Hi, everyone. Welcome. Happy to meet you here on Wednesday. We're going to start with announcements and introductions. So we don't have, like, 10 people on the deck, but I figure we can all just go around, say, our name and what board you live in. Can you introduce yourself, hand it off to someone else? We'll start with folks in the physical room right now, and then we'll go online. Hi, everyone. My name is Hannah King. I teach in the Browns, and I live in Ward 8. And I'm going to pass it over to Keith. Hi, I'm Keith Pillsbury. I live in University Terrace in Ward 8. I'm Jonathan Chappell Sokol. I am a member of the student committee, like Hannah, and I'm a board member. I'm Carol Livingston, and I'm Ward 1. I live on Calarco Court. I'm also on the steering committee for the MPA for Ward 1. Richard Hilliard live in on High Grove Court and Ward 1. And I am the Ward 1 representative for the ad hoc redistricting committee. I'm Andrew Chappell Sokol. I am a, um, I live in Ward 1. Hi, I'm Justin Cersei. I'm an American VISTA Servant at the Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition, based here at Burlington. Now we've got the folks on the screen. So, Jack, can you start it off? Hi, everyone. I'm Jack Hansen. I'm the East District City Councilor, and I live in Ward 8. I'll pass it to Zariah. Hi, everyone. Zariah Hightower. She, her, um, Ward 1 City Councilor, who lives in Ward 1. And I'll pass it to Barbara. Hello, I'm representative Barbara Rachelson, state representative from Ward 6 and represent part of this MPA region. I will, I'm trying to, I'm charging my computer right now. So I apologize. I'm on my phone temporarily. I will pass it on to Tom. My name is Tom Derenthal. I live on historic Nash Place. And I'm in Ward 1. I'm also on the MPA steering committee. I'm not sure who to, oh, I'll pass it to Tom. I'm guessing I'm that Tom. Hi, I'm Tom Chittenden. I'm a state senator representing Chittenden County. I will pass it. I don't know who hasn't gone. Anybody want to help me out? Pass to Dave Cowley. Is Dave on mute? I think Dave is on mute, but that is okay. Okay, how's that? Sorry about that. Dave Cowley, Nash Place and Ward 1 resident. Hi. Okay, I think that is everyone. Now we'll go. Oh, okay. Thank you. I'm a part of historic East Avenue and happened to be part of a Burlington co-housing. Great. Thank you. Now we'll go into announcements. Are there any announcements? I have one. This, this was just from an email that came from DPW and I've put it on front porch forum on the past couple of days. DPW one of the many things they've been working on is. The street that many of us cut through actually sort of a cut through street. But it's the street that's right in front of the mill building. The old mill as well as Tyler. The theater as well as Ira Allen. It's on the east side of the green. So what they're planning to do, the DPW is to make that a one way street headed north. So one way street headed north. And then the other is to only allow parking on the east side, which is again, away from the green. And then they are allowing some loading and unloading.  So please let you know DPW know what you think about this plan. That's why they sent us the email and if you have it has an impact on you it's important that you give your feedback. Thank you. The status of the redistricting committee at the moment is that our series of public listening meetings is pretty much concluded pending any input from MPAs this week. The members of the committee will be sending written input to the consultant who's putting our final paper together for city council. And we will be meeting to discuss that next Wednesday the 15th. And I believe the paper goes to city council on the 22nd. And we will be talking about what the city council's time frame is. Any questions please email me, give me a shout or give me a shout here. Thanks. Great. Thank you. Welcome Karen, do you want to just do a quick intro name and what word you live in. Karen Long, I'm in Ward one. And I attended the last meeting that Richard is talking about redistricting and they said the survey was out but I still don't know how to find the survey. I haven't seen it, Karen, they said on Monday night that it would be on front porch forum, it's in the city's hands, and I certainly haven't seen it. I don't believe anything has been posted. Okay, thank you. I can't. I haven't been involved. Is our wifi is unstable. What I just asked a question. So is the, is the volume too loud when people are speaking to us in the room from the zoom world to us. Is that too loud. Is that okay. I think it's good. Thank you. I see our zoom is frozen on your screen and mine. And I got unstable wifi thing so I don't know if they are connecting with us. Any thoughts on how to fix that. Did you say that again, please. I see that zoom is frozen on your screen as well as mine and I got an unstable wifi notification. So I don't know if they're connecting with us right now. Hannah your screen froze but we heard you the whole time. Okay, cool. Yeah, it's been frozen on both. So, I'm nervous about that. We'll keep going. Let us know if you end up not being able to hear or see us. We'll continue on though. Before we go, can we introduce the two folks who just walked in. We have a quick intro name and what word that you live in. Thank you. I'm the director of the affordable hasn't called. We'll go into speak out now so you can raise your hand either with the icon or just let me know and I'll put you in speaking order, does anyone want to participate in speak out. Sure. Yeah. I would be interested in hearing either from city councillors, or state reps or senators at what stage, the lack of competitive competitiveness and public service by the post office to the public but not to Amazon results in their proceeding any tax exempt status in the city of Burlington. We're going to do Q&A for council and reps later so we'll save that. Does anyone else want to participate and speak out. Seeing no hands raised. We'll go on to the next thing, which is Yeah, she, she doesn't want to. Okay. We're going to go into the community development block block grant advisory board appointment process. So I know we have one person interested in the ward one position. We'll pass. If anyone else is also interested in serving on it from word one, if you want to raise your hand. We will be able to do that. If not, we'll pass it off to Jonathan and Carol. I have one person express interest since we posted in front porch for him and that's Cindy cook, and I'd like to put Cindy's name in as for nomination for the ward one CDBG representative. And Cindy, Cindy cares deeply for the city. She's got a superb analytical skills, but also the last two cycles. For four years two different cycles, she expressed interest in being on the CDBG, but she deferred when somebody else expressed interest in being on it. So I feel like this time around we should, we should see what we could do to elect her to this position and certainly in the legalist way we can do that but but I moved to I moved to nominate Cindy cook and nominate Cindy cook for CBG and I second her nomination. I think we can go to a vote for all Ward one residents so if you live in Ward one and would like to vote to send Sydney to send the to CDBG. You can raise your hand, or say I online whatever would say that is an overwhelming majority so great. Now we can go on to the word one seat. Is anyone. I'm sorry, I'm really struggling here tonight. Is anyone from Ward eight interested in serving on the CDBG board. I'm seeing no hands raised so I would suggest we wait until the January meeting to see if anyone would be interested, because I cannot do it. Okay, we'll move forward. Now we're going to go into the city council portion of the meeting. We're doing a little differently this meeting with we're going to start with q amp a. So if anyone has any questions for the counselors will begin with those and then if no one does we'll go into updates after. Does anyone have any initial questions for I just see Jack and Zariah are you can raise your hand, or just call out. Yeah, I have a question for the council. And it's about housing in Ward eight and excuse me not Ward eight in my own word in Ward one and elsewhere in the city. There's so much talk about affordable housing and so much struggle to help people to get affordable housing in our city and I'm curious to know if the city has ever considered putting their heads together in earnest. And with the best of intentions with the university to see if the university can step up and help the city out by, I don't know what can happen, reduce their housing rates, build affordable housing. And identify homes all over the city where students customarily live and see to it that the code enforcement is the codes are actually enforced in those places, because the city bears a lot of that burden. And it means that the burden of looking after all of those apartments where students live and I don't want to be blaming students. I'm just saying the university could participate more fully in the housing of its students off campus as well as on campus. And I just like to know if the city council has ever thought about having to get together with with the university and having a real conversation about this to try to solve some of the problems that we have in the city for affordability. Thank you. Yeah, and I'm happy to go first. I don't, I don't know that all of the issues can be addressed by the university that you listed but I do think especially on the student housing, it can be. I don't know how much that like, I don't know how much we've talked about affordability for students in particular I think we've more just talked about housing students. Generally, I do. I think, at least since I've been on the council I haven't found the president to be very willing to engage I haven't found engaging at a high level very likely but I think Jack last time given update as well as that this is the first time since we've been on the council that the university is coming and asking for something of the council or of the city in terms of changing agreements which gives us hopefully a lot more negotiating power in terms of what we can ask for in return. So, I do think that in the coming months, we will start having that conversation for the first time in a long time. And so, kind of wasn't prompted by us it was prompted by the university's needs but I think that it offers an opportunity for us to ask for a little bit more and I do I know that at least Jack and I are going to be asking for a lot and I think I was mostly I think we have mostly been thinking about. Like, you know, how many students are housed on campus but I think we can certainly see like what directions of affordability we can take into that as well. Yeah, I totally agree Angie with their analysis and with Sarayas that this isn't the only one but this is certainly a huge one when it comes to housing and housing affordability is UVMs impact on supply and demand of housing. And yeah we are the administration is actively negotiating with UVM on on housing. And we had an executive session at council to give our input as counselors to the administration as they do that negotiation so the council's role is a little bit moved we're not necessarily in that negotiating room with President Garamella, at least not right now, but we're pushing the administration hard. And in the ways that you've described so I'm cautiously optimistic this is the most serious conversations we've had about it since I've been on council. And one more thought on that yeah so we're not in the room but I think we do have to approve what comes out so to some extent like we can't negotiate the finer details but we can definitely say like this isn't enough or something along those lines. Yeah, and we obviously can't get into detail because it's an executive session and it's an active negotiation between the city and UVM but I think you can imagine what Zariah and I are pushing for in those conversations. Thank you. Thank you very much I appreciate that you're have an active part, even though it's inactive. I mean, active but you can and you're in the room but you can't tell us anything. Gotcha. Thank you. Okay, we'll go to Karen and then Linda. I like your question Angie and I think you know like as a small landlady. We have two duplexes that are so we ran out actually seven bedrooms I mean they're two, three to bedroom and one one bedroom. Our taxes went up $7200 on those four units. So that's 100. I mean we haven't done it yet because we have really long standing tenants and we'll actually one we've let them know. But we will have to raise our rent $150 per unit, just to maintain, you know and this is other things have gone up our water rates have gone up our gas rates because we do pay for water and electricity, or actually not electricity. But anyway, the point is like the last taxes. I mean I just can't understand how this happened when Mr vickery went around to all of us telling us that it was going to be revenue neutral. But then the taxes in my area on Henry Street one places on North Willard, they went up huge like, I think 91% or something. We are raising our rents and I feel really bad because we have had tenants for a long time but, and we might lose them because we might be pricing them out but I agree UVM needs to step up because that's what's really driving the prices and I think before they used to say, bedroom on campus was $1,000 or 1200 I don't know if you new city counselors know that right now. But so then it makes maybe off campus housing look inexpensive. If you're from Connecticut going to college and your parents are paying it but if you're working in Burlington, making the wages here. It's really hard for people to pay the rents. So anyway, I'm glad there's conversation with the President, but they really have not stood up to keeping their housing promises that they've made for years and years and years so. Anyway, thank you. Yeah, no I agree Karen and I agree with both of you that it's not just the amount of housing that UVM provides it's the cost that they charge because that that sets the tone for a lot of the market is what they're charging as they're essentially the biggest landlord so they can you know they own thousands of housing units so if they set the price at that level it's going to affect the whole market and the property taxes are another driver of cost of living as well and that's something that we're working to reform and address through. I think we had described at our previous meeting this resolution that we had passed just before our last NPA meeting that looks to really reform. Not only the reappraisal process that happens periodically that we just experienced, but the, the property tax system more generally at the local level and we have state legislators that can maybe speak to the state level which I think is even more important, but there's also changes we can make at the local level to try to reduce the burden on low and moderate income folks in the city and make it more progressive in terms of the local share. Actually, what can let's say one more thing so that just reminded me UVM does not pay property taxes so all their dormitories, they were not affected by this increase, correct. That's my understanding. Yeah, unless they're privately managed I think one of the, one of the properties that's actually read, I think redstone property taxes, but other than that yes. Which, which one doesn't pay property taxes. I think it's the one. And this is my unfamiliar with UVM but it's one of the newer buildings. The lofts the redstone lofts. Yeah, okay. I know Champlain, you know when they bought that land from us like little eagle landing or whatever it's called you know the new 600 unit or 600 student I guess building the one on St. Paul Street. I'm almost positive that's tax exempt. The vast majority of UVM housing is the redstone lofts is upperclassmen housing it was a private. It was a partnership between UVM and redstone and that one I think surprise right that one does but everything else. I don't think. I feel like we were hit so hard. And yeah, I never thought about that that UVM with all their, their dormitories they, they did not get a increase. So anyway, all right, thanks. I think that's a good thing which I think is sorry to speak to one thing that Karen said which was the like promises and like what the, what, what happens when promises are broken. I don't, again, not like talking too much about it but I do think that's something, whatever the agreement is I feel like it needs to have more monitoring and teeth to actually enforce whatever UVMs agreement with the city is. Linda is next. You should be able to speak now Linda. Yeah, hi. This is Linda Rizvi. The last topic was a good segue for what I wanted to speak about, which is property taxes at a previous NPA meeting I believe it was Jack who talked about trying to take some action to correct the imbalance in the property tax burden under a new assessment as it exists right now. I've only been reading about a committee to discuss and come up with recommendations about the process going forward so it doesn't happen again. And I'm wondering if there's been any follow up on addressing the imbalance that exists now and what kind of support there is for this. Yeah, so the resolution. I've got it pulled up and if there's a way to, I don't know send it around or distribute it that would be great but the resolution is meant to lay out a process for both so it lays out. It lays out potential changes to reassessment, as well as the way the city taxes property. Some of the ideas that it lists around that are property tax credits for affordable residential residential rents differential tax tax rate for second homes property transfer tax. Surcharge tax on short term rentals tax classification of rental properties municipal tax income sensitivity and increasing the city commercial property tax rate. Those are some of the ideas that were laid out in the resolution but and so it's not exclusive to that but those are some of what this committee would explore and what the city council is going to explore so the city. So this this committee is going to work with the city attorney and report back to the city council in June. And those are some ideas that the resolution throughout I'm sure there's others we have folks on this call that that we're can housing to that probably have ideas I think Jonathan chapel so cool I think applied to serve on this committee so we should be talking at NPA meetings we should be trying to any ideas we have we should all be pushing into this ad hoc committee it's it's not formed yet I think the applications are still open right now but this is an opportunity for us to really try to reform this system. The only other thing I would know is that the administration is finalizing this sort of immediate one time property tax relief using some of the federal funds. They're still finalizing that should have it by January I think we're going to discuss it at our meeting on Monday. So this would be for lower income folks who receive property tax credits and it would be an injection to kind of hold them over before they get their increase in their credits, based on the reassessment to kind of try to do that so then. Can I interrupt for a second because yeah yeah that was that that was a. Okay, so I don't know if I'm being answer I'm just not hearing, and you're saying something and I'm not hearing it, but talking about the process sounds like it's for next time, when there's a reassessment in 10 years, or when the. We're dealing with the kinds of things like Karen was talking about taxes going up 91% or, you know, my own taxes went up quite a bit as well. So, I'm not clear that you're telling me that things are going to be that the current assessment and related property tax rate I guess that's being applied to our assessments, whether that is going to. Whether it's going to stay the same until the next time, or are you are these ideas being collected to try to redress the, the imbalance.  And certainly the businesses were the businesses had, you know, during the pandemic, the value of course went down. You know, there's other issues like whether or not some people are paying taxes on their market value and other people are paying taxes on a lower value of their house and so I'm just wondering whether any of these things are going to be addressed. Is the intention to address it soon and before the next, before the next assessment, you know, assessment in 10 years or whenever it would be. I think we can make plans for 10 years from now and Yeah, and if I can jump in and then maybe Jack if you can. Yeah, I think that there's a few, and I guess like the number one thing is like a city council like our job is really to set policy, like, and ultimately that's what we have authority over. I think that some of the things that Jack was talking about wasn't just about process like those are things like, you know, like the short term rental things like the course corrections on like businesses and things like that those are things that don't need to wait for another reassessment. However, a lot of them are like we don't have the authority to do as a city like we can't just add another tax to short term rentals we have to go. We don't have a charter change that we need to go back to the state for our current charter changes haven't made it very far so I think a lot of the solutions that would not be another reappraisal but would be like other solutions we don't necessarily have even as a city at the authority to implement quickly so I think some of those solutions that isn't the case for so there's maybe one or two things that we can do as a city. I don't know if it's a city or like Jack was talking about there's like ARPA funds that can at least like do some of the tidying over but what can be done in, you know, in the next year to address the imbalance. And the, you know, this, the, these high increases is that can anything be done will anything be done in the next year or two. The items that I listed the ideas that I listed and again these aren't the only ones these are just initial ones laid out in the resolution are are distinct from the reappraisal process there. We also have recommended changes to the reappraisal process, including doing it more frequently. But these are all distinct from that and could be done well before that. They do have a process of their own, because they are pretty fundamental changes so like Saraya said, most of these would probably have to go to the voters they'd have to go on a citywide ballot and then to the legislature to get approved. They could be done well before the next reappraisal and the, for example, the one about changing the commercial property tax rate. If that was implemented that would immediately, you know, reduce the burden on on the residential side. So just to talk about timeframe so others potentially, you know, could go on the next November ballot or something like that maybe even March, but that that then is as its own process they could take a year to get through the legislature you could take a year and have to get through the legislature so hard to say what can be done within a year when we don't know how quickly it'll go past voters and then pass the state. Does anyone else have any questions. Yeah. Does anyone want to address the postal service comment that I made earlier and speak out. I'm happy to answer which is that I have no plans to change anything about the postal service, including I don't know like what we don't have, you know, there's no income taxes at the local level so there's. Yeah, no, they're not paying property taxes, but they're not also not providing a public service anymore except to, to Amazon customers and sooner or later, that needs to be addressed. So I have no plans to address that but Yeah, I mean I think that's, that's a fair point I don't know what we would do at the local level on that but Yeah, you raise an important issue. And I just wanted to say to with Linda, in response to Linda's question. I'm, you know, I feel badly that that's the case like I wish we could act more quickly, but this for for fundamental big changes and this is a frustration I've run into a lot with Council trying to push for pretty substantial changes. It just takes, it takes so long to get anything through the process that is a substantial change in policy. And I really, I believe that localities should have more authority and more ability to change their own charters I don't think we should have to go through the legislature every time, which adds a ton of time to the process I think we should have more autonomy to the local government at the local level. Looking at all of our reps and senators I agree 100% with what Jack just said. Representative brachelson I see you have your hand raised. Thanks. So two things I, I was interesting how much time the legislature has spent on charter changes for towns and it is sometimes I agree with both Jack and Zariah comments about like what role should the legislature play. I think it's constitutional and would require a huge change, but I raised my hand to respond to Linda, because today we actually had a legislative briefing, a fiscal briefing, and I can start to find the information that I'll put up to share or send it to the co chairs to send But the tax letter that's coming out setting property tax rates related to the school funding. People will be relieved to know that those rates are lower this year, or for the upcoming year, due to a number of factors, including revenues being up in certain areas that they didn't expect. So while this does not change the systemic issue. It's a relief to me that people are going to find their property tax bill lower. The tax department is, I'm just, I've not gone back to my notes but I just wanted to bring it up during this discussion. I can share more later during my update if that's helpful. Thank you. Does anyone have any, any other questions for the counselors. How much time do we have, we have around five more minutes. I just wanted to ask representatives of the East District if you were asked by somebody in your town, what are the most serious issues in our district, the East District, not the city but in among the residents of Ward 8 and Ward 1, what are some of the issues you talk about. Yeah, I mean, I, well, Zariah were you trying to go sorry. Either way, we also just got asked this question so that's kind of fun. Go ahead and check. Yeah, and I don't remember what I said, but I won't check because I think it is, it is something that evolves and changes a lot. As new issues come to light, I mean, we just had, we just had a city wide vote on these two items, turnout was low and wards one and eight. But I think and with the reappraisal that's obviously something that's that's more so on on folks minds but the most conversations that I have with people, it's usually about, you know, housing I would say as a category and in that category, I would include cost of living and quality of housing quality of life and neighborhood, you know, cohesiveness and relationships. And the climate crisis continues to be a huge one that I've discussed a lot with with neighbors and I think this this vote, although it was low turnout was pretty overwhelmingly in support of the city continuing to move forward aggressively Leon the climate crisis. Although it was more mixed on the infrastructure proposal, partly due to, you know, the cost, the cost of living I think. So those are a couple that I consistently have felt like people really care about. Yeah, and I think for me. I vaguely remember the answer that I gave, because I think I gave the caveat of, to some extent like the widest swath of folks that I've ever heard from was in 2019 when I was running because you know NPA. It is kind of like, we tend to be the same folks on these meetings whereas then, like when, when you're running you get to talk to a wider population of people but I definitely. I think there's a range of between like what I feel like I heard the most of but also like what's the most kind of pressing now. And I think UVM and housing tends to be big one housing in general but UVM is a subcategory under that for ward one, definitely has always been a thing. I think sidewalks and accessibility is still a huge thing I feel like I hear a lot from folks with disabilities or folks who are older, and especially because we have a lot of that in ward one and our plan on having more of that type of housing. So I think sidewalks and just able to get ability to get around as a pedestrian continues to be an issue that I hear a lot about. Because on the doors I heard a lot about public safety and I think the conversation has shifted around that but I think definitely we do have a fairly diverse population and I feel like I did hear a lot about. I heard from folks general I think public safety concerns when I first started. I think I'm hearing from slightly different population now, but I think to me. And then I think general support for. I think more than climate I think even I think Karen can speak to this is just like enforcement around some of our like climate initiatives enforcement around some of our like water drainage initiatives, and like lot coverage things like that I think are the four things that I hear the most is more generally I think environmental protection. I would, and just one more thing to add I would say the most. The issue that I've heard from the most number of constituents about since getting elected two and a half years ago, by far was last year around public safety and racial justice that was definitely the one that I heard from the greatest number of people. Hi, any final comments. Oh, sorry, can I add one more Hannah I'm so sorry. I forgot this one which I can't believe which has been education, and I feel like the reason I didn't bring it up is because people have such different opinions on it. Whereas I feel like some people are very frustrated at like the education amount on their tax bill and other folks are frustrated that the high school is so far away from Ford one and there's no direct public transportation to it. Other folks are just worried about funding, especially with this, this vote that came up of how we're going to fund the new high school. And then I think just some of the concerns around the ward one. How that school changing affected. I don't know general schooling, which I know less about but I think that's another big item was education. Thank you Hannah sorry about that. I think we're going to move on to the next portion, which is hearing from our legislators. So we're going to start with quick introductions from each of you and then we'll head into kind of a more comprehensive q amp a discussion. So I'm going to pass it off to one of you and then if you want to just popcorn it to someone else I think that would be helpful. Representative Richardson, do you want to kick us off. Sure. Sorry. I just sent Jack and Hannah, the education document from today. I didn't want to share the screen because somebody was talking. So I don't know if anybody wants to share that but that's information just on the property tax piece related to education. So I wanted to say that we are very much gearing up for session, which starts just in a few weeks it starts January 4. Today was a very interesting day and I will send the link for all the different updates that we got, including on climate change plans. So I'm going to talk about the housing crisis which is a lot of stuff that people were just touching on. I also just wanted to share that I serve on the judicial nominating committee which is new I got appointed to that last year. And you all are very well aware probably that we lost. So I'm going to turn our Supreme Court Justice to the federal courts which we are happy she's there. But part of the judicial nominating committee's job is to fill judicial vacancies. We've had a number of vacancies and will be interviewing candidates for the Supreme Court in January. So we're going to send up all the highly qualified names up to the governor. We're a state that does not limit the number of names that we send up. And I have introduced a bill and Senator Ballant has introduced a companion bill in the Senate to make changes to how Vermont nominates judges. It's better than some states that elect them, but our process really could use some improvement, including, I believe, letting the public know ahead of time, who's applied for the job so that we can get states limit the number of recommendations that they send up to the governor. So I think that's also really important. Did I just freeze. Back now. People hear me. Yes. I'm also working on a couple of bills that are, I believe, going in, which we're going to take hearings on in January. Sorry, am I frozen. Barbara you might turn off your video so that the sound comes through better. I always move on from Barbara. Okay. I also want to be careful how much able to hear me so far. So I'm going to just say that so I'm happy to explain more about forfeiture and also I have a privacy bill in related to when people go and buy one of those kits to test your DNA. Your information right now is shared without your permission with lots of places. Some of the companies that own these kits are pharma, and they use your data for some of their other medical studies and research that they're running. And I think it's important that people one know that and two, that they don't use your, your private information without your permission. So I'll stop there and next we'll go to Senator Chitnam. Do you want to do a quick intro and then pass it to someone else. Sure. How much time do you want me to use. Five minutes. Okay. Great. So I'm Tom Chitnam I live out in South Burlington. I work in actually District one so I spend most of my waking hours in Ward one, not district one but Ward one. I'm a new senator I'm going to keep saying I'm new around here and use that probably for another two months and then it's probably going to work in but I serve on the Transportation Committee and the Education Committee. So I've done it. Some things that I've been working on. I have a bill that I've got a draft of which is looking at ways to integrate multiple modes of transportation. If we want to meet our climate goals, I want to see us orient our train, our air as well as our public transit to be more cohesive in their service offerings. So I think the next six is looking at this new crescent connector which is going to really reshape five corners with a new pedestrian space, where I want to see the Vermonter, the Vermonter the rail track rail line that goes from St. Albans all the way down to DC every day. I want to see that well connected to both the airport and public transit through public transit or other means. So three times each time I was just very impressed with how integrated rail train air as well as public transit work was and I want to see Vermont make sure that we take some steps to pursue that as well. I am looking at kindergarten entrance ages, Vermont's the kind of an outlier relative to the rest of the state of the union, and that we allow each local education agency to choose a date between a four month period as to whether a kid can get into school and that has impacts on our childcare that we don't have enough of. So I'm looking at that and the impacts and how to possibly move forward some more consistency across municipal boundaries. I have been talking with Senator Baruth, who I always have praised over the years with his leadership on gun on sensible gun control. I have been researching concealed carry permits to try to think of ways to strengthen s 30 as it's over in the house. But I got to say as my research is concluding that concealed carry permits are not necessarily translated to translating to less gun violence so I find in this role I'm sometimes spending a lot of time on things that don't necessarily materialize but I hope the voters know I am working on things I just don't always have things to move forward. I'm very excited to have just signed on to a, I think I can speak about a bill. Yeah, it's been public. So, there's going to be a bill introduced in the House and the Senate, I think by Senator Bray on birth certificates and I'm happy. I'm honored to be a co signer. It's going to propose to authorize the state registrar to amend and issue new birth certificates to reflect an individual's gender identity. I think that's a very worthwhile and worthy thing that we should move forward as a state of Vermont. Then following closely the people waiting report their draft report just came out today I read about, oh, I want to say 10 or 15 pages of it but I need to read the rest of it really understand where they're going I haven't fallen along but that's going to be a very weighty topic for this coming session. And I'll close on this I hope I'm still within five minutes happy to talk about my service on gy talk general join Commission technology oversight and state infrastructure board but going back to an earlier question by Angie. I also serve on the South Burlington City Council and one thing related to housing that impacts Burlington, the city of South Burlington is now considering and voting on this coming January new draft land development regulations that will actually be the University of Vermont's ability to use some of their parcels down Swiss Street right adjacent to Burlington. I am apparently very opposed to this because I feel that it's over waiting the needs to protect undefined and poorly defined habitat blocks that I think need more clarity, while taking away the ability of our land grant institutions and possibly build more student housing close to Burlington where I think you'd all agree we need. So I am looking at ways to advocate for some sensible constraints. I don't know if you know this but UVM is the largest landowner in the city of South Burlington. And I'm concerned that some of these LDRs are going to tie their hands to meet the very important housing need to lighten the crunch that I'm sure you all feel both in your taxes and how much people are paying and rent. In that vein, I was excited to see in the Vermont Climate Committee report that they are looking at Act 250 and ways to possibly have the state use have more influence over land development regulations so that we can ensure that we are thinking regionally when it comes to desiring or fostering the right type of smart growth where we already have sewer water municipal gas broadband other infrastructure services and that ties into that conversation. We probably have five minutes so I'll stop there and I'll turn it to Senator Baruch if you don't mind if I popcorn over to you. Sure. Welcome. Well, welcome me to your event. I guess what I'll say is I serve on judiciary and also on appropriations at this point. And there's a whole menu of things I could talk about but I'd like to start out with the pandemic, just because there's, there's going to be again. 40% of our work is going to be pandemic related, if not more. And if you remember the special session, we had, I just think of it as a crazy proposition. So the governor called us back and said, what he wanted us to do specifically and only was create a bill that would give towns the town by town authority to establish a mask mandate. At the same time, he said that he thought that would be bad public policy. So he called us back, limited us to one bill and said he hoped people wouldn't use it. If we passed it. So it was just a very odd situation in which I who favor a statewide mask mandate in this moment when our case counts are dwarfing the number of cases we had at the beginning of the pandemic. I voted yes on that because it would allow South Burlington Burlington, all individual towns and cities in the state to take a vote, but that was the worst possible way to approach that question. So my number one hope when we get back is that we can take up the question again of a statewide mask mandate, because I think what we've done is not following the science. And I also think it's potentially creating disruptive public meetings in every town across the state, at least the potential for them. So, so that's number one number two is from the federal government we've now had the next large tranche of funds. And that's the, what's known as the bipartisan infrastructure bill. So that's going to have to be turned into a set of rules that will govern how and when that money comes out. And I'm sure the Appropriations Committee will be following that as well as finishing the spending of the federal money that we still have in the bank that we've yet to spend from the last tranche of money. So, among other things that we've been doing is on the education side, we use that money to redo the HVAC systems in schools across the state. That was something that I had a direct hand in that I was very proud of. So we'll be finishing those kind of infrastructure improvements, but we'll also be still trying to help people who need help with the rent, people need help with, you know, having lost wages during the pandemic trying to get those back wages back. So all of those interrelated scientific and financial issues around the pandemic. Then I'll just say one other one other thing and that is, in terms of the judiciary, one of the things we've been working on for years is limiting the number of people in our prisons, improving the conditions in our prisons, trying to move the women in from South Burlington to a new state of the art facility. Getting rid of life without parole which Senator Hinsdale-Ram and I have been working on together. So it's my hope that, in addition to taking care of the pandemic, we'll be able to walk and chew gum and continue the reform of our judicial system and correction system, and hopefully to go back to Senator Chitman's comment, make some sensible changes in our gun laws. S-30 which he mentioned is in the house and my hope is that they will strengthen it a little bit, send it back to us, and we can send that on to the governor for his signature. So with that, I will pass it off to my colleague, Senator Ram Hinsdale. Hinsdale-Ram. Second time. Ram Hinsdale, but, you know, we're getting there. It's new and hopefully you'll be interested. And I was Senator Keisha-Ram when I represented all of you in the legislature. Many of you around the table essentially helped raise me politically since I started when I was 22. I hope I'm a little wiser and more mature as a 35-year-old senator now. But it's really nice to see all of you. And I see Senator Pearson and Representative Colburn, who I'm glad are there in person to sort of back clean up and also, you know, our staples of the neighborhood. First, I just want to say, you know, as a member of government operations, Jack and Soraya, I really hear you on the local control piece and the charter change piece. This is, you know, Senator Pearson could probably speak to this as well. It may have been when he was on the committee, but Senate government operations has tried to pass various iterations of local control over charter changes, not having to have it come back to the legislature. I have one now. I don't know that it'll go anywhere because these things do get gummed up in other places that are very local government favored committee. I do have one where you would not need to come to the legislature to approve a local option tax. So we're often trying to eat away at the legislative control over local matters. It is a challenge and I hear you. We will get any charter change that comes from the house. So currently, as I think you heard, we have one of Burlington's charter changes on the airport. And I think some of the funds need to make it through the house before they come to Senate government operations. I have been a vocal supporter of just cause eviction. You know, I am supportive of all the charter changes. I think what was funny is the house that will send the non controversial one about the airport over and that might be one of the more controversial ones I'm here to tell you. So, you know, just prepare for that. But, you know, we will see what happens, but, you know, they're even even within Chittenden County, it's controversial. So, you know, I just want to prepare folks for that. I, in addition to being on Senate government operations and Senate economic development and housing, I'm currently on the health care task force the affordable accessible health care task force. I have Herculean work and I don't think any of us will feel good about it, unless we lower the cost of health care for the average family in Vermont. Through our work so we hope to not nibble around the edges but I do want to make sure people know what the federal government does on this is is so much more consequential. It's an important time. If you need to look re visit your health care plan, it is open enrollment time. So talk to Vermont Health Connect, talk to a navigator. You should also know that if something major has changed it can often feel stressful to go talk to the state about an income change a household income change. I'm not currently taking anyone off of Medicaid right now so you know it is a really critical time to not be as scared as normal unfortunately about, you know, accessing health care and talking to the state about your options. So I did want to say that open enrollment ends in January and Chris I'm looking to you to sort of help with the final date. If you speak if you know I think it's January 15. I'm really building on what Senator Bruce said I mean, I don't know what the 40% I love that number, maybe I'll use that number but you know, a majority of our work I think will be touched by the pandemic and the large infusion of not what you necessarily could call it one time money but the money that we have three years in some ways to spend and so you know we could call it one time money but I think that makes people even more scared of urgent about how we spend this money and we have a little bit of a horizon. But that's really hard to spend you know when our communities are distressed it doesn't sort of absorb into the roots the soil isn't isn't ready to absorb all of that money and we have a job to to pace the change. I do think, you know, my feeling as someone on DevOps particularly is that, and with our workforce crisis already is that a lot of those extra dollars should go to the pension funds in the state for state employees and educators. We already have a labor shortage and the last place we need it is in critical state positions and in our schools, and you know frankly the more teachers feel well taken care of the better teachers you get. We know that from states that compensate teachers well. So you know the pensions are going to be a really critical issue for me this session. There are some visionary things we can do with that one time money. I have a civilian climate core proposal in the works that I hope will tag on to what the federal government has coming for us. But I think we need to be looking at climate in a creative way and building a climate workforce to be ready for some major shifts in the future housing. I think we're all going to talk about it I'm looking at air heart I mean he's left us right before you know housing went from number four on everybody's list and number one on everybody's list. But I have his wisdom rattling around in my head and I'm sure he'll still be engaging with us at David who took over the Vermont affordable housing coalition has been a huge partner. I'm really looking at things like first generation home buyer grants to build on the first, first time home buyer tax credits to really help folks who don't have generational wealth to put down to buy their first home. And I do think we have to talk about permit reform and actually get something done we can't throw millions of dollars at housing projects and then watch them languish, you know, in in various processes and courts. I, one of the centerpieces of that bill would be doing away with single family zoning. So it's not without controversy but I think it's time to really throw a lot of ideas on the table and move some forward. We don't need to talk about redistricting, but you know it's just going to take up a lot of airtime in the session. And as you know it's a historic time when we're breaking up the Chittin County Senate District and that will affect all of us and probably particularly Burlington and South Burlington, because they're just big chunks of population. And you know I'm just really glad that that Senator Baruth raised criminal justice reform and policing. You know he's really tilled the soil again for a lot of big change to happen and we're also looking at ending qualified immunity based on Colorado's model which is one that has worked to hold officers accountable. And that can happen through a criminal proceeding and their licensure it can also happen through a financial penalty if they have been found in of, you know, engaged in misconduct that cost the town and the department money in Colorado that officer should be charged 5% of the cost of that misconduct. I think these are all ways to get at a place of employment that you know is in some ways has a lot more discretion and leeway than a lot of other places of employment and you know, when you're allowed to carry a gun and it's the way shouldn't be the case. I suppose the last thing I'll say because I hope it matters to some of you. Many of you know I got into the legislature 15 years ago working on environmental justice. You know, and we've seen in the pandemic how critical it is for people to have a healthy place to live and access to open space and green space. I think after 15 years that bill is finally going to pass this year, it's a priority of the climate action plan it's a priority of social and environmental justice groups in the state. It's the right thing to do. It would, you know, I think it would benefit Burlington and when you ski because of large renter and limited English proficiency populations and the ways they are left behind in some of our environmental regulations I think it will also benefit mobile home parks and Bennington and and I think there's a lot of new port and places that have energy poverty lack of transportation and are generally environmentally distressed and I'm very excited to see that move forward. So we can advance both civil rights and environmental protections. And thank you. I will yield to representative China, who has a lovely scarf and I was going to go to Selena and Chris just thinking, you're going to be last anyway because you're, we don't see you as easily on the screen representative China. And I'm going to set a timer for myself. For three minutes because that was the time I was originally told I know others have been given a lot longer. So, let's begin. So I'm a representative Brian China. I represent most of board one even though I live in Ward two. I'm one block away from you though and I still consider you to be in my neighborhood. I serve on the health care committee because I'm a clinical social worker. And what we are seeing right now is a tsunami of mental health needs and substance abuse problems that is flooding our system of care, and our healthcare workforce is drowning. In my private practice I sometimes see up to 10 people in a day but the phone calls never stopped from people seeking help, and there's waiting lists for all outpatient programs. As a crisis clinician with the Howard Center every time I work there's a line of people waiting for assessments, and the emergency room is filled with people waiting for inpatient beds. Many of my clients who are unhoused are now living in hotel rooms because there's no just no housing available for them. And they're getting treatment but there's so many others in our hotels who do not have access to getting their needs met for health care, and they don't have access to education and training needs, so that they can improve their economic situations. And when the city of Burlington forcibly removed people from the Sears lane encampment, I was invited to visit the people there to hear their stories on how they fell through the holes of our social safety net, which continues to be torn apart as this pandemic rages on. If housing is health care, then what's our long term plan for the thousands of people living in hotels camps or cars during this pandemic. So we must better fund and realign our health care system, building on our past work to improve training and address health care disparities like we did with H 210 a bill that I was the lead sponsor of that past last year. And in addition to implementing the recommendations of the Health Equity Advisory Commission, we need to increase evidence based practices, all throughout our health care system like harm reduction and pure focused approaches. We can retrain the existing workforce and we definitely must pay our workers a better wage. And we can do this while investing in a whole new generation of health care workers who have lived experience and are in recovery. So, you know, we can, we can invest in workforce development in the construction trades and then give people a chance to work building a wide range of housing options from supported housing to low income housing to cooperatively owned housing that would both promote social equity and allow people to build financial equity, which would address wealth disparity. And we can expand agriculture in every region of the state by investing in the training and infrastructure needed to run a year round food production operation in Vermont. And then we could feed our entire state as climate change continues to impact global supply lines. So I've been meeting with unhoused people and other impacted groups, service providers and advocates to talk about a three to five year plan, which would launch a bold public works program that would address our environmental and social problems by putting people to work rehabilitating existing structures and building new housing so that the workers could then afford to buy or rent the buildings that they fix up or create. And we can reinvigorate our health care system by training and paying people to serve our community in a better functioning way. We can put people to work feeding every person in our state restoring the connection between people in the land beneath us. We set our minds and heart to it the recovery from this pandemic can tackle the greatest problems of our time and bring forth a just transition to a better way of life, where we take care of each other better, and we would take care of our planet better. I went 42 seconds over I'm sorry, it's, I'll stop there it's been three minutes and 45 seconds and I'll turn it over to my district mate representative Colburn. Should I talk into this microphone Charlie is that for the count okay. Hi everyone it's really nice to see you I'm representative Selena Colburn and with Brian I represent the Chittenden 64 district. I thought rather than talk about a whole host of issues I would talk about a single issue. Some of my colleagues have talked about the imperative mandate that we address the pandemic in the coming session is we have been in in recent years there's another epidemic in our community that is also causing deaths and those deaths are not behind COVID deaths in Vermont and that's the overdose fatality crisis that is just taking so many lives we had started to turn a little bit of a corner in 2019 and had a year where we saw the first decrease in those fatality numbers in many, many years, but when the pandemic hit, we saw massive increases which is a national trend, however, Vermont is an outlier in which we have like depends a little bit how you slice the data but we saw in 2020 a 40% increase and when you start to look at the numbers going into 2021 Vermont is the state with the highest increase in the country and fatal overdoses right now. So we have to act. This is something I really worked on as a city started working on as a city counselor here in Burlington and have continued to work on in the legislature and I'll be honest and say I haven't felt a ton of urgency and the Vermont pandemic has been a major on this issue. And I'm hoping we see that urgency and that same kind of mandate that we had about addressing the COVID pandemic on this issue in the coming session. I think some of the things that we can do are ensure low barrier access to treatment and Burlington has really been a model and thinking about how to do this embedding access to treatment same day access to production settings like safe recovery which is a syringe exchange drug treatment program right here in Burlington. We can also work with our Medicaid system to make sure that folks aren't having to get prior authorization for Medicaid and long wait times to be able to access those medications that can help them. We know that syringe exchange program what are sometimes called syringe exchange programs what the state called syringe service programs really save lives so that's a model that recognizes that people do use drugs. And that those lives are worth saving that people deserve access to clean needles so they won't contract hepatitis or AIDS deserve access to medication like naloxone that can reverse overdoses and a whole host of other services including medication assisted treatment. So I have a bill that would actually expand the criteria for who in the state of Vermont can host a syringe exchange right now you have to be a licensed health care provider in AIDS service organization or a drug treatment program so for example a low barrier homeless shelter who recognized wow this would be really valuable to our clients cannot currently host a syringe service program. So I did get the health department on board with this expansion I thought they were there, they've had a little bit of a change of heart but I'm going to keep working on them. I've also been really grateful to the Burlington community stack group that I've been working with more and more for really pushing the envelope on some of these things and they're doing that because they look at the data they look at the evidence and they look at what's working here, asking us to think about some bold ideas in the legislature this year, including what are sometimes called overdose prevention sites, where people can come and use drugs in a supervised setting where overdoses can be reversed these exist in models all around the country and there's never been a fatal overdose in one of these sites. New York State just opened the first above ground of these sites in the country. Last week and have already reversed numerous overdoses save tons of lives. Rhode Island is about to roll out a pilot as well so our neighbors are starting to stand up these sites. And I know that a number of Burlington based organizations are going to be asking the legislature to take a serious serious look at this model and this issue and and I'm all for it. I believe Senator Pearson has introduced a bill on this in the past I've introduced a bill on this every every year that I've been in the legislature and I'm hoping this is a year that we get some serious discussion going on this. And then finally I'll say that another strategy on this issue that I think is really really important to some of the points that Senators Rahm and Senator brute Baruth raised is really looking at how we handle the issue of drug use, and how that intersects with the criminal justice system. So I was felt very lucky over the last year to get to study restorative justice at Vermont law school a little bit and really take a deep dive learning about the history of the drug war in this country. I believe that it drug crimes were created penalties were enhanced to really enforce and enhance racial disparities so I've been working with a coalition of folks who are really starting to look at the issue of do we need to criminalize the possession of drugs at lower levels that really just correspond to personal use. What are the benefits of that what are the negatives of that. It's interesting, I think this question of penalties for drug crimes actually will be an issue in the legislature this year, the legislature has been looking at those decarceration strategies that Senator Baruth mentioned and there's a working group called the justice reinvestment working group that has worked with the consultant, the Council of State Governments and actually charged them in the off session to come back and tell us, how can we reduce racial disparities and sentencing and incarceration in the state of Vermont. And one of their main recommendations was look at penalties for drug crimes look at reducing eliminating those penalties how you structure them, because states that have done this. Even if this isn't their primary objective see a reduction in racial disparities and sentencing and incarceration so some of these are hard ideas they maybe seem a little counterintuitive but there's a lot of science and evidence behind them and I think the time to pick up these conversations is now we need to turn the corner on this crisis we are just losing too many of our neighbors our friends are relatives. It's time to take action. So that's where I'm at tonight. Well thank you everybody. It's nice to be here in person and and Hollywood squares for for a moment. I'm, I'm Chris Pearson, one of your senators and I live in Ward one. So I have a pleasure of being in the neighborhood. You know, just quickly. In case you mentioned the healthcare enrollment if you're, if you know folks trying to get in I believe the deadlines December 15 health care health plans kick in January one so that's coming right up. It's Medicaid December 15 for my health connect January 15 I looked it up. Okay. One of the great challenges of serving in the legislature is picking from hundreds of extremely worthwhile issues and we don't only have the ability to work on one issue. But we are looking at, I would say reams of examples of deferred social maintenance for decades where where whether you're talking about healthcare workforce teachers, preschool, mental health workers. I mean, it's, it's humongous challenge and and we work for four and a half months. We have very little staff. It is a really big challenge and it's easy to get overwhelmed. So, how do you pick, you don't pick. Fortunately, you know, different people bring different ideas to the table. Speaker of the house president pro tem and other leaders decide on some priorities. And, and if you're folks who are not in those roles but if you're a cherry you pick some of them. If you're people like me you're advocating for them and trying to get them into the agenda. And one of the ways that I have tried very consistently to put on the table over many, many years of work in Montpelier and both the House and Senate is around climate. I'm the co founder and currently co chair of what we call the climate solutions caucus which is now over 80 members of the hundred and 80 people in Montpelier. Salina plays a leadership role in there, thankfully, and we have slowly been able to bubble this up as a priority and not just to something we should talk about but something we should fund. And nature and Vermonters have played a role in bringing that forward. The headlines around the world. I don't think I need to display that or talk about that much. But our work in the last few years led to the creation of the Climate Council which as of a few days ago, has put forward a plan. That's an ambitious plan. It is not enough. And it's too much for us to deal with in four and a half months, but broadly speaking my priority is pushing through this package and getting just absolutely as much of it done as we can in the next four months. And so that includes an update to the renewable energy standard that that directs utilities about how much power and where they have to buy power from is it small local renewable. Is it Hydro Quebec, etc. We can get that up to 100% renewable and invest in jobs and particularly solar here in state so we're resilient, creating those jobs and and not exporting our money. There's an idea that surface out of this process called the clean heat standard similar to the renewable energy standard but for heat, and would put Vermonters on a timeline to get to renewable source of heat as opposed to fossil fuel. And interestingly enough you have Vermont gas, you have the fuel dealers people at the table saying, Okay, we can look at this. That's a huge sea change, and recognizes something quite exciting and quite innovative that will make some progress on. And Kasia mentioned that the equity environmental justice bill that's part of our package of priorities there's a lot of thinking has gone into transportation. And that looks like our vehicle swap out program so not just electric cars and electric charging stations but getting people out of inefficient vehicles into more efficient vehicles right for a lot of people buying electric car is you know you might as well. But getting them out of a car or truck that gets 18 miles a gallon into truck car that gets 35 miles a gallon is a big benefit and something we can do and not only help the climate but actually help their pocketbooks because they're not spending so much on fuel. For a long time we've talked about the need to weatherize more homes. This is real elementary it's a job creator it saves people money on their heating bills and increases their comfort in their homes. We need to take that to a much faster and accelerate that and I would say that's a theme that we've seen come out of the climate plan is, hey we're actually doing a bunch of this stuff, do way more of it. And now we maybe have some of the money to do that. There's also been an idea around the state has been good as its own player to weatherize and do investments in our own infrastructure. We want to help expand that to municipalities so that schools and city buildings, municipal buildings around the state are leading by example, saving taxpayer monies locally and you know the climate doesn't care which building you weatherize. So the public infrastructure should be out in front of that. How you do that is not just a question of policy. It's not just a question of money, we do have resources like we've never seen before, in terms of some of the federal stimulus dollars that can go to to a lot of these things but also who's going to do it. It's pretty straightforward to say to transportation the agency of transportation. Hey you have a massive laundry list of projects. We're giving you more money now you can do more of them this year right. It's not it's we have efficiency Vermont and VIC that that do a lot of work in this space, but we don't necessarily have the workforce around weatherization, for example. So not only those people have suffered because the money has gone like this. We need to tell them very plainly, the money's going like this for the next many years and so you can build your infrastructure. The state itself needs some infrastructure to direct this. I don't think we need an agency, but we clearly need a director that is that is thinking about this we clearly need to create grant programs that goes to a partners around the state innovators and small businesses, nonprofits to say, get ready because we're going to be doing this year. This is not a one year project this is a 1020 year project and we need those people to do that. How exactly we do that I don't know but those are some of the questions that are coming forward. Because I can't resist there are other priorities that I do like to work on. You have all heard me talk about shifting the way we pay for schools. It's important right now for Burlington for those of us that have gone through a rather jarring reappraisal shifting away from properties property tax for school funding to income tax. This is the last hold out of a of an otherwise reasonably progressive tax system in the state. Property tax is very regressive when the way we applied to schools, a lot of good research has gone into this. We can make this shift and better balance your bill and your ability to pay, which is, I'm hopeful I mean we've been at this for a long time. But I feel like there's some momentum coming there actually out of the, particularly the people waiting in the equity discussion that is kind of saying hey this actually has to be part of that. We passed the Senate a universal school meals that during the pandemic the federal government has said to every school in the country. Feed your kids. Don't worry about the bill in Burlington and elsewhere around the state we have had some universal meals some of our schools do that already. Kathy probably tell you all about it now there's on the school board, some of them don't during the pandemic we've all done it and a lot of us are saying relative to our big education budget this is chump change. We need this piece of equity we need this food security for people. And you know if your parents lose a job, you're not probably going to apply to take advantage of the means tested programs. Let's it's actually been an interesting experiment through the pandemic and some great data coming from food directors, say please can you do this because since the feds have been playing for it. We get all the kids going through one line and you create this equality that that's really really important I can tell you my elementary school girls are a nightmare when they're hungry. And trying to teach kids who are not well fed is just a real burden for school so we did get that through the Senate in a universal breakfast to start the discussion. I'm very hopeful the House will take it up and take it further. And the last thing I'll say is a $15 minimum wage. Actually, it's kind of a joke now. People who voted against $15 and we have passed it a couple of times the governor vetoed it we managed to get to 1250 we're on a path to 1250. But people who voted against those bills even even on the Democratic side in the Senate have said to me plainly those days are over, you know, the job market is where such that as you see out on Shelburne Road Wilson Road, and say hiring starting at 18 bucks an hour right. So my attitude is, let's install this now. If things turn, we sort of catch people so that we don't go back to a day when somebody is cobbling together several of the livings trying to make 12 bucks an hour. I think we can get that across the finish line. It'll be interesting what the governor does with it, given his historic opposition but given this time that we're in. I think I think there's an interesting political moment shouldn't have to take up a lot of time because the House and Senate have debated it a lot over the last several years. And we can get that across the finish line and that'd be a nice, nice little data point and a security point for for so many families that are struggling. Still, even, even as the job market is very tight. So there's loads more we can talk about I hope we will have time for housing and UVM and other things but that's that's it for me. Great. Thank you all. We have just under 30 minutes for questions and discussion now so if you'd like to ask a question, please indicate by raising your hand on the screen or in the room I see Tom, you had your hand up and then we'll go to Kathy. Yeah, hi. This is Tom Derenthal. I get a question that's it's multiple parts but it's all focusing on the Burlington school district. And the first is is how do we really understand how the state sets safety standards for for pollution in particular PCBs because we've we've seen the number differ considerably from the federal limit and it was very, very low, which sort of pushed the school district to replace the high school because PCBs were found. And then the state, it seemed like in quick fashion changed their number to a much higher number which may or may not change the school districts plans. And the second part of this question is, if the school district does decide to go ahead and replace the high school. Is there a process at the state level to help cities pay for that. And I, I'm not sure. I'll pick up the second question if I could and leave the first to somebody who knows better but when. So my daughter is currently at downtown BHS in the Macy's building, and when it was clear that they were going to have to move. They were working with a number of people to try to figure out different ways to free up money. So you remember there was a $3 million appropriation that funded the move. So, so that was a great first step, but a second step was, we have an environmental emergency fund that we were going to replenish this past year. And I checked into that and because of the enabling language for the fund, it could not be tapped for PCBs. So one of the things that we did in addition to replenishing that fund with I think $5 million is to change the language so that it now includes PCB contamination. So that is a route that I hope Tom Flanagan and the school board can explore, whether there's more money to be had for Burlington school district there. But in any event, that will now be available in other PCB related emergencies statewide. And then the other thing I would say is, you know, the one thing I do know about the PCB levels. I asked Senator Chris Bray who chairs the environmental committee in the Senate to do a deep dive into the PCB standard and figure out why there was the delta between the federal and state standards. And his committee did a couple of weeks of hearings. They heard from experts who were unaffiliated with government and in government. And their conclusion as a committee was that the federal standard was outdated, and Vermont standard was more in line with current science. So that was my understanding from that committee natural resources committee. I was very surprised then to see the administration unilaterally by rule change that standard. And one of the things that needs to be done is to direct the natural resources committee to go back to that question and look into how and why exactly the state selected the new standard that they've selected, because it seems to be in its face. It looks like moving back toward what I was told originally was an outmoded standard. So, that's all I can say for now and anybody in house or Senate who knows more than that. I'd welcome you adding on to it. I can comment just a bit because yesterday we, we actually heard from Tom who had just, I'm Kathy and I'm a school board member. We had just gotten given the report on why that change was it is because they passed a law in the state that all schools must be checked for PCBs. That that amount is for PCBs in the air. It is not PCBs in the walls in the, you know, the earth outside of the building. And so it is only PCBs in the air. And if you're going to test all of these schools in every single school in the state, of course, having the very minimum which is, yes, the healthiest level of PCBs. It is many schools probably wouldn't pass. And so they had to bring it up. And that is not that they're saying this. It just makes sense that having passed that law at the state level that the health department had to bring those levels up otherwise we would be redoing every state, every school in the state. So at this point. So that's probably the reason for raising it, but that is not the level. So we aren't changing course in Burlington, because we have higher levels of PCB in in the walls in the ceilings in the cement on the floor, and outside in the earth. And so it is still way too high to go back into that building. And the health department has said to us, we should not change our course because of them raising those for the air. And I mean, I'm, I hope I'm explaining this, this was just yesterday and I'm not a scientist but I, I understand that that they made that change probably because of the state law, and what the repercussions of that would be for all the schools in the state. So, just a quick follow on question. But what can infrastructure, some of these infrastructure funds we've gotten from the federal government can those we use to rebuild schools. Infrastructure, I would say I don't know at this point, because it's so new. I just don't know the answer. Yeah, you can go. I don't know the answer to that either but what two things I'd like to add to this discussion, I serve on Senate Ed and I was very happy with one of the bills we passed last session, we got the number. But what's using some of the relate the state available as for funds where we are tasking on every school district to do a building inventory of what the, and we, we pushed and we included a rate on testing so we were looking for an assessment of all of each of the building and how it would stand with standards they are weatherization, so that we as a state can look at all of our schooling infrastructure start prioritizing where the money needs to go. First and foremost, as for the money, I definitely think we need to look at the ARPA funds and other revenues that might be coming out of the revenues but monies from the infrastructure bill. And also in the early starts a start of the session, the auditor, that fierce did testify before the committee that Vermont used to allow for schools have access to a bond bank with much easier access to capital at lower rates and easier to borrow money for schools that stopped a few years ago. I don't understand that enough to speak eloquently to it but I definitely expressed the, the imperative that we make schools a priority when it comes to going into debt for future generations. I don't know if Senator Baruth has anything to add on bonding capacity for schools but that's something that I sense from the auditor that it's as she is open to, and that's something that I certainly want to advocate for to make it easier and cheaper to get capital to districts like Burlington to upgrade their school infrastructure. I can just throw in there that there has been a moratorium on state aid for school construction for 10 years 15 years. And that started our colleague, our old colleague John Rogers was part of the move to put that in place. Now that it's been in place for so long. It does become difficult to get rid of it because we've taken that bonding capacity and we've used it for other things. So I'm very much in agreement with Tom. I think we should, we should get back to having the state help out. I'm wondering if this federal infrastructure money can't ultimately be directed in that way. So I started out tonight by saying that that bipartisan infrastructure bill is huge, and it will require rule writing that is all going to happen over the next two to six months, and then we'll know much better what we can use it for. But, you know, it's going to help us already with things like water treatment plants along Lake Champlain. There are communities along Lake Champlain that have been biting their nails for decades, because their infrastructure on the lake is completely damaged, but it would cost them so much in taxes to fix it that people are afraid to even propose that to their taxpayers. So this federal money will hopefully get rid of that issue. And similarly school construction will start to be something we could at least talk about for targeted districts, if not every district. Okay. Thank you. And really quick thing to add, which is that we had a legislative briefing today and heard a little bit of a forecast financial forecast about the Ed fund and heard that there's a surplus there. And I believe her that the administration is actually going to be coming forward with a dual proposal about how to use that that includes both tax relief but also funding for capital projects for schools so you know, hard to know how that will move forward for sure but that was what I heard today. Sorry. No, that's right. This is why I know that this just the draft came out today from the task force on the people per people waiting study. I don't know if any of you have had enough time to read it. I haven't read the whole thing either, but I've been following it. And I'm really disappointed with what is coming out. First that they have sidelined ELL students which are predominantly students of color, and are going to pay for them with what is it called there's a categorical aid, instead of waiting, putting them in as part of the weights. At any rate, they have fooled around with that whole waiting study so much. And I'm, I'm pretty upset over what I'm seeing, but I want to know how you people feel because this question is going to be put to you next. And I as a school board member, really, I mean I will be talking to all of you but but I also really want to know if you have thoughts on it right now. If you could say that. And if you can't, I understand. Yeah, I sorry it's hard to know like who is raising their hand and who isn't in the hybrid and I share your concern and frustration. Kathy I really did hone in on the question of ELL students and how they're being handled. They have been really pulled out as a very different category and model of funding so it is really hard not to experience that as a kind of separate but equal treatment, especially after knowing that the Burlington School District the Winooski School District testified again and again and again to the task force. Please don't do this it actually leaves us a lot worse off than implementing the weights as originally recommended in the study. So I know that I representative small and Winooski a number of others have been part of the coalition. That's working on this along with representatives of the school board and many of us are regrouping eagerly awaiting the final version of the report that will come out on Friday but definitely share your concerns and I think that some of us are really trying to figure out what next steps and actions are actually yeah meeting with some folks about that this week and it is really concerning I think So I will speak to this for a lot of reasons but one was that I wrote the bill that got turned into the bill that created the study committee. If you go back to my original bill, what it said was that this committee would be charged with implementing the recommendations of the UVM report. That was it. And in fact it, it made it clear that nothing else should happen. Then when it went through the education committee in order to get the vote out of committee, they broadened it a bit. And they put in some language that said among other things that this committee could discuss other ways of achieving of achieving the same goal. So, I would agree with Kathy I, and with Representative Colburn. I think it's inarguable that what this committee has recommended is different treatment for students of color, and different in a bad way. The waiting formula where the ELL students currently are registered and accounted for in the funding is very, very hard to change. It's something that requires, you know, many, many moving parts as you're seeing now just with this study committee. If it gets changed to a categorical aid program, it can be changed in the normal course of appropriation, each and every session, whether it would or not is a separate question, but it could. So for instance, if you change this to a categorical aid program, and you had another incident like, I don't know if you remember civil unions, but that one issue caused the majority in the House and the Senate to shift and suddenly Republicans had a much stronger role, you could very easily have an administration and or a majority come in, who viewed that as overly generous spending on students who are learning English, and they could unilaterally cut that program. So I, I think, you know, it's not too strong a label to say that this is what systemic racism looks like. It's where you change the system, or create a system to disadvantage people. And in this case, unfortunately, I think what's happening is this suggestion bubbled up as a way to protect affluent white communities from seeing their tax rates rise, because all of these tax rates are a zero sum game. So none of this, I don't think absolutely was intentional, but I think the committee allowed themselves to wander down a very dangerous road. I was also disappointed and frustrated. So the path now is in the Senate and House Education committees where this will land, and also the finance committees ultimately. If I could at the risk of, you know, defending what I don't agree with. I am meeting with the Senate co-chair of this task force tomorrow and I have been trying to listen to her a lot in this process. And I think it's helpful to understand a principles that someone is putting on the table, you know, even if to disagree with it. One of the things that that is somewhat compelling about the position of starting with categorical aid is there has been a concern in rural districts that if you have just a handful of ELL students, and you add a little bit of money per student. It doesn't really add up to very much to be able to offer a more comprehensive set of services and curricula to those students. So you do see in the formula that they proposed or the aid that they proposed the figure overall for ELL go from $7 million to $11 million. The big problem I see, and this is why the social equity caucus has asked over and over again for the comparator to the original proposal to this proposal, is that will affect different districts in very different ways. Some districts will benefit that probably don't need to, and districts like Burlington will probably lose out that really actually need the money the most. And that is, you know, a non starter I think you're hearing for for all of us, but I just want to start with that idea that there are rural communities where ELL services are really lacking. And that was part of where the heart of this particular, you know, co chair was in proposing this, I would personally like to see a hybrid model with aid that goes to communities that have a small population of ELL students and the ability to use tax on top of that to supplement particularly in large communities where we know it's so far beyond curriculum. It's about wrapping around with cultural and family services. And these are communities that often there's more asked of them. So they need to respond with with greater numbers of dollars, but I just, I want to try and be as fair as I can to where I think the original proposal was coming from, and I do really it's it is missing the boat and it is not going to achieve equity, but it started as an effort to try and get some rural equity for small populations of the ELL student. Okay, so we only have a couple minutes left if we can you have your hands raised. This is actually for Michael. Yeah, I just want to support the senator Bruce original plan, which was to have a task force charged with implementing the equity study I think that's, that's what the focus needs to be I mean, obviously this is a very complex issue, but the equity that that task, not that the task force and the study was meant to address initially is inequity that, as I understand has been going on for quite some time for, for decades. So my sense is that the equity study in in some should be implemented promptly. That that that failure to implement it promptly and restore equity would be akin to a violation of the Vermont Constitution, such as the one that was addressed by Brigham. So it's kind of it's odd to me that we had Brigham and we made a lot of corrections and adjustments. Regarding that but we ended up with weights that people for years and years have been saying are out of kilter, and there's no reason to have out of kilter weights persist for years and years if they're if they're not right. We need to be adjusted on a regular basis, so that equity across the board is something that we can approximate with a reasonable degree of of accuracy and and faithfulness on an annual basis. Thank you. Hi, are there any more questions we probably have time for one more. I am not seeing any more hands. If there's nobody else. I'm wondering whether Senator Pearson can expand a little bit more week before you arrive we did talk with the city council about the relationship between the university and housing in Burlington. And are there opportunities for the legislature to support the city in making some changes that might create a little better affordability to housing within the city. Opportunities. Yes, I think so.  And there's more to come and then as some, I think it was Casey said, you know, this is a very top priority for, for a lot of people. And there's federal money coming. What, what I was at a group of us, Brian and I and maybe some others were meeting with President Garamelli yesterday for luncheon. And the question I brought up was housing and and what he said and sorry if this is a repeat but that they're dying to build housing there, they would build it tomorrow they would build 600 some beds. And there are a lot of actually city zoning rules that are in their way. For instance, Trinity has, you know, on our properties we probably have a 15 foot setback Trinity has 150 feet setback. So that takes away a ton of usable space. It's absurd. It's a, it's a, you know, it's a 1940s sort of mindset. And we need to deal with that. I think the state people are talking about you do hear people talking about the state kind of coming in and saying local zone zoning shall not include X, Y and Z, so that you can drive density. This is not rocket science. You can't, you can't prevent sprawl and build affordable housing and have a sustainable transportation system and keep having 10 acre lots and share a lot if you want to build a house you have to have six acres. But that's ridiculous. That we can't do that. So I think there is some luck. Will we do that next four and a half months. I don't know what I've said to to the president up at UVM. And what I will say, and I have said for a long time to my, our friends at the city level is this is not about like hey good good old UVM is building 600 beds. It has to be a campaign. And if it were me and this just sketching the campaign, it would be UVM commits to housing all third year students. The city at the same time, pulls down grant money to get people in our neighborhoods into first, first time home buyer programs, figure out how we take some of our bigger apartment houses turn them into condos so that they're affordable for. So let's just do one thing and then keep, you know, having having a different class of professionals come in. If you if you're able to remove students, you know, the theory to some degree from downtown from from the neighborhoods. The theory is you would relax some of the pressure and reduce rents right, but that has to be paired with something else that gets different kind of residents in there. So to me, it just has to be a comprehensive thing. I don't know there, there've been a lot of college towns around the country that have student housing cooperatives different kind of model. I think we could look at that. I think you want to figure out some way of a program that that starts to say to landlords. I think it's a pretty good time for you to get out and when you do. Here's some here's some money that means we're going to make it affordable for, you know, whatever the strategy but I think there has to be just a multi prompt approach and it has to be a systematic campaign, and the state has its own role to play or has to at least get out of the way, or or possibly deliver money to help it. I think it's, I think it's essential and otherwise we're going to spin around and continue to find, you know, we're so excited to see families be able to move into the new north end and that's kind of created a good dynamic I think there. But for those of us in the kind of heart of the city. I mean, this is not good. This is a real problem and UVM Trump it's rightly that the thousands of people that come to UVM and stay here. And, and I was saying to them, you know, that's not going to keep happening. They're not students who are graduate from college are not going to go live in Jericho. They're not going to go live in under here. It's just not going to work that way we have got to create an option, a real viable option for them to start a professional life here. What you describe is seems like it's very close to what the neighborhood project was supposed to be the city, the city project to find ways of doing it. So maybe it's a matter of executing on something. I would see Brian. Yes, I wanted to add to that that, you know, part of the issue is, is that there's not enough housing on campus for students. So that affects the housing market, but it also affects the culture of the neighborhoods and the quality of life or neighborhoods and the work I've been doing through is good. And with UVM SGA something that the students identified was that they don't think just housing them on campus is going to solve our quality of life issues it might affect the housing market. But the reason they come downtown and rampage through the neighborhoods is because that there's nothing for them to do on campus and there's a culture on campus that that's what you do. SGA has committed to working with is good on trying to figure out ways to change the culture of students on campus. So I just want to put that out there because there's I feel like there's more than one piece of this and it's complicated there's the housing market but then there's also the impact of student behavior on neighborhoods and how and they're interconnected. But solving one isn't necessarily going to solve the other we have to kind of think holistically in terms of thinking holistically. We've got a plan to rapidly build housing around the state. I think that the state can take leadership and and and set the stage for this rapid redevelopment. And I think the way we could do this is the state and local governments should work with regional planning commissions to identify in every region areas that could be designated regional recovery zones. Public lands could be rapidly redeveloped but they have to meet a set of criteria so we can have a debate over the next few months about what that criteria is some ideas that people have suggested to me would be that this redevelopment promotes social and racial equity it builds financial equity for individuals and families it provides mixed income options such as rent to own sliding scale mortgages cooperatives and supported housing owned by nonprofits of the state. I think that the plans should provide work for people who were trained in workforce recovery programs that these development should meet higher environmental standards and allow access to transportation. The state also in our 2016 plan roadmap to and homelessness said that we needed at least 400 units of supported housing around the state at least 1250 new units of housing targeted to 30% of the area median income, which in Chittenden County is 16,000 year for an individual where is their housing in our county targeted to people who make 16,000 year I don't know and 1250 units for rapid rehousing assistance. So I share all this because those 600 beds at UVM are important, but like Senator Pearson said we have to think holistically, like we really need some leadership in the next year to set to get back on track to ending homelessness and end beyond like it shouldn't just be about ending homelessness. It should be about building housing for the future. So we can attract young workers that is places for people to live not just to live but to buy when they get out of school and I hate to say it but if people don't like camps now. Imagine the camps we're going to have when climate change truly hits and imagine the waves of refugees moving inland. So instead of we should be prepared for that we should be building housing for the people here now, and the people who will be here in the future. And I think we can do it rapidly if we organized ourselves between the state and local levels to start picking out places and developing and then for private developers we can say if you meet these criteria, you get fast tracked. So in other words there could be a way that we promote private development that's in alignment with what the state has decided is our vision so I don't know that's just some to take it a little further I'll stop there I see it's nine. Thank you. I think it's great for them to build more housing but I think the cost of housing on campus is important to think about where if you break it down I think it's over $1000 a month to live on campus and of course that goes into your UBM bill and as someone that has to pay my own rent and my own school, having to pay that tuition bill at the beginning of each semester, you're looking at afford a $5000 bill of housing when living off campus I'm paying, you know, $800 a month which I can work towards each month, but if I had to do that on campus, like living on campus would not be like I would not be able to afford staying in Vermont and so I think that's a reality that a lot of students face and like a lot of like younger folks face as well so just keeping that in mind with the kind of like housing discussion I think is pretty critical. I think it's a state legislative solution and I'm not quite sure what your conversation with counselors was earlier but, you know, really I think the city needs to put housing back front and center and it's pilot MOU. I think it's a great argument in lieu of taxes memorandum of understanding that they do periodically with the city. The last time that came up when I was on council the administration really wanted to focus on UBMs commitments to Burlington's capital plan and so there were a lot of people who were like, but we, we've got to have housing in the mix of this conversation and it just was not a priority for the administration and did not become part of the conversation speaking really frankly and so I hope that the next time that rolls around the mayor and the council can hear really loudly and clearly that that needs to be kind of front and center and not agreement in terms of because that's one of the few leverage points we have as a city to get commitments from UBM that are concrete in writing and you know that there's a lot on the line actually for them at that moment to hold true to those agreements. Thank you all I see we're over nine so we should wrap up I know with the last part of the NPA is the local board, it is for new folks here. Well, I think I'm going to pass it to Tom and I'm going to ask. I'm also going to ask Tom to pick. So if you can just quickly explain what it is and pick two numbers between one and 14. I'm here. I was thinking that perhaps we would just skip this whole thing this month. We can do that too. It's your game. Yeah. Let's let's just put it off. We'll have another raffle on in January. Okay. Good. Thank you all so much for coming. It was great seeing you all. Thank you.