpful for us to understand the challenges exactly to that because I don't know those challenges so I would like to at least have that conversation before deciding in fact that your way is the best way. That's it. Thank you, Councillor Tracy. We're ready for the vote. Councillor Hanson. Thanks. Yeah, I think this is an important discussion. I'm really glad that we're pushing on it. I do support this. I think this is a way to ensure that we're looking at it more seriously. I obviously put it in initially and supported it in that sense but this is another way to potentially make it more concrete but I do think it's necessary communities that have required developers to implement transportation demand management have certainly seen the results of that and employers that have transportation demand management plans have been able to really pretty dramatically decrease the number of folks commuting by single occupancy vehicles. So I think it's a proven tool. I would be curious to hear more about why it seems like it might not work here because I think from what I've seen so far it's a pretty well proven tool. Okay, thank you, Councillor Hanson. Councillor Roof, thank you, Councillor Mason. Did you, were you in the queue? I want to go to councillors, I haven't spoken yet. Councillor Roof. Yeah, I sort of agree with Councillor Tracy and to the degree that there seems to be a conversation or information that's been pulled together that some have been, I'm sure there were some but not all and I think that whether it's in this resolution or not it's going to be talked about at committee because a non-trivial amount of councillors on the table want to talk about it and there's nothing that precludes us from having that conversation. This is a handoff from the Executive Branch to the Legislative Branch. We're not contained so much as maybe some readers of this resolution could think. I think I'm not sure this amendment is necessary to have the conversation so I'm going to regardless of the outcome of this request the administration to send all that information that you pulled together to the committee, the relevant committee so that we can look at this and kind of have that contemplation then. I think also there's almost an effort here to stipulate an outcome and we've already gone through the conversation that that's not what we're really doing here. So I see this is really either or. I think this is a conversation that we can have in committee. I understand the point and I'm actually interested in learning more about it and thinking about it but I think with that I'll vote no and let's get the information to committee. Thank you, Councilor Mason. Thank you President Wright. I too will be voting no for, we have put forth a very aggressive timeframe in terms of a report back. I'm a little confused about the need to give the complexity of this issue just based on this conversation to introduce that in and require a report back when as drafted there's already a report coming back January 1st. So I'm not understanding why the Yank that has to be passed today. I think I agree and there's nothing that precludes what based on the report back in January us continuing the conversation just because this joint committee happened to have completed its work. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Mason. Councilor Freeman. I'm surprised to hear the aspect about the regulatory framework. I mean if there's a regulatory framework to require parking it doesn't seem like a stretch that there would be a regulatory framework to have the TDM. So that I guess is just really surprising to me and doesn't really pan out but I'm interested in more information about that. And regards to it stipulating an outcome I mean the prior language here is so clear about eliminating the minimum number of parking spaces which is a pretty substantial stipulation. So the recommendation that we put more commitment and more teeth to the aspect of the TDM and to really say that we're not just interested in giving a handout to developers who will see sort of a cost or a benefit in terms of this, it really strengthens the language and I don't think it's satisfactory to leave it as an exploratory. I mean under that argument we should make all the recommendations in this exploratory and what are we really committed to and I'm not, I'm committed to the TDM model so. Thank you Councilor Freeman, Councilor Busher and then Shannon and then we're going to vote. So I began this conversation saying that I didn't feel comfortable with the resolution because I thought it dictated outcomes. I listened to my fellow councilors and Councilor Shannon. I really listened to her and understood that she agreed with me in some respect but was still going to support this because this was a framework for discussion. So with that in mind I don't see why people are concerned about this language when this is another action that if indeed this is a framework for discussion I don't see how this binds us any more than any of the other actions that some people around the table said that we weren't really committing to those actions so I'm confused by my fellow councilors as to what really the intent of this resolution is. I had fully intended based on Councilor Shannon's comments to support this with the caveat that the minutes reflected that by supporting this because I want to it didn't mean that I committed to any of the proposed actions but I was committed to having the discussion and not closing the door and being open-minded to what the community and my fellow councilors thought. I still want to do that. I will be supporting this amendment based on what I just said and I hope everyone reflects on what I just said to understand really what we're doing here tonight. Thank you, Councillor Bushard. Councillor Shannon, then we're going to vote. I would say yes, this resolution is exploratory in the sense that the committee, this is a referral to a committee that's going to come back to the council. It's going to get referred to the committee again. It will come back to the council and possibly voted on. I don't even understand what this proposal is because transportation demand management is already in this resolution but I also don't think it's really, there were a bunch of things that I don't agree with too. I didn't make amendments on them. I stated what my disagreement was and I'm leaving it to the committee to have further discussion on it and I will put this in the same category and I will not be supporting the amendment. Thank you, Councillor Shannon. Okay, with all those in favor of this amendment, please raise your hands. All those, oops, excuse me, put them back up again please. All those opposed? The amendment passes seven to five. We're back to the main resolution. Any further discussion? Councillor Powell. Thank you. I just wanted to mention, because I think it is important that people understand that there is a lot of information in this resolution and I agree to be a co-sponsor. There are things in this resolution that I'm not particularly in favor of but I am in favor of this having the conversation and I hope that people will vote for the resolution with that in mind so that we move forward and as everyone has said, we'll have plenty of time to come back to this and debate the specifics of what each of these committees comes back with. Thanks very much. Thank you, Councillor Powell. Anyone else? Councillor Hanson. Councillor Pine. Who else?  I want to see who wants to speak right now. Get in the queue because I'm closing it down here in a minute. Councillor Pine. Councillor Freeman. Anybody else? Okay. It's quick. It's still on the parking. I just wanted to get clarity on the language here in terms of what zones we're talking about, just the language is within the downtown neighborhood activity center and neighborhood mix use zoning district. So those are the districts and is within 200 feet of a property with frontage on a designated major thoroughfare. I just wanted to have clarity around whether it's, it has to be in one of those zones and within that district. But I thought my understanding was it was within one of those zones or is along one of the thoroughfares. I just wanted to clarify the wording on that and what we're actually, what zones we're actually talking about. I've seen the map and I, based on the map, I think it would be or, but I just, Okay, let's get the answer. Megan, can you respond to that? Yes. The intention of this is what you had suggested Councillor Hanson that we would be looking at properties that are wholly within those zoning districts that are articulated, as well as properties that are within 200 feet of a major thoroughfare, which you have seen the map of. Okay. It's both. Okay, yeah, I just want to make sure that that's what the language is saying. What we, our intention is reflected in this language. Okay, thank you. Councillor Pine. Thank you Mr. President. Real quick, the three broad goals for the city for pretty much three decades have been production of new housing, protection of our vulnerable residents and preservation of our existing housing stock. It was called the three P's. And I just want to point out that this resolution and the work we're doing here tonight is critical for our community to advance the housing needs of all segments of our community. We hope to leave no one behind here. The parking and housing trust fund and the ADUs meets the production goal. The weatherization and tenant protections and housing trust fund dollar increase is covers the protection of our vulnerable residents and the short-term rentals and weatherization hits on the preservation of our existing housing stock. So I just think it's good for us to remember that we actually have goals that support all of these. And we're just hopefully bringing these forward with that in mind. Thank you, Councillor Pine. Ready to vote? All those in favor of the resolution as amended, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. And in the future, please, if you do have amendments that's particularly if they are confusing and not clear, get them in ahead of time and get them to the clerk's office. Item number 5.06 is a resolution regarding city and reinvestment in Burlington Telecom, Councillor Buscher. Yes, I'd like to move to waive the reading and adopt the resolution. And after a second, I'd like the floor back. Moved by Councillor Buscher, seconded by Councillor Hanson. Councillor Buscher, you have the floor back. Thank you. As the council knows, we are about to embark on the second phase of the sale of Burlington Telecom to decide how we are going to deal with the proceeds from that sale. And this resolution just gives, lays out for us and for the public who may look at this, the history that brought us to this point. The fact that we developed the Burlington Telecom Advisory Board and they carefully established criteria, which was really important, noting that it's important for the city's public officials to try to recover as much of the taxpayers 16.9 million as possible. Part of that should come from the price paid by the purchase of the BT system and part from the city's maintaining a continued meaningful interest in BT that enables financial recovery over the next decades. So now we come down to, that was stated in 2015 and 16. We come down to 2017, where once again, we have now identified a buyer. And we have stated in the agreement and the purchase agreement that we want to enter into a membership interest purchase agreement to purchase up to 33% of the voting membership interests of the buyer and the right to appoint a board member to the board of managers of the buyer provided the city elects to purchase at least 7.5%. Once again, that is stated there. Now you come to the city then talking about, now we've made these statements and do we want to decide, do we want to take a carried interest or not? We had a work session in January of 2018 and in February of 2018, we adopted a city council resolution on pursuing membership interest purchase agreement. So now at this juncture, that sale went through and we have the sale closed on March 12th, 2019 and we have until March 11th, 2020 to negotiate an enter into such an agreement. And so this resolution lays out the history in a little more detail than I did and then says as we move forward and the administration has already scheduled a meeting to have some of this happen that we'd like to make sure that we are looking at soliciting an investment proposal from Champlain Broadband that identifies detailed projections of revenue costs and capital investment in an updated 10-year financial pro forma. Assessing from Champlain Broadband and others, the market opportunities and competitive landscape in Burlington and Chittenden County, projecting the range of possible financial returns to the city from different levels of investment in BT, the purchase of a 7.5% interest up to possible 33% interest through a redemption process, a dividend option or other possible strategies and exploring the specific ways the city should manage the possible downside risks while still benefiting from the investment. I think that this is really important information that we will need in order to make a good choice. I know we're not of all one mind, but I hope we are of all one mind of what information we all would like to have as we move forward to help us make the right decision. I know that there is an amendment and I am supportive of the amendment and would have incorporated it into the resolution if I'd had it in a more reasonable time. And actually, Councillor Busher, you are moving as it is the revised resolution with a small change. Yes, yes. If you could let the council know what that was. Oh, certainly. The original resolution, so the revision comes on, excuse me, lines 60 and 61. Originally, it said either through the redemption process or other possible exit strategies. And so that was modified and revised to say through a redemption process, a dividend option or other possible strategies. Thank you, Councillor Busher. I'm gonna recognize Councillor Mason now. Thank you, President Wright. I'd like to make an amendment along the lines of what's on board docs. So the specific amendment is deleting and from line 61, adding line and at the end of line 64, and then adding in the following resolve clause, exploring other uses of the sale proceeds in the event the city council elects not to reinvest any portion in Champlain broadband. And then ask for the floor back briefly if there's a second. Seconded by Councillor Polino, Councillor Mason. Thank you, President Wright. So this merely recognizes, I appreciate the efforts of the sponsors to put a process which I believe is already underway in terms of getting us diligence relating to the potential investment. This just seeks to recognize that there is the possibility. It's an optional rollover. So this council could elect not to roll over all or a portion of it. And it's merely recognizing that fact. And again, I believe that work is already underway in terms of potential uses of those funds and we will be getting a report on that in the not too distant future. And as Councillor Burscher said, both sponsors are fine with the amendment. Councillor Shannon on the amendment. On the, nevermind, I'll wait till the. Only on the amendment. Any discussion on the amendment? All those in favor of passing the amendment as proposed by Councillor Mason, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Councillor Jang opposes. Clerk's office, Councillor Jang opposes. The vote's 11 to one in favor. Councillor Shannon. Thank you. I, we received a communication from Attorney Blackwood outlining all of the various information that all of us wanted in this process. And I don't really understand what this resolution is accomplishing that's not already happening anyway. So if somebody can explain if I'm missing something, I'd appreciate it. Councillor Burscher. So yes, I can try to explain. I met with the mayor and over the summer and had been talking about BT and wanted to make sure that our process was all inclusive. And the last meeting I had with him, he assured me that, you know, there was a meeting scheduled in November and that the process would be inclusive. The resolution was in the works before the city attorney sent out. The information. So this had already come to the city attorney's office. And so I still feel it's important for the public to have this information and for the council to concur that this is what we're going to consider. And I would hope that the rest of the council would want to support a process that reflected the history and the actions that are consistent with really what the administration's saying also. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Burscher. Further discussion, hearing none. All those in favor of the resolution as amended. Please say aye. I'm sorry. I think I was on the list to speak. Oh, you are. That's right. My apologies. Councillor Polinow. So I would speak. I would say that I strongly oppose reinvesting funds in BT and I would like to voice that concern. I think that when I read words like, require careful examination of an investment opportunity in a company that we've already lost $60 million and I have a strong objection to that. And I think the question we should all ask ourselves is would we invest $4,000 of our own money in this company as individuals? Why would we spend a significant taxpayer dollars at this point, $6.5 million in this company? It's the money that we have left to spend. We have other more safe investments that and opportunities, capital improvements that could be done. And I think that we should vote against resolution for the simple fact that it's designed to incentivize this track of, as I hear the words, reflected a process that reflects the history. And I think that we have chosen to sever ties and there's good reason for that. And I don't think that the public wants us to be engaging in this path and I think it's a mistake. Thank you, Councilor Polino. I'm going to pass the gavel to Councilor Mason. Councilor Wright. Thank you, thank you, Acting President Mason. So this resolution is an attempt to get all of the information to the council in regards to this issue. There is no reason why we should oppose getting as much information as possible. I don't know where I would come down at the end of this. I'm open to, it could go either way. But we should want to find out. I think we would be negligent in not finding out all the information that we can get, including information about dividends. That may not be the right answer at the end. But let me tell you, in regard to the $16.9 million, if we found out that this company was really going to take off and that we were able to actually make significant money or dividends, I think that the voters would actually want to know that and know that there might be a possibility that they actually could get more of their money back than the $6 or $7 million that we're talking about now. Now that may not be the way it works out at the end of the day, but why would we not want to get that information? And I think taxpayers would want us to get that information and find out whether there is a way to get more money back for them than they're currently getting. Bottom line is, let's get all the information, let's accumulate all the information and make a decision based on all the facts. Thank you. Councilor Jack. Thank you, Acting President. I do think, you know, based with Councilor Polino, we need to just get out of this deal and just move forward. And I think most importantly, when the mayor of Burlington told us here, in front of everybody that we will not raise the taxes because we will use the revenue in order to do other things, we said. Telecommunication is changing. I think we need to cash out all of these efforts. I think we need to move away from it and just cash out and then move forward. If there are all the opportunities for that money to bring investment, to bring our $17 million back, but not through the same company, I think we need to explore that. That's the reason as to why I'm voting now, to amendments and to the resolution as well. Thank you. Councilor Schumer. I hear that the reason we should pass this amendment is so that we get all of the information, but my feeling is that this is not inclusive of all of the information that we need. And it's not necessarily going to give us a lot of information about if we could get a whole lot more money back in return. There's certainly the possibility we could get a whole lot more money back in return if we bought lotto tickets. But that comes with risk as does this. And I think that there's already a process in place where we are going to be getting the information requested here and a lot of other information, I hope, including information that I have requested that isn't included here. And for that reason, I'm going to be voting no. Thank you, Councilor Schumer. Oh, sorry. Any other Councilor wish to speak at this time? Seeing no one, we will go to a vote. Councilor Busher, my apologies. You were in the queue. Councilor Busher. So for those who weren't here through the whole process, I can understand your hesitation. But for those of us who were here through the whole process, the investment, the money we spent was to lay down the infrastructure for a system that was meant to supply more than just Burlington. And so the money that can be realized since we sold it, it's not the same entity. It's not BT. It belongs to Shores. It belongs to Champlain Broadband. And they don't have the same restrictions. And I think that I'm really surprised to hear that people don't even want to explore what their 10-year business plan financial pro-former would be and not understand what might be realized. And if we carried more than just our 7.5% interest in this company, that maybe we could generate a lot more money for the city than just the few million dollars that we are going to have as a result of this sale. I myself, I'm not a risk taker, but I certainly want to understand the relative risk of investment before I decide to turn my back. The city has already invested some of our money to draw interest. They've made some choices already, so on your behalf. And I don't see any of you going, oh my God, what's happening to our money because probably none of you even are aware of that. But I'm just frustrated with the level of, because I didn't, you know, I support a lot of resolutions that all of you put forward that I didn't have my fingerprints all over. I just really am disappointed with the fact that something that is historical that just asks for information is not being supported. I'm glad it got out on board docs. I'm glad the public got to see it. If it goes down, so be it. But I'm very disappointed in my fellow councillors tonight. Councilor Jayne, followed by Councilor Wright. Yes, I just wanted to clarify also that there is nothing wrong about this resolution. It is well written, it is very smart, and chronologically it is accurate, it is accurate. But we all, I think sometimes we need to go with our principles, what we think. And I think we need to also go back again how we voted about this issue personally. And each one of us, we have hold something dear inside us because of this issue, how it plays out. But this is the most beautiful resolution that I ever read because it's beautiful. It's well written, but it is just that to me, it's not because who brought it or anything, but it is just, this has always been my point that we need to cash out, and that's the only reason as to why we don't need to explore anything else. And I'm very sorry. Thank you. Councilor Wright, followed by Councilor Paul, then Councilor Freeman, that I, let's- Thank you, thank you, actually President Mason. I'm just gonna make this point one more time. We still can cash out after we've accumulated all the information that we ought to be looking at. We still can end up where Councilor Shannon talked about that we'd be better off buying lottery tickets. We can buy those lottery tickets at the end, but let's do our due diligence here. I frankly don't get what the Council is afraid of here, frankly, in not wanting to have all the information presented. Why would you not want to find out first and then come back and make these decisions? I may end up in the same place that Councilor Jiang is. I may end up in the same place where Councilor Shannon is, going down to the 7-Eleven or whatever the story is now, buying lottery tickets. But in the meantime, let's do our due diligence for the taxpayers at Burlington and find out what the best option is. Councilor Paul. Thank you. So my first comment is through the Acting Council President just wanted to say that I think a lot of my resolutions are beautiful and I'm disappointed that Councilor Jiang thinks that this one is more beautiful. So noted. Continue. I'm not really sure why people are against this because in online 52, it says that the process and the information that we're gonna get, and it says, will include but not limited to. So if anybody wants any more information, they can get it. So if people are concerned that there are things that they want that aren't in here, that's not a reason to vote against this because it does include all of those things, whatever it is that you want. The second is that due to Councilor Mason's amendment, we are going to explore other uses of the sale proceeds. So we're gonna explore the uses of it towards potentially making a further investment in the new Burlington telecom or we're gonna explore the other side of it. So I'm not really sure why people wouldn't want to support this. I will be voting in favor of it and thank you. Councilor Freeman. I just wanted to speak. You know, I will be supporting this resolution and I hope that I think the interest in having information having open access to information is a principle that I feel strongly about. And so I really heard and I'm hearing what Councilor Busher is getting at. And yeah, I just sort of, I want us to stick to that as a council.  And I've come to the council and asked for information on a lot of different policy, you know, ideas. And I really hope that we can support access to information as a body. So I will be supporting this. Thank you. Any other councilor? So can I look to Eileen? I want to correct one p