Let's see, the other paper is here, so we can begin. Oh, and Megan's here, great. All right, so I would like to call to order the South Brownington City Council meeting of Monday, March 15th, 2021. Welcome, everyone. And the first item is an agenda review. Deletions, additions or changes. And I have two to request. One is that, and I know this throws off our schedule a little bit, but Congressman Peter Welch has requested, address us for about 15 minutes, 10 or 15 minutes on the, I don't even know what to call it. It's not the CARE Act, it's, I don't know what it's called. Matt, do you know the name of the legislation that Congress has passed? I don't know what the real name is. The Recovery Act? Yeah, I don't know what the formal name is. Yeah, the Recovery Act, yeah. Hold the amount of people. So Peter will be joining us at 7 p.m. And then at the end of the session, once we've completed all our business, we'll need a brief executive session for a personnel issue, but we will not come back into session so the meeting will end with the final other business. Are there any other adjustments, deletions or changes to the agenda? Okay, seeing none. I'll go to comments and questions from the public, not related to the agenda. And I know John, Bosange wants to speak. I don't know if there's anyone else, but John, you have the floor. Well, thank you. Thank you, Helen. I wanna say hello to Kevin Dorn. Hi, Kevin, how are you? I'm great, good to see you again. Long time, no see, must be 20 years or something. I can't remember when, but anyway. In a while. Yeah. Thank you, Helen, for giving me time and having a brief discussion with me about the issue at hand. And thanks to all of you on the board, members of city council for giving me time on your very busy agenda. I've served on a number of boards and commissions and I know what a long agenda looks like on a Monday evening.  But it is important to get a quick, very quick history. We've been working as closely as possible with your DRB, trying to convince them to make the proposal from BlackRock Construction Company to build new homes on the Wheeler Parcel, what we call Responsible Development. We're not interested, we've been very clear with this. We're not interested in stopping any development. We understand the need for housing. But we have been insistent that they do not squeeze 32 homes on 6.9 acres. Because just because there's language built into an agreement from 10 years ago, it allows for a maximum to be built where just across the street, there are only nine homes on twice as much land, 12 acres. So we've been talking about the DRB also about heights of the buildings and aesthetics and materials to use to construct the homes, especially on such a high prominent point on Dorset Street, visible to everyone who walks, rides or drives by. We've been to two DRB meetings, trying to work with them, dedicated to this proposal. We were there last June 2nd and we attended, again, this past March 3rd for both the preliminary and final flat hearings. Now there's a third DRB meeting scheduled for April 6th because the DRB has not been satisfied with how BlackRock has responded to their request, the staff request for changes to the proposal. And that's good news. And we're not certain at all how much we can affect density and aesthetics. But we're gonna keep pressing our recommendations on those two issues because they reflect what we believe to be responsible development in our city. One issue, the one issue we feel that is essential to change is traffic and pedestrian safety. And that's why I'm here with you tonight. My letter to all of you as a spokesperson for the three homeowners associations and other individual homeowners in the neighborhood explains in detail what we need from you, the city council. Apparently there is language somewhere that does not allow BlackRock to use Dorset Street as an access point for their proposal because there needs to be, I think, a tree buffer along Dorset Street. Well, I've requested to see that language from planning and zoning about two weeks ago and as of today, I haven't seen it, but I assume there's actual language somewhere. However, Marla-Clee Keane has referenced it in her note to all of us and said that you, the city council would need to modify that language so the DRB could then require BlackRock to redesign their road in and out of the development off Dorset Street and not off Park Road. The photos I sent to you show that partial tree barrier. Actually, it's a lot of bushes, but there are trees too towards Park Road but also show plenty of clear open space in those photos just south of that along Dorset Street where a road could be built. For us, I think for you and certainly for all new homeowners, public safety for the drivers, runners, bikers and walkers is essential for any development. And what's been proposed now, I think is a disaster waiting to happen.  There's just no way, no way we can have traffic entering and entering two separate places on that steep curvy road crossing the pedestrian pathway to additional times. So we need your help. And I think quite frankly, the DRB needs your help to modify the language to allow them to require BlackRock to make a safer access road as a requirement for the proposal. And that's our request tonight. I believe this is a reasonable request for you. I think it's doable and it's critical modification of the existing language. Yes, density and aesthetics are important to us and for the entire city, I'm sure, but traffic and pedestrian safety is everyone's number one concern. So I'll be willing to assist in any way possible and try and be helpful for this. And I thank you, Helen, and thank all of you for giving me time this evening before your long meeting. Thank you very much. And I don't know if there's any time for questions or you wanna move on, Helen, that's fine. I don't know as we have, are there any questions? I mean, I've read through the material. I think the question before us is whether the council wishes to put this on a future agenda and address this safety concern or not. So I think that's what we'll, I never can remember. Can we decide that now or do we do that in other business? Other business? Okay, so let's put that on the schedule for other business and we can determine tonight, John, whether we wanna come up with that. That's fair, thank you very much. But I thank you for all your information and Matt's probably more familiar with the proposal than anyone. Make sure Matt is, yeah. You're probably pretty familiar as well. Okay, are there any other comments from the public? Thank you all very much. I'm gonna sign off, okay. Okay, this conference will now be recorded. Okay, so item three are announcements in the city manager's report. Tim, any announcements? Okay, Toss? No, Matt? No, Megan? Yes. Okay. Yeah, I said in on a long Act 250 hearing last Wednesday. Yes, we did finish it on that one day. It did not need to continue into Thursday. I just wanna thank everyone for supporting my request to have Andrew Bolduc attend with me. It was a relief to me because several things did come up and he and I were able to coordinate responses and there will be, what is it called? Some kind of order, and I can't remember the term of the order where the commission could request further information. And so I have provided to Andrew in addition to what you all received among all of the documents, the letter that this council sent to Burlington City Council in July of 2019 after they had passed the LDR amendments. I also sent to Andrew some information about how nighttime noise disrupts hunting at night, including owls and bats. There's pretty clear evidence of that, that is something that came out in the testimony of residents how important the owls and the maternal life is. So this is still open, it's not been closed and I welcome any questions on it. It was, I thought the residents did an excellent job presenting arguments that we share and concerns that we share. And I was glad that when Red Rock's part came up that I was able to work with Andrew and respond to perhaps some misconceptions but also to clarify some things that the applicants had submitted to the commission. So we, in addition to all the two documents that I said to you, we're also going to be submitting and it's already been put into the record, the Red Rock study that Sophie Mazawati, I believe that's her last name prepared and lists several guiding principles as well as some concerns for the park. So that in a nutshell. Okay, my report. Thank you for being there to represent the council. Matt, you have a question or comment? Yes, I just wanted to thank Megan as well and what do we know about when the decision might come from the Act 250 commission? They said it would not take them too long but that they would still be wishing to receive more documents. We have not yet received that order. So once we receive that order, the documents that I prepared with Andrew, he would submit and then they would deliberate. And I would assume that's when they said it would, it would be done in an efficient way and in a way that did not leave us outhanging for months. And Andrew, right here, go ahead. Is that satisfying, Matt? Thank you. Yeah, I was just going to add one thing to Megan said, the recess order will come out, hopefully in the relatively near future. And I think we'll have a pretty good sense of where the commission is leaning in terms of what additional testimony or information they would like, particularly on concerns that the city raised. So we may sort of follow up after we have that with a larger discussion with council at that point but also in terms of when a final decision will come out after additional testimony is provided, there's also an opportunity for briefing. So briefing schedules typically go out several months. So we're probably looking at a pretty good deal, pretty good amount of time before a decision is finally issued. Thank you. So when do they close? Better answer. They will close after the recess order has been complied with. So they leave it open, there probably won't be any more live testimony. The rest will all just be written submissions. So a recess order is a request by the panel for more information. Is that right? Correct. Yep, they listen to the testimony that they received and they see if there's anything sort of follow up that they need in order to make their decision. Okay.  No, I'm just checking. Son, Barnett? I am. Okay. I'll turn your arm. Okay. I had, no, that comes later. So I don't have any announcements, but so we could go to the city managers report. Great, thanks, Helen. Just an update on Jesse's transition. She'll be meeting with our leadership team, our management team on Wednesday for our normal Wednesday after city council meeting, staff meeting. And she's really going to be talking to them about what to look for in a deputy city manager. She's also making appointments with the senior staff over the next few weeks. So she's where time permits. And I want to just emphasize she's still doing her work for a Wynoski, but as an hour opens here and there, she's setting up appointments with our staff. And I think the Wednesday meeting is going to be really important for her. Tom and I will not be at that meeting so that our staff can open and speak freely. The CCPSA board is going to meet on Monday. We've got some very big issues coming up on Monday. We need to really start moving toward fit up of the building. We all know that, or we've heard in Congressman Welch, I'm sure when he comes on here in a few minutes, going to talk a little bit about money that might be going to municipal governments, but within the money that may be coming to the municipal governments, may be the ability to get more done on the fit up and the technology buy for the consolidated dispatch. And so at our meeting, our board meeting on Monday, we're going to be talking about that. We're going to be talking about coming back to our governing board. So in that, in South Burlington's case to you folks, we talk about the funding mechanism that we've developed for the long-term operations of CCPS. And we'll be talking about whether or not to bring in a project manager or an executive director soon. Matt, I'm sorry I've been using those acronyms. It's the Chittin County Public Safety Authority. So this is the group of five communities that have gotten together to host a consolidated dispatch service. And so a little big meeting on Monday. As you all know, CC Chittin County Regional Planning Commission, I-89 Corridor Study has some big dates for the council coming up on the 18th is a meeting for the public to weigh in, very similar to the meeting that was held last week with the committees. CCRPC will be hosting that and all the log in will be with them. All of the comments have to be into the CCRPC staff by the 22nd. You're gonna have a special working session on the 29th. And then final decision and recommendation to CCRPC on the 19th of April, which is one of your regular meeting. So pretty aggressive schedule coming up. I'm very appreciative that some of you were able to make the meeting with the committees. I think it lays the groundwork for you all to understand the process and to understand some of the criteria a lot better and that was great. We'll be announcing appointment opportunities for our committees coming up at the end of March. So we're gonna try to get ahead of that a little bit so that all the appointments can be made by the end of June. A lot of times we lag into July and even August on that but we're gonna try to get them all done by the end of June. So we'll be ready to go in July. I've alerted to the dog park committee getting feedback from the committee about their longevity, whether or not they need to continue with their work. We now have a different group that's working on dogs in the city. And so whether or not we need to have the dog park committee continue now that the park has been identified the location and the construction will begin on that in the summer. We'll be up to you guys. So I'll probably raise that issue for you on the 19th of April at that meeting or maybe in the fifth. Anyway, that's all I've got Helen. Okay, thank you. And I meant to mention, I think four of us were at that meeting with the CCRPC. I found it very productive and our breakout was just Tim, Megan and myself, but it was really interesting to have Charlie Baker with our group. And so we could share with him some of our concerns or thoughts about it. I would really encourage, I know this is a lot of meetings, but this is a pretty important issue for the city. And I'd really encourage you all, if you possibly can, to join the meeting on the 18th, which is for the public. And my understanding is that we each can be assigned to a different public breakout group. And I think that's where you really understand what the public might be thinking. And it's a wonderful way to learn about that. They'll take minutes. And as a counselor, you're not necessarily required to make any comment. I think it's more a position of listening, but I think it's an important one. Matt? Yes, thank you. I wonder if Kevin could tell us, is this meeting going to be warned? So in case we find three of us in a breakout group, we're okay, like the last one? Yes, Matt, the meeting will be warned. Actually, the meeting has already been warned. So you can have all five of you there. It's a warrant as the council may attend, so. Thank you. It's not mandatory. No, no, I was just encouraging you to shot at this, but it's warned. Okay. If there are no more comments, I do want to let Josh Quinn know that we had a kind of a last minute request by Congress and Welch to just take 10 or 15 minutes to update us on the Recovery Act and its influence potentially on the city. So I'm going to push you off a little bit. And I apologize if the request came in after we had published the agenda, but we still have time to move on to the consent agenda. There's four items, the disbursements, approval of minutes from February 23rd, January 19th, January 20th, March 1st and March 4th. There's also an item to approve the South Burlington Public Library and City Hall Gallery policy. And the final was to award a construction contract to Ormond Bushy and Sons for Woodcrest Drive stormwater improvements. And I would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Okay, Matt, is that? No, I had a question, Helen. Not to, I know it's a minor point, but me being not present as a counselor on February 23rd, January 19th, January 23rd, March 1st, would I abstain from, can I vote for the rest and abstain from those four many approvals? Sure. It probably doesn't really matter, but we will take that. The notes will reflect that you were not a counselor at that point. So your approval is for at least the meeting that you attended. So I have a motion to approve and do I have a second? I'll second, but I have a question. Okay, is there any discussion? Yeah. About the city curator, who is the city curator for the public art exhibits? Oh, I think that was in the discussion, wasn't it? Person, the identity of the person was? I don't think so. It says all submissions will be called for and be screened by the city curator with a recommendation presented to the Public Art Selection Committee for final approval. That person has not been brought in yet. Oh, okay. That's somebody to be brought in at a later date. So we don't have that. Okay. So what we're voting on is the process that they have submitted. Okay, any other questions or comments? Okay, all in favor, signified by saying aye. Aye. Okay, any opposed? Okay, the motion passes 5-0 and we have approved the consent agenda. We've got five more minutes unless, let me see, is Congressman Welch here yet? No. All right, I don't think we should start the audit presentation for five minutes or six minutes and then go on to something else. So let's see, is there anything quick on here? Well, you could do any reports from the council on committee assignment. Okay. Are there any reports on committee assignments? Well, I have one, the airport commission met and largely it was to approve contracts and money coming in for a variety of projects at the airport, but I realized I'd forgotten to share something from that earlier meeting, which I think was good news. And this is regarding kind of noise complaints and the noise monitoring installations. And they believe that by the middle of June, they will be installed and they'll travel around Winnowski and South Burlington. One of the things that make these really helpful with their connection to noise complaints is that they'll be able to track noise complaints with the time and the actual aircraft that was in creating the noise during that complaint, as well as the decibel levels. So I think it will provide the public much more granular information about those noise complaints and really connect them to actually what kinds of planes were in the air. Megan? Yeah, isn't that only civilian aircraft? That's what's my understanding. Well, it might be, that I can't remember because they do mean the other flights take off. The noise complaints go to the air guard and not to the commission, but I'll follow up on that. I thought it was all, but maybe it's not. Okay, any other committees have met? Has the Green Mountain Transit Company been meeting it at all? Megan, you're our representative. No, no, it just was not gonna work those Tuesday morning meetings. Charlie Baker, is that representative? We could certainly. I'm sorry, I forgot that, yeah. So we should probably be charged with reaching out to Charlie to find out if he has a report to make and if he can't attend our meetings, I'm happy to report in his stead. That would be great because I forgot to invite him or even ask him for that. So that would be helpful because I think it's good to keep up on that. Do that in the future. Okay. Hey, Tom, do you remember when the microtransit experiment's gonna happen in Montpelier? When does that start? Do you remember? It's actually been happening. We just got a report on it in Senate transportation. So they're promising results and I think asking GMT to report on it and it's possible feasibility for the greater Burlington area might be worthwhile having this summer. So it's been going on, Tim. Okay, thanks. Good. Any other questions or comments? Well, we've got three minutes. I don't think we can consider anything else. Helen, is caller number one the congressman? No. I don't know. I would think he put his name up there. I believe that's our auditor, Helen. I think he was having trouble with the audio visual so he called in as well. I think that's Josh Quinn. Yeah, I think that's me too. That's correct, Tom. Yeah, okay. So Josh is on the phone, but he's in, we have you, Josh, as a framed picture, but no picture. All right. Yeah, I can turn my camera on. I wasn't sure if you guys were ready for me. Sorry, I'm having difficulties with my computer speaker. We're not really. We're waiting for congressman Welch. Are you comfortable sort of starting and then stopping when he arrives? Sure, absolutely. I apologize for that, but why don't we, because we have a, oh, Rebecca Ellis has arrived. So she is the congressman. So I think she... Hi, Rebecca. Is Peter able to join us on time? He is. He'll be here. Hi. Ah, he's arrived too, I see. So can he put his picture up, this video? Good. Well, welcome and thank you very much, congressman Welch, for taking the time to meet with the council and let us know all the good things you've been doing. So the floor is yours. You have to unmute yourself. Yeah, you just have to unmute yourself. There we go. All right, hey, thank you all very much. I'm really, it's really nice to be with you guys. And Helen, thank you. It's good to see you, but here's the news that I just wanted you probably been reading about, but we've been struggling with this virus for the year. I know it's been really tough on all our citizens and it's really been tough on local governments with all the stress people have been feeling, the dislocation of businesses and families. But as you know, we passed the American Rescue Plan last week, it was signed by President Biden. And I won't go through all the details on it, the checks to individuals $1,400 to $300 child tax credit that is expected to reduce child poverty by 45 to 50%. There is in that bill, as you know, money that goes directly to our cities and towns and money that goes directly to the state.  And the whole case for providing direct funds to our communities was number one, there was real impacts in our communities as a result of COVID. And number two, the financial help should be deployed on the basis of decisions that local officials make, not what we make in Washington. So my job, Bernie's job, Patrick's job was to advocate to get the resources back to our communities. And your job is the very, very challenging job of how to allocate the funding to best benefit the citizens that you represent. But with respect to the way the bill is right now and signed by the president, the city of South Burlington is expected to receive $5.7 million. And I know you've got a lot going on, but that is obviously significant financial assistance to help you meet the goals. And you have ambitious goals. I've taken tours of the wonderful work you're doing with development, with housing, and I just want to applaud you. That money will be delivered in two different tranches. One, 50% would be within 90 days, and then the second tranche would be within a year. In addition to what I just described, the South Burlington School District, you've got a very substantial school district there and very, very good school district would receive $3.197, almost $3.2 million. Now, there's a lot of flexibility in this. This was a debate, but our view in Washington was that there should be flexibility because the local officials are the ones who are best in the position to make the very, very tough priority decisions about how this can best be used to address COVID related issues. So the flexibility is both in utilization. It's got to be COVID related, but it's somewhat broadly defined because it can include water, it can include sewer and it can include broadband. It's also flexible in terms of the time. You've got until the end of 2024 to utilize this money. We ran into a problem with some of the carers money that went to the state where it was a drop dead date of December 31, 2020, and it had to be spent then or you lose it. And in fact, we got that change, thank goodness. But we want the wise use of this money, not just having to spend it in order to have it out the door. We want you to be able to wisely deploy this money in the most efficient and effective way possible. So I see that as really good news because I have some appreciation for the challenge as a local government and it's where the rubber meets the rope.  You don't have the fiscal flexibility that the federal government has. And when this country is facing a once in a century event, and that's what this pandemic is, the federal government has to step up with its fiscal flexibility and try to help our towns and cities as well as our citizens. And then the job you have and you know it acutely is to make certain that that community of South Burlington, which is so important, comes back strong. And my hope is that the funding that's included in this bill will help you accomplish that. I also wanna say that it was disappointing to me that in the Congress, the vote was partisan in the end of the day. But you know, a lot of my colleagues, my Republican colleagues come from local and municipal and local government. And there was a lot of support from my Republican colleagues for state and local aid. And I think there's a lot of support in my citizens for it. You know, you're so much closer to the voters than anyone else that they're gonna be watching carefully how that money's been spent.  But I think that's the way it should be. So that's the report from me. Now, there'll be issues that come up as we go along. And Rebecca Ellis, my state director, she knows on the call. And we just wanna make certain that you understand we're here to help you through any of the challenges that come up as you're trying to deploy this money. And if there are impediments or bureaucratic issues that occur, we wanna do everything we can to help. And I know that Bernie and Patrick feel the same way. So, Helen, thanks so much. It's really wonderful to see you and the other members of the board and CMAC code there too. But I'd be glad to take a few questions, but I know you have a very busy agenda, but I look forward to being your partner in the utilization of this money to help get from out back to the other side. Great. Are there any questions? Megan? Okay, well, I didn't see your hand, Matt. Okay, go ahead. I assume that there has to be a COVID-related use to these funds. That's correct. It's for us to determine what that use is. Could it be used for housing for homeless? I'm not sure about that. Rebecca, do you know the answer on that? There's money that's going to the state, by the way. I just wanna, I should have added that. The state's gonna get over a billion dollars. It's gonna have a fair amount of flexibility and you're gonna be able to apply to the state for projects as well, including capital projects. But that'll be those decisions will be made in my period between the governor and the legislature. But Rebecca, there's money in there to help on housing, to help people with rent, to help folks with mortgages. But is there a specific money for homelessness in there, Rebecca? So it will need to be COVID-related. So I think that's gonna be the challenge when looking for solutions that provide permanent housing for homeless is figuring out how to connect that with COVID expenses. And the state, I think did a really good job with the CARES money, connecting those. But that will continue to be a challenge. Okay, thank you. Matt, you had a question? Yeah, did you say, Congressman Welch, thank you for being here. Did you say the restrictions or has to be water sewer and broadband? Is that, was that the general idea? It could include water sewer and broadband for capital projects. I see, I see. And does the money flow through Montpelier? Rebecca, do you know that? Or does that go directly to the, from DC to the towns? Well, my understanding in the bill in general that goes through the county to the towns and we don't have much of a county government not only in Vermont, but in New England. So there'll be a pass-through, but the money is not going to be something you're going to have to ask for. The intention is that the money goes directly to the municipality and the municipal officials are the ones who have the responsibility to make the wise use of that money. And so if it's for capital projects, does it just have to be committed by 2024 or spent? I don't know, Rebecca, you answered, if you know the answer to that. Our interpretation so far is that it has to be spent, but we will get more guidelines from the Treasury Department. So that's what we're waiting for for the details. Okay, great. Thomas. Well, Congressman Welch, thank you so much for being here. It's a real honor to have you on our council meeting. I'm interested in finding ways that we can continue as much as we're all sick of Zoom. I'm hearing from a lot of people that they're going to want to be able to continue to access local government via these platforms. So I'm wondering if you would think that investments in capital to improve AV resources so that we can simulcast in these types of environments that maybe in our new libraries or so on, that seems like something that would be COVID somewhat related that might be justifiable to use for these funds? Yeah, my answer on Thomas, it would be, but I'm not the decider on this. The way it works is that we allocate the money, we have a purpose. And then sometimes the rules as they're promulgated interfere with what our intention was. In fact, we had a lot of that problem with the payroll protection plan in the original CARES package. There was a lot of bipartisan support to help our businesses. And then when the rules for me by the SBA, they really seem contrary to achieving our goal, but we pushed back and we got those adjusted in significant ways. So my response to you is, I think that's totally reasonable because obviously Zoom and telecommunication like telemedicine has really been essential during COVID when we've had to abide by social distancing and couldn't gather. So to me, you asked me, Peter, well, citizen, yes, that makes sense to me, but we'll have to see what the rules are. Great. Kevin or Tom Hubbard? Do you have any questions? I'm going to stand up. Connor's fine. Oh, I'm sorry, Tim. Overwhelmingly, overwhelmed by what you've been able to do for Vermont, for the city, the funding were a lot of things like consolidating our dispatch services that really been the vulnerability of our dispatch system has really come into play with COVID. A couple of people being infected through our dispatch centers and we would not have been able to have our emergency communication.  It's huge for our community. Well, Kevin, I'm so glad you said that because I feel really good about getting the money back to our state and to our localities. It's such a battle all the time. It's such a battle because property taxpayers have real burdens and there's no flexibility of local. But there's things you need.  And I'm of the view that if we are all in, on the recovery and we're all in on the vaccine and we're all in on doing our social distancing and wearing our mask until we get to that other side, we're in a position for a self-sustaining recovery. So the decisions you make, and you've had a, Kevin gave me a wonderful tour of some of your projects there and you don't a great job and that's real effort, real follow-through, real attention to detail, but it also takes some resources and you can't just keep going back to your property taxpayers for some of these things that are going to benefit them. We just can't thank you enough for the work you're doing. This is just huge for our community that has, like every community that you represent throughout the state has been hit hard. Our tourism industry here, which is very large in South Burlington has gotten the hammer hard by this. And this is gonna make a real difference. Well, it is, I'm happy to hear you say that, but you've got a big responsibility now to make certain this is why I still use and I know you all take that incredibly seriously, but that's real work, it's real work, so I wish you luck. Thank you. Well, we'll work hard on being careful about this. Tim Barrett has a question. You can hear me, guys, yeah. Congressman Malsh, thanks for being here. I think the last time I saw you was a UVM basketball game. Before this all started. Oh, the good old days when we could go to basketball games, right? Exactly. Quick question, I saw that there's $86 billion in that bill for pensions. Does that mean it's only for state pensions or would municipal pensions be candidates as well? No, they won't. They won't. That is not COVID related. I mean, that was one of those provisions that was put in to address something that is a crisis and what are called multi-employer pensions. And it's a lot of folks who worked in companies that had a pension and the company went bankrupt and hadn't funded the pension or it was a company that consolidated with another company and the workers went along and they were paying the contributions. Then there was insufficient funds to cover what they thought they had earned for their pensions. So we have a pension benefit guarantee board. And this was, I'd say, one of the things in the COVID bill that addressed a real need. And I support this, by the way, because these are folks who have worked all their lives. They've given up, they've basically negotiated the way pay raises in favor of having a pension benefit and then they didn't get it. So, but it is not to address municipal or state pensions. Okay, thank you. Well, I want to thank you again for, and Rebecca for making me sending me the email and asking if we could make this happen. This is really good news for our community. That's a lot of money for the city side of the ledger as well as the school. And so I appreciate your work in trying to really get the country and the state and our community back in the black and being productive and healthy. I got my second shot today and I learned that a lot of people are not taking advantage of that. They're making an appointment and then not showing up. So, thank you for getting all the vaccines here and I hope more people will take advantage of them. Yeah, that's a good way to end it but I'm glad you got your second shot and I hope you don't have any of those side effects. But good luck to you all. I really, really enjoyed being with you and thank you, God bless you for the work you do for your town and for your state. It's really nice to be your partner. Great, well thank you very much. Thank you Congresswoman. Bye bye. Bye bye. Bye bye. Okay, thank you everyone for letting us, letting them change the agenda so we could hear that but it was pretty good information. So that was nice. So we'll move on to item five which is the FY20 audit presentation, Josh Quinn. Is wanting to be presenting that from RHR Smith auditors. So please proceed. Okay, thank you. Can you all hear me? We can. Excellent. Well, first of all, thank you for having me. I appreciate being here. I'm gonna try to share my screen. Tom or Kevin, can you make me a presenter? There we go, excellent. Can you all see my screen now? Yes, it's a little small, but. All right, let's see if I can talk about that. We can all make it bigger. Okay, we'll just have the one. Sorry, technology. We'll get used to going to meetings. Okay, here we go. Okay, so first of all, yes, again, thank you for having me, I appreciate it. We performed the audit for fiscal year 20. First time we came out to the city of South Burlington, at least virtually, was in June and July where we did our pre-audit work. And then we were back in multiple times in the fall and actually even into the new year to finish the audit. So what I intend to do is I'm just gonna run through some of the major schedules and review the performance of most of your general fund and then talk about the format of the document as we go through it. And some of the other highlights, we'll talk about debt, we'll look at your special revenue funds, your net activity, your revenues and expenses, stuff of that sort. Excuse me, please feel free to holler at any questions as we go. And then we can also do questions at the end as well. So first of all, I'm gonna start in statement C. This is your balance sheet for your governmental funds, for your general fund. You had assets ending June 30th, 2020 of $14,806, liabilities, $12,882. Some deferred inflows and that left you with total fund balance of $1,626,000. Of that, $762,000 were unassigned. $497 are non-spendable, the non-spendable is basically your inventory and your prepaid items up in your assets. And then you had some portion of assigned fund balance as well, which we can look at later on down in the document where we do have lists of all of your various unbalances, whether they be assigned, non-spendable, committed, restricted, so on and so forth. So finish the year, $1,626,000 in total fund balance. You can also see on this schedule, we've got your other major funds. So your city center tip district fund, your capital improvement reserve fund, and then the culmination of the summary of all the remainder of your other governmental funds, which are all of your special revenue funds, your capital project funds, as well as your permanent funds, which are all down in another schedule, which we'll get to later on in the presentation. Statement E, this is your income statement, so revenue and expenses for the year, also of your major funds. So for your general fund, total revenues of $68 million, expenditures of $67 million, transfers in and out, basically your net change over fiscal year 20 was $20,724. So you started the year with $1,605,000 and ended with $1,626,000. So given all of the very difficult year of this pandemic, actually finishing with net operating income in the black is great. Definitely not the norm in most of the communities that I am part of, and that's Seneca Testament to the great management and foresight of both Kevin, Tom, Sue, and Martha as they, and all the rest of your department heads as they battle this pandemic along with everybody else. Also see the revenues and expenses coming in and out of your city tip district fund, your capital improvement fund, as well. Statement G, proprietary funds, this is your business enterprise funds. Your major funds here, your water department, your water pollution, and your stormwater. Both of the, or all three of these finished the year with positive net positions for these unrestricted net positions in your water department finished with $1.6 million unrestricted. Your water pollution or your sewer $629,000 and your stormwater 1.8. What we often talk about for net position as far as sort of the health, we'll call it, is we talk about your 30, 60, 90 days of operating expenses for all of your enterprise funds. They are, well for your water department, excuse me, you're at about 225 days of operating expenses at the 1.67 or at the $1.6 million for your water pollution. You're at about 51 days of operating expenses and for your stormwater, you're at about 202 days. Forgive me, I'm gonna jump back up to statement C. I forgot about this part. I got too excited. Unassigned fund balance here. So that 30, 60, 90 day metric that we use, we actually use that for the total fund balance of 1.6. That's about 22 days worth of operating expenses in your general fund. So that's an area I think I know that Kevin and Tom have been working on increasing that during their tenure. And we had a slight increase this year, but definitely an area that you'd wanna continue to see some improvement there. Jump down to statement H. So this is the income statement for your enterprise funds. You can see your revenues and your operating expenses in your enterprise funds that then translate to your net position and your change in net position down at the bottom. This is the statement of net position for your fiduciary funds. This is your employee pension trust. I know that very recently, I think in the past month or two, Newport Group was in talking about your fiduciary fund. And so I just wanted to just clarify, this is as of June 30th, 2020. And you can see this total net position has a lot to do with where the market was at that time, which was probably one of the more difficult times during our pandemic. So if you were to take a look at this pension liability, your about 82% number here is your total pension liability. I believe in the report, as I was talking to Tom, I reviewed the report from Newport Group that that number has already come back to over 90. And I think as of February 1st, Tom said, it's done even better. So just remember when you're looking at this piece that it is really a snapshot in time. And I know that Newport Group and Tom and Kevin have talked to you about the changes that they're making and the plan that they have for your net pension liability as you move forward and strategies to ensure that that continues to go in the right direction. On note six, this is your long-term debt. So as of the end of the year, 630-20, you had bonds payable $37 million. Notes from direct borrowings of $7.5 million. That's on your governmental side. Your business type, you had bonds payable $496,000. You wanted to see exactly what all of those pieces and parts were. You can scroll down through the next couple of pages and it gives you a listing of what all those bonds and notes are. Jumping along and let's get through much of the notes and then jump down to Schedule A. So if you wanted to look through your revenues and expenses and drill a little bit further down into the detail, get some budget verse actuals, for example, you can jump down to Schedule A. This is your revenues. And then Schedule B just beyond that, this is your expenditures budget to actual that really breaks it down by department. Last couple of schedules to look at. So this is your Schedule E. This is your non-major special revenue funds. So back in that statement C up here, this other governmental funds is comprised of all of your special revenue funds, your capital project funds, as well as your permanent funds. And so this is a listing just like what we looked at above in your Statement C and Statement E. This is your balance sheet. List all of your balance sheet special revenue funds. There's quite a few. I'm not gonna go through all of them. And then just after that hits all of the revenue and expense activity for all those funds as well, which then ties back to that main page. Schedule G is your capital projects funds set up same way. And Schedule I is your non-major permanent funds. Audit is wrapped up with your SIFA, which is your Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. So this lists all of the federal awards that you have received that you have expended money on through June 30th, 2020. You did spend over the $750,000, which required a federal compliance audit, which we also performed. And this talks about what that entails. And basically what we do is we end up picking a major program and testing that major program to ensure that the city did comply with all their requirements of that major program. This year we picked the Highway Planning Instruction 20.205 program to review. So that's the audit management letter. We wrote this year, we had two comments. So as we go through all of our work, we do lots of internal controls testing, looking at your disbursements, your receipts, transfers that are moved back and forth between funds. Two comments this year. The first has to do on the open space account. So the open space account was being tracked and reported on separately and not included on the city's financial software. So we just recommended that you move that account over to NEMRIC so you can have that tracked under the same one spot in your financial software. So that's a pretty straightforward one. And Tom and Martha and I have talked about both of these and they're moving forward with these recommendations. The second one's really just a procedural thing. It's about the recording of transfers and just making sure that transfers are kept separate inside your accounting software. Just to ensure that when financial statements are being put together that you're not gonna take transfers and record it as revenue and essentially overstate revenue in those. So it's really just a procedural upgrade to ensure that things mitigate the chance of those things happening. Okay, so that's my thrilling presentation. Do I have any questions? Are there any questions? Okay, that's Matt, I think. Yeah, so I'm the new city councilor here. So let me ask the dumb question, but pardon me, which is these special funds whether it's a net or a loss, they stay in the fund. There's no transfers in between the special funds. Is that correct? In the special funds, yes. That's correct. Yep. Good, thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions? Megan, do you have your hand up? It's hard to see. Yes, Megan. What did you recommend in terms of procedural improvements for making sure that things got into the software as recorded? So basically recording, actually recorded in the software. So creating the accounts to record the open space bank account and then the associated so income and expense and revenue accounts. So all that information can be tracked inside your NEMRIC software as opposed to being tracked separately. And I'm assuming that we're doing that for other things like the TIF district. Absolutely, yeah, this is the only one. So this is why I just made the comment that everything else is on your software. It was just this one that wasn't. So let's get this one on there and that'd be perfect. Thank you. And was there a second recommendation of some sort? Yes, that had to do with the recording of transfers. And so the transfers in between, so from the general fund in between other funds that you have, the generally accepted accounting principles like to see transfers separate from operational revenue and expense accounts. Just so it mitigates the chance of including transfers inside revenue or expense accounts and then overstate or misstating revenue and misstating expense just keeps it separate. So for the presentation, so in where that comes into play, let me show you that. In your operating, your income statement for the year, you've got your revenues up here, for example, in the general fund of $68 million and your expenditures of $67 million. And below that, you have this other financing sources and uses. So it shows your transfers and your transfers in, your transfers in, excuse me, and your transfers out in all of your funds as it goes through the various categories. So it doesn't, if those were included up inside of revenues, you might say, okay, well, we had more revenue than we actually had. Okay. Are there any other questions or comments? All right. Seeing none. Thank you. Okay. Yes, absolutely. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure serving the city of South Burlington. And we appreciate all the help and effort from Kevin, Tom, and Jill, and Martha and their team. It's a great team to work with. And we look forward to a continuing relationship. Okay, good. So the bottom line is we were in the black by about 20,000. 20,000 for fiscal year 20, yes. Right. So thank you, Tom and Kevin and Marla for doing that. That wasn't an easy effort. All right. Martha too. Yes, I'm sorry. Yeah. All right. The next item is a public hearing on interim zoning. Application Z21-01 of Allen Kay Long for development of two existing lots, totaling 39.21 acres, each developed with a single family home. The development consists of removal of the two existing homes and construction of up to 49 dwelling units in a combination of single family, two family, and small multifamily buildings in a development area of approximately 17 acres and a conservation area of approximately 22 acres, 1720 and 1730 Spear Street. So is there a motion to open the public hearing? So moved. Second. Second. Moves, Megan, Emory seconds. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Okay. So the hearing is open. Do any counselors have any conflicts of interests or ex parte communications with the African or others to disclose at this time? Okay. Seeing none. Two interested persons that's a remind. I'm sorry.  No, okay. A reminder that Vermont law requires that only interested persons who have participated in this proceeding may take an appeal of any decision issued in the proceeding. For members of the public who do wish to retain the right to appeal, please be sure to indicate that you are present and would like to participate. So those public members who wish to indicate they're present and would like to participate, would you turn your cameras on, please? Okay. So there's a fair amount. And so I need to swear in the applicant and all interested persons. So Dan, all right, are you, what are you doing? Just raising your hand and take the oath. Oh, okay. I thought you wanted to say something. So everyone has indicated they wanted to speak. Okay. So all those wishing to be sworn in, I guess I asked you to turn your camera on and take the following oath. So why don't you just repeat after me? I hear by swear. I hear by swear. That the evidence I give in the cause, under consideration, would be the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. Under the pains and penalties of perjury. Okay. So thank you.  And so who is here for the applicant? That's me. I'm Alan Long, despite the blue on my image there. My wife Carol is here too, but it's her. So I'm... Okay. So you have the floor and please present. Oh, first of all, thank you very much for the opportunity to present. We've been planning this project for quite some time and I'm glad that we've arrived at this stage in the proceedings. As you probably know from the material that we submitted, our family has moved these two properties on Spear Street for about 70 years, starting in the early 50s. And we've watched from that early time when Spear Street was not even a paved road and pretty much all of the Southeast quadrant was hayfields, cow pastures, and the woods. More recently, during my dense lifetime, but after all of us children had moved away from these two properties, we've watched our adjacent farmers, the Nolans, the Irish, the caulkins sell off their cow pastures and hayfields and put in developments. And now that our parents have passed away, it's our turn to bring this before the city. We have not only watched the developments across Spear Street and to our north, south point and to our south village going in, we've also watched the city's efforts to conserve properties in the Southeast quadrant. Most impressively, the Great Swamp, which is in the back of our property, was the number one priority for conservation identified by the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee. We're pleased to be able to contribute to that conservation effort by the fact that our properties extend into the Great Swamp on the Eastern edge. As you also know, as you alluded to, Helen, in your introduction, something like 22 of our 39 acres on the Eastern edge of the properties are already conserved by the Natural Resource Protection NRP statute of 2006. So the project that we're proposing is one that tries to maintain a balance, a nice balance between development and conservation. We, of course, intend to continue with the conservation of that portion in the rear and the Eastern portion of our properties that's protected by NRP. But once this development goes in, we will be granting an easement to the city that will protect it permanently, not just by statute, and also granting a 20-foot-wide pedestrian right of way to access that property, conserved property in the back. On the development side, as our letter indicated, we're planning to build a traditional neighborhood development PUD, 49 units of a mixture of building types, which is mandated in the TND requirements. We're gonna have some single families, some carriage houses, multi-families and some duplexes. And we're also planning to include something like 10%, five of the units, five out of the 49 units would be affordable. We've participated in the, not only the Planning Commission, deliberations over the new LDRs, but also the Affordable Housing Committee and the Open Space Committee meetings over the last year. So we're trying to come up with a plan here that will have something for everyone. We want to continue our parents' efforts to conserve the property in the back. We're proud of those woods and fields. And that's where we played when we were kids and helped the adjacent farmers with their haying operations. And we also want to create a tasteful development, an infill development between South Village and South Point that will embrace the kind of diversity that the city is looking for and also give us an opportunity to develop the property. So I'm happy to answer questions. I know this is a very slimmed down description of the project, but we did submit a sketch plan that Paul can put up if anyone wants to refer to that. Otherwise, I'm happy to entertain any questions you have. All right, let's start with the council. Are there any questions by counselors? Tim, Barrett. So this is more of a question for Paul. I mean, we've heard a few Izzy applications as city counselors over the last year and a half, maybe two years, but this is at a sketch level, right, Paul? That is correct. The applicant has submitted a sketch plan to the DRB essentially simultaneously with their submittal to you. And the DRB isn't going to vote on a sketch plan, they just give feedback. So we wouldn't be able to vote on this in any way. Why wouldn't we want to wait until preliminary or final? The applicant is not required to, because they're two separate processes, the applicant can apply for either one in whichever order. So I guess what I would say is that it's your prerogative as counselors to decide when you're ready. So if you are ready to give guidance now, you're welcome to, if you were to say that you would either prefer to continue it or to, then you could do that or you could render a decision that has them resubmitted at a later time. So that's, it's two separate processes though. And so they're not, they don't have to do one or the other first. Has the DRB given any feedback yet at all? Have they had a meeting yet? They have not, their first hearing is the first meeting in April for the DRB. So Helen, my proposal is, and I'll make the motion right now that we just continue this because it's a sketch plan and I would rather have the DRB review this plan and come back with their own feedback first. So we could see if the plan changed over the next two or three iterations. I don't want to have to review this now. I'd rather wait for the DRB to take the first crack at it if possible. That's my, just one counselor's opinion. Okay. Matt, and then I think Alan Long wanted to respond. So Matt. Just to, my questions were similar to for Paul that Tim asked, my guess follow up with Tim would be understanding that we'd want to render a decision before the applicant filed preliminary plat and went through the work to do that. I concur with Tim's idea that let the DRB, the professionals at the DRB review this at sketch. They don't issue a vote. That does not happen at sketch plan, as we all know, but it would provide an opportunity for members of the public to issue their thoughts and then allow it to come back to us and we can participate as city council as observers of that sketch plan hearing at the DRB. But I think if we were to come back to us, I think it makes a lot of sense that it happens shortly after sketch and not after preliminary plat. Does that make sense, Tim? Yeah, I mean, I know we're in parallel here, but I would almost refer that the planning and zoning process look at this first and give its own feedback and then the DRB give some further feedback and then we get a chance to look at it. So just my opinion. Okay. Mr. Long, did you want to respond? Yeah, just a couple of things. I watched the process for 600 Spear Street a few weeks ago and I believe that the presentations to the city council and the DRB happened very close to each other. You know, I'm not the one to decide what order you want to do this in, but I had kind of anticipated a question about why we were proceeding during interim zoning in the first place here because obviously the idea behind interim zoning is to not develop properties until the new LDRs have been sorted out. So, you know, my answer to that is just that we have participated very actively in the planning commission process around these new LDRs and to the best of our knowledge, also in consultation with Paul and his staff, we're pretty certain that our proposal conforms not only to the current regulations, but also to the ones that the planning commission has in mind to bring to the city council when they're finished with their deliberations over the LDRs. We didn't see a reason to delay further. Obviously, IZ has been going on for quite some time, probably longer than any of us had anticipated. Okay, Megan? You're on mute, yeah, okay. Yeah, just in response to the question about, you know, where we should enter into the discussion, we did receive some communications and I do know some members of the public are here, but regarding concerns about traffic, now I know that that is not in our purview, but suggesting that this could create some issues and suggesting that since we have plans for bike lanes and other pedestrian and cycling infrastructure that the DRB might be wise to recommend a widening of Spear Street, which could have an impact on the plans. And for that reason, because it is, you know, in an area where we do not have sufficient infrastructure for biking and cycling and walking. And I see that as a potential area that the DRB could provide some clarification on and it could very well change the plan, change the layout, change things that this council in interim zoning would like to understand. Helen? Tom? So I just want to, Sandy Dooley has asked a very relevant question. We only scheduled 15 minutes for this discussion with all the people interested in speaking it. I really want to echo what I heard Tim say and I would encourage us to let the DRB have the hearing on this to answer the questions Megan just mentioned and then it come back. So if we can I think end this public hearing and then continue this or not end it, but continue the public hearing, I think was the motion to continue this public hearing so that the next time it comes before us, a lot of the questions that Bob Britt raised in his email, Ray Gonda sent some valid questions. That's when I think it'd be more useful for us to hear from community members after it goes through the normal DRB process and then comes back before us.  So moved and seconded. Okay, we have a motion that's been made and seconded is Paul Connor. You have a- Because this is a quasi-judicial proceeding, you need to pick a date to continue it too. So the board will have a first review of it in the first week of April. I can't say as to whether it will be a one meeting review or a more than one meeting review. Perhaps Tim or Matt have some thoughts on that, but you can always continue it again, but you do need to pick a date certain to continue it too. Well, what's a recommendation? I can look on my calendar. We have April 19th. Yep, my suggestion. Sorry, let me talk over you. My suggestion is that we do it soon after the sketch plan hearing. So the applicant has some guidance both from the DRB and from the city council going forward. And so that was scheduled for April 6th. Is that what you said? Paul, when is the DRB taking this up? I believe it is April 6th. Okay. So our next council meeting then is the 19th of April. So is that the date we should select? Tim could amend his motion for the 19th of April. I agree with him. I would amend that to the 19th of April. All right. So any other discussion? Okay, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay, so we will continue this until April 19th. Okay, I'm sorry for everyone coming out, but your next spot to share your information and concerns will be the DRB meeting on the 6th of April. Okay, let me go back to the agenda. Okay. I'm sorry, did someone want to say something? No? Documentation we have received is that if you're not. Oh, I'm sorry. Who was speaking? William and Mary Ward. Oh, yes? Up point. Adjacent to the long property. Uh-huh. The documentation we have so far from the newspaper said, we must attend this meeting to have any say in any future participation. Is that true? I believe that we have a former chair of the DRB that if you show up at the DRB, you can submit questions or documentation. Is that right? So, yeah, so Bill and Mary during that process where this is Matt Coda, when Helen swore you in, you are now an official participant. You'll be noticed about any future public hearings and should you appeal any decision made by the city council or the development review board, you will have party status. So you have achieved that goal simply by showing up and swearing in, if not for speaking on a particular issue. So at the next DRB meeting when this is brought up, all the people here who got sworn in and others, I guess, if they show up will be heard by the DRB. Is that correct? Well, that is a, go ahead, Paul. That's a sketch hearing. So that's a little bit different. Yeah, I guess I would suggest for anyone interested in speaking that if you wish to participate in the development review board to go to the development review board meeting or submit a letter and be sworn in at that because it is a different board. And so from a legal matter, it could be considered to be a separate hearing. In addition to that, when the council continues this discussion on April 19th or thereafter, you'd be more than welcome to provide comment to the council at that time. Ultimately, there will likely be two decisions that come out of this and either of them are appealable whenever a decision is issued. So you can participate in one or both at your choice. Okay. And if anybody has any specific questions, I understand this is a complex process, please feel free to reach out to myself in the planning and zoning department or our development review planner, Marla Kean, you can find us both on the city's website. Matt? Sorry, I just want a quick clarification. And yes, when the DRB makes a decision at preliminary plat, that is the appealable and certainly final plat's appealable, but no decision will be made at sketch plan by the development review board. There will not be a vote. And so that will not be appealable. Thank you, Matt. It's a discussion that everyone is welcome to participate in though. So thank you for that clarification. So that would be a good time for people who have questions or concerns to articulate them to the DRB so they can take those into consideration as well. And the longs would have the opportunity to respond. Is that correct? Very much. That's the purpose. Sorry, Matt. It's just that's the time for the DRB to give guidance to the applicant to tell them whether or not that project fits in with the goals of the comprehensive plan and the regulations, the development regulations. And if the DRB signals one way or the other, that will also be a signal to the city council as it comes to us to determine whether or not we should grant permission and go ahead through interim zoning. Okay, well, thank you. So our motion closed the public hearing, correct? Let's continue to continue. Oh, continued it. That's right. Okay. And it looks like a number of people are registering that they would like to be contacted, Paul. They're going into the chat if they were sworn in and submitting their names. So, Rosanne, do you have... I'm sorry. All the butters will get notice if they have not already of the DRB hearing so that that will be provided. And just a reminder, I know that this is a little bit of an abnormal process, but now that you have voted to continue the hearing to a future date, the hearing is done for tonight in terms of public input. I don't have anything on the hearing. I have a procedural question. Okay. What's your procedural question? And other people are in the chat too. So, because you stated initially, if we wanted to have standing, which happens generally with the DRB, that we had to be sworn in and there were lots of us that did that. If that no longer applies and we have to, in order to have standing, have to go to yet another meeting and be sworn in, is that the case? So, our swearing in just now didn't count. And so, people that swore in before this, that's where that was disregarded. And in order to have standing, I'm not talking about a butters. I'm talking about anybody that normally... I understand. Anyone who's swore in. Paul, can you answer that? Yes, anybody who was sworn in is sworn in for the duration of the interim zoning public hearing. So, tonight and April 19th, and if the council continues after that, everyone who swore in tonight is a participant in that. However, the development review board is a separate body and if folks would like to participate in that, then they should tend and participate separately there. I would like to request that there were a lot of hands and faces there. It would be very helpful to note in the chat that you swore yourselves in or to send me an email because it's hard with this medium. We don't have a sign-in sheet. That's what the other paper just asked. And that's what many people are saying. How do you know who we were? Did you take our names? We didn't, Roseanne. So we're asking people to respond in the chat. That's that little circle at the top that has a different accent to it now. And tell us your name. Right, I think people are doing that now, but there was confusion. Well, I was confused. Hopefully no one was confused now. Okay, thanks. All right, so moving on then. Item seven, discussion and possible action related to whether to hold a public hearing on a date certain to consider extending the interim bylaws for the additional time period beyond May 13, 2021. So Paul Connors, you're gonna go through those options for us. Is that right? Yes, Andrew Baldick, city attorney's also here. This is, should you choose to warn a public hearing in order to consider extending interim zoning? This would be the recommended night to do so. So no, this does not obligate you to continue it. It is just a, if you wish to be able to consider it via public hearing. Okay, is that clear? So what is the pleasure of the council? Can I clarify something, Helen? Sure. So Paul, taking no action would, although I don't know how the deadlines work, would mean that the interim zoning would end on May 13th, correct? If we took no action? Essentially, yes. I think that you might have one more meeting at which if you were to decide to, but yes, if you were to take no action, there would be no public hearing. Therefore, there wouldn't be no ability to extend it. Okay. I actually had a conversation with Jessica Luisos and I don't have one, but I'll go right for them. Mm-hmm. Oh, here they are. I did have a conversation with Jessica Luisos about the position, I guess, of the planning commission that may help drive our conversation and decisions. So I'd like to share that with you. Planning commission agreed to prioritize chapters 10 and 12 and complete them first and then work on the PUD work. Her thinking is that they could likely have scheduled a draft to be done by the end of March and then would request or suggesting that on April 6th, which is their first planning meeting in April, that it'd be a joint meeting with the city council to look at, review the draft, the final draft, and answer, address our questions. And then they would be able to schedule an official public hearing early in May. She did hold out the option that they may need a short extension for chapter 10 and 12, because there's been some additional questions that have been raised, she wasn't certain about that. But we could, I believe, Andrew, we could address a short extension at a later time. We don't have to set that date now or we could set a date for April 6th, I guess, with our joint meeting if we needed to extend it. And she thought at this joint meeting, we could, at the same time, we're reviewing chapters 10 and 12, which are basically the environmental chapters. We could think through collectively whether we want them to go through with all the PUDs to the finish during IZ or to take that up after IZ. And maybe even some other direction from the council, but Jessica felt pretty strongly that the commission needed to have that direction given by the council of how and when to pursue the PUDs. I don't know if that helps you think about it, but that was our conversation. Megan? My daughter starts playing the piano as soon as I raise my hand. I just wanted to say that I am gonna have to be convinced to extend the deadline beyond May 13th. It is not something that I am in favor of. I am open to other views, and so I wanna hear those. What I would say is that we could put a notice for a hearing where we to reach any conclusions with regard to the PUDs. I know that Helen, you've talked about the working session, for instance, once that notice goes into the paper, it is something that is the law of the land, right? Until the hearing and until ultimately passage. So I just, I wanted that to be clear. This has gone much longer than any of us anticipated, including the planning commission. And I'm glad for the diversity of the commission. I think it's important to have that diversity if they were all of one mind. I think that many citizens would feel underserved. And so I do call upon the council to provide the guidance to solve the most difficult issues that remain outstanding. I think that we all can agree on the fact, and I know Matt, you're new to this board. So perhaps that's a royal we and you can correct my statement. But the interim zoning went into effect in order for the PUDs to be put into effect as well as some new, a new fresh look at the natural resources that we need to protect. And clearly those natural resources, those protections are arriving at some kind of conclusion. The PUDs seem to be a little bit trickier, but I know that people's lives as well as the views on the commission are very complex in the months to come. We might not see it happen without that council direction. And so that is what I call on us to do. We have the comprehensive plan and we also have, I think already a wealth of information from our commissioners. I've met with four commissioners, I think over the past 10 days. And I can see how the ideas are forming together and it's simply a matter of how those rules will come into shape. And I think that since this council determined that interim zoning was necessary in order to meet certain goals in our comprehensive plan, I think it makes sense for us to lend our weight to the commission's work and provide the direction that perhaps they are seeking, to be quite honest. I did hear that request in several inferences. Okay, thank you. Other comment? Tim? Can you remind me, Paul, we have to be finished by November, right? Yes, the short answer is yes. The longer answer is, I don't know, Andrew, if the pandemic would affect this in any way, shape, or form, but the letter of the law would be three years maximum barring any emergency provisions. Right. Yeah, correct. Yeah, that date is November 13th, 2021. That is the three-year mark. Okay, thank you. Okay, Matt? So we have three quarters of a year left, right, to get to the three-year mark. We have to decide we're gonna extend past May. I think back in November of last year, I'm the one that made the motion to extend for six months, right? I think I did. I think you did too. So, I mean, if the planning commission is ready, if they're gonna be done by May, if we think that they're, you know, the release of these new LDRs is gonna be on the books by the end of IZ. In May, if we chose that to be the date, that's great. To me, if they needed, I mean, the difference between then and another six months, I'd like to get it done before that, but it's really up to them. They were charged with this. I think what I heard from Jessica is that they can complete chapters 10 and 12 within the current IZ date. And then they would wish to have the council tell them, go forward, not in interim zoning, but just, you know, after the fact, to complete the PUDs, or if the council said, we don't care about the PUDs anymore, you know, you can move on to whatever is next on your agenda, but they would like that clarity. Does that jive with what you understand him? Or are you saying you want all of it done? I want as much done as we're comfortable with to accomplish what we set out to do initially with interim zoning. And if we need more time to accomplish that, I have no problem with it, but the sooner we can end it, the better. Okay. Matt? My concern is that we, and I understand the reasonings for talking to planning commissioners about the reasons for focusing on 10 and 12 first and putting the PUDs behind, but when it comes before us for a final decision, I want to see the entire package. I don't want to see two votes, two different public hearings. I want to see it all in one package. Now, whether that means they have to rush it before interim zoning, I don't think they have to. Whether we extend interim zoning shouldn't be a condition on whether, on how they deliver it to us, other than I think the city council should hold a robust public hearing in view all of the changes under consideration. And that includes changes to PUDs, not just the changes to articles 10 and 12. So I want to see a package delivered. I understand the challenge of delivering it before the end of interim zoning. I'm not sure how we should handle that, but I don't want to bifurcate this, this the work that the planning commission has done. Thomas? I'm on a similar one to Councilor Emery. It seems like the planning commission is looking for clear guidance from the council that finishes by May. We're ready to just consider what you've come up with the PUD work and the other work. We want to see this come to a conclusion. I don't know what the implications bifurcating this would be, or what I heard you say, Helen, if we have more time or Paul wants to explain what the implications would be to do the 10 and 12 and then not the PUD until after IZ, I just don't know this work well enough to know what the implications of such a course of action would be. But I like what you said, Councilor Emery. I think that makes a lot of sense to just tell the planning commission we want to end this in May and go from there. So that seems like the clear direction that I would support. But I'd really love to hear what Sandy wants to say. She has mentioned a couple of times in the chat that she wants to speak when the councilors are done. Right, when we're done. So let's get through the councilor comments. I noted that. Paul, Connor, did you want to answer any of those questions or not? I guess I would just generally say that staff supports the idea of having a joint session if council's willing to do it to be able to address some of the questions that councilor shouldn't just raise and that councilor Cota just raised and give that guidance. I think that commission's objective over the next couple of weeks is to wrap up the environmental protection standards regardless of whether they package them together for you later or send them individually. I think for their purposes, they would finish one piece and work on another piece whether it comes to you as a single package or something you can talk with them and talk about the pros and cons of. Well, we'll not clarity on chapters 10 and 12, i.e. an adoption of whatever we adopt. We'll won't that inform how the PUDs might be constructed because from my husband, I hear they went back and forth and it was, and then housing got thrown in and equity and all sorts of issues that were way beyond I think what the councilor council had envisioned. So, I mean, isn't that kind of a logical sequence? I don't want to speak for the commission but I would say that in their discussions about it finishing 10 and 12, they felt that doing that would allow that, there's a lot of moving parts and it would allow that piece of it to be stable and then not be circling back to that discussion sort of on a regular basis. So that was their viewpoint of set that piece, move on to the others rather than sort of everything as a moving piece in which case every few weeks a subject comes back that was discussed because they all relate ultimately. Megan. That is what I heard from the four commissioners I spoke with separately, that they need the council to just put a pin in it to say, this is done, done. Now we move on to the next section. And so I think that you're not speaking out of turn Paul, I think that you are, at least it wasn't the majority of the commission I recognize, but that was the sentiment of several commissioners that I spoke with. Okay, Tim. So this agenda item is discussion and possible determination of a date in the future for a public hearing to discuss extending by Z. So is that what we're doing here is just trying to decide whether or not to set a date for a public hearing? Because if you want to, I'll make that motion right now just to have that formal discussion. You may make that motion and then we'll hear from other people. What's the thing that we need though? I don't, there is a calendar constraint, right? Yeah, so just to clarify some of the discussion around timing. Council, having it on this agenda item gives council the most flexibility as to when they hold the public hearing. It could be for the April 19th meeting or it could be for the May 3rd meeting. If council wanted to hold it on the May 3rd meeting they would actually, you would still have time to make that decision at the first meeting in April. So what the only decision if you're looking to move forward with a public hearing that needs to be made today is whether that would be on the April 19th or the May 3rd meeting. May 3rd. So we could suggest that we would hold a public hearing on May 3rd to consider extending the interim bylaws. Then we would know where the planning commission sits. Okay, so that is your motion, Tim. And do we have a second? Okay, Matt, go to seconds. Okay, before we vote on that, I know Sandy Dooley has been very patient and she would like to speak and there may be several other people and then we will take that vote. So Sandy, you still here? I don't see your name, but I'm sure you're here. Oh, there she is. Okay, and you're, okay. We can see you and hear you. Well, maybe we can't hear you. Are you speaking? We can't hear you. Your local mic is muted. Says you're unmuted, or not says you're unmuted, Sandy, but we can't hear you. Sandy, if you're on a laptop, is there a little, is there a mic mute button up at the top of your keyboard? Sandy, while you're figuring that out, maybe Monica could speak and then we'll get back to you. We won't forget you. We just need to hear you. So Monica. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I appreciate you guys being willing to have the hearing on May 3rd. I think that's a great idea. I would remind you that the planning commission was out of commission for six months. That was not expected when we started in term zoning and that was really a critical timing loss for us in the work that we were doing. And also city staff has experienced a loss of an employee and we have another member who is going to be going on a very important personal leave for very happy reasons soon. So please don't forget that city staff is significantly down and by considering not extending you are, consider the staff's implications there is what I would ask. And we also are gonna have a new city manager right after that time. So I can say for myself the planning commission, me as a planning commissure very interested in getting this work over with. No one's interested in it going until November but considering many factors it's worth thinking about that because we want to get this right and there are so many elements that do work together. So even if articles 10 and 12 are finished on the fast track to you so that you can consider the reason that I supported that motion was because there are according to the interim zoning goals that were set in the beginning there are things that are out of the planning commissions per view that you guys need to think about. So you'll need your own time during interim zoning to look at the articles 10 and 12 and think about your actions that you need to take and you'll wanna do that during interim zoning. So that's just my two cents but I appreciate that you'll have the hearing on May 3rd if that's approved. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Sandy, can you speak now? Can we hear you? Now, do you wanna just call in? No, we still can't hear you. So she's left, says. This is sort of like COVID, you get stuck and you can't join the conversation. So are we willing to wait until I guess, whatever it is, May 3rd to hear Sandy? Are we ready for that vote? Yes. Okay. All in favor then of the motion to hold a public hearing on May 3rd, 2021 to consider extending the interim by-laws for an additional time period beyond May 13th, 2021. All in favor signify by saying aye. Kevin? Oh, aye. Do you wanna set a time, Helen? Oh, why don't we say 7.30, that seems to work well. Most of the time. Is it May 2nd or May 3rd? 3rd, but. Let me double check, I'm sorry. Yes, it's the 3rd, Helen. It's the 3rd, okay, thank you. No, we voted. Okay, so we voted, so it's May 3rd. And Sandy indicated that she sent us a letter or will send us, so we will hear her first. For thoughts on that. Clarifying question. All right, pardon me. Yes, I'm sorry, yes. We just warned it, which doesn't mean we're necessarily gonna extend it, but it also doesn't mean that if we do extend it, we have to extend for six months. We could extend for a month or even 10 days. Is that correct? That the time that. That is correct. We've been taking these votes very periodically in very small steps, so that certainly is our patterns today. Okay, let's move on then to number eight. We're a little bit late, but I'm sorry. Presentation from the South Burlington FIPP Citizens Committee proposing changes to the existing South Burlington fair and impartial policing policy. And let's see. We have, is it Nancy Helen and Susan? We'll be speaking. You have about, we have given you about 30 minutes to make a presentation. You sent me materials and they got sent out to the council. I think you've met with all of us as well. And Chief Burke is on the phone, I mean on the call as well. So just to answer a comment and that we did not take a roll call vote. We did take a vote though to approve the public hearing to discuss extending in our zoning. All right, so who would like to lead off? Is it Nancy? I will, I will lead off. Good evening. My name is Nancy Helen. I am a South Burlington resident. The members of the South Burlington Fair and Impartial Policing Policy Citizen Committee come to the city council tonight to ask you to approve the proposed fair and impartial policing policy as submitted. We thank the council members who have engaged in conversation with our committee members or attended an informational meeting on this critical policy. During our conversations with city councilors, there have been expressed support for this proposal that strengthens the fair and impartial policing policy. We have worked with Chief Burke on this proposal from the start. We want to acknowledge his openness to meeting with this committee and discussing this important policy. We acknowledge Chief Burke's efforts toward transparency by advancing efforts to post policies on the website and his emphasis on training focused on bias and cultural humility. And further acknowledge the police department's active community involvement. In a powerful statement to the community after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, Chief Burke wrote, we work very hard at socializing our police department in a way that builds trust, but the reality of how systemic racism and policing intersect is one we need to acknowledge and not to be defensive about. This proposed policy has direct implications on making changes in the system. The mission of the South Burlington Police Department is to foster a safe environment which promotes a high quality of life within our community. In the spirit of this mission, we ask the South Burlington City Council to approve the fair and impartial policing policy proposal as submitted. I'm gonna turn it over to David Scheinman. Good evening, good evening, thank you. We come here tonight because we're committed to four core principles. One is equal treatment of all people who live, work and travel through South Burlington. The second is the safe engagement and trust among members of our community here. The third is the clarity in the job responsibilities of the South Burlington Police. And finally, respect for humane and humanitarian values in South Burlington. We believe that members of the city council and Chief Burke share our commitment to these principles. We propose that these principles be expressed in unambiguous police policies and practices. In our proposal, we believe closes existing loopholes thereby eliminating language such as that found in the savings clause, which is Article 13 in the existing policy. And in other places that enables the police to collaborate with ICE and might lead to deportation within our community. This will be discussed later in greater depth by other people. So let me turn this over to Kate Bailey. Hi there, thank you for having us. Kate, I live on Joy Drive in South Burlington and we believe in South Burlington as a welcoming and safe community for all who live and travel through here. We believe strongly that South Burlington, as residents at our police department, should be focused on a community building and trust, not deportations and immigration policy. And the current statewide policy is only the legal floor. It is not, and we hope that these improvements will foster clear understanding of the guidelines when dealing with immigration authorities. These improvements will codify in policy the values and protections that we believe in South Burlington residents. And what we choose rather than leading it up to individual police officers' interpretation. We'll now hear from our partners at Migrant Justice and you'll better understand the importance of this policy. Madeline, are you there? Will, turn it over to you. Hi, Will. Hello, my name is Will Lambeck and I'm a member of the staff of Migrant Justice and there are a number of Migrant Justice members here on tonight as some of whom are putting their cameras on. First you're gonna hear from a farm worker member, Olga Cruz. She'll be speaking in Spanish and you'll be hearing Madeline Sherrill interpret from Spanish into English. And then I'll be speaking. And for my part, I'll look to present some slides so if the moderators can please make sure that I have the ability to share my screen. I'd appreciate that. But Olga, do you wanna start us off? Thank you. Hola, mucho gusto. Mi nombre es Olga Cruz. Soy una trabajadora en la granja en este estado de Vermont. Llevo viviendo 10 años acá en el estado de Vermont. Y pues, como muchos sabemos ya la importancia de lo que estamos aquí ahora, este, más que nada, estamos aquí para reforzar nuestra ley que tenemos de polimigra, porque aunque sabemos que está en casi todo el estado, pero este está muy debilitada, como que nos falta reforzarla por cada pueblo como lo hemos estado haciendo en otros pueblos, como Winozki, hay otros pueblitos más que ya están bajo y ha aceptado la ley y fortalecerla. Este, para nosotros, es muy importante dado que visitamos esos pueblos y tenemos todavía ese miedo de que podamos ser detenidos como por un policía y que podamos ponerle una pausa para Madeline, por favor. Okay. We can't hear Madeline. And as a French speaker, I could understand some of what Olga was saying. Would someone be trans able to? Madeline will be translating if you just give her a second. Perfect, thank you. Madeline, we're still not hearing you. It's volume. I think it's your volume, Madeline, because I heard just a slight, it's your microphone volume. You have a mute button on your microphone and it's still very quiet if you can get closer to the microphone, please, Madeline. It's pretty low. I can take it. So Olga was saying, hello, good evening. My name is Olga Cruz. I'm a dairy farm worker in the state of Vermont and I've lived in the state for the last 10 years and we're here to speak to you tonight about the fair and impartial policing policy and this is part of a longer history of struggle for over many years as a farm worker community. We've advocated for this policy to be implemented throughout the state. Unfortunately, the current model of that policy around the state has been weakened from what it used to be and that weakened version has been implemented in agencies around the state. And that puts our community at risk and makes us feel afraid because of the dangers that an interaction with law enforcement officer could result in our detention and deportation. And so when we look to travel through a town or go to the store there to go shopping, we have to think twice about are we safe to be in this place? Okay, Olga, can we just take it? Ah, este para nosotros es muy importante fortalecerlo en cada pueblito, pues era importante de que al firmar la ley de polimigra estuviera lo suficientemente fuerte y no tener que hacer esto para reforzarla.   And ideally, the state policy would not have been watered down and the loopholes that currently are in effect wouldn't have been put into that state policy, but given that the state model policy is the way it is, that's why we're going to meet in towns like this, to encourage them, to urge them to strengthen their fair and impartial policing policies and to take out the current loopholes. This is really important for me personally because I go to South Burlington a lot, even though I don't live in the town, I go shopping in South Burlington, I go to doctor's appointments in South Burlington and that's where my church is, I go to church in South Burlington. And so knowing that there's a policy in place which allows for police to stop me and turn me over to immigration where I can be deported, that fills me with fear, it terrorizes me. And this isn't just an idle concern. Nearly two years ago, a young man, a farm worker named Luis Ulloa, he was the passenger in a car that was pulled over not far from South Burlington by the Chittenden Sheriff's Department. And the sheriff's deputy instead of focusing on the driver who had been speeding focused on Luis, the passenger, he called Border Patrol to the side of the road and Luis was arrested by Border Patrol, was detained and then was deported. And that sort of thing is something that affects us very deeply as a community knowing that that can happen. And if it were to happen to me, it would mean I would be separated from my daughter and I can't even think about what would happen to her if that were to happen to me. Esperamos que por favor no tomen muy en cuenta nuestras peticiones. Es muy importante para nuestra comunidad para sentirse libres. Nosotros estamos aquí trabajando, no estamos robando ni haciendo nada malo para que al ser detenido nos traten como indiferente. Debemos ser tratados como cualquier otra persona en este estado que si cometió un error, pues arreglarlo ahí como se arregla con cualquier persona que está aquí en Vermont y no ver involucrada la migración ahí porque es más que seguro que al ver involucrado migración nos deportarían y no queremos eso, nadie quiere eso porque estamos acá luchando por nuestra familia. And I want to say that as a community, we're here working. We are here to steal from anybody. But if we do make a mistake, if we do commit an error while we're here, we should be treated like our neighbors are. We should be treated like anybody else. And if we have to pay a consequence, we're willing to do that. But we don't think that we should get deported just because of a mistake or an interaction with a law enforcement officer. And really, I don't think anybody on this call would want that or would wish that on us. So that's why we're here asking you, pleading with you to please strengthen this policy so that myself and my community can feel safe in South Bermuda. Gracias por darnos este espacio también. Thank you very much for giving us this space. Muchísimas gracias Olga. So sorry for the little tech snafu there. I know our time is limited, but I am going to try to share my screen right now so that we can go through a couple slides. I'll share this slide deck following the presentation so that people can see it because I'm not going to be able to go through every slide in detail. So I'm just going to try. I apologize. It's saying that if I share my screen, I'm going to have to restart, go to meeting. So I think I'm going to forgo the share screen. I'll share this slide deck directly following the meeting. But I'll just speak a little bit briefly. I think Olga covered the really essential points, but we want to get into a little bit more of the specifics. When Olga talked about the policy being weakened or watered down, this was in direct response to threats from the Trump administration after former President Trump took office in 2017 and began making threats against so-called sanctuary cities. The threat at that point was that jurisdictions that withheld support from the Trump's Trump administration's policy of mass deportation would be denied certain grant funding and that compelled the state's criminal justice training council to alter the fair and impartial policing policy than in effect and to add in new loopholes allowed for continued collaboration. And those loopholes are what allowed the Chittenden County Sheriff's Department to call Board of Patrol to detain and deport Luis Ulloa. And that's just one example among many. So given the weak state of the model policy, that's why cities and towns around the state have taken action to close those loopholes and make a clear statement through their policy that their towns will not be complicit in these immoral and abhorrent policies, which the vast majority of voters in South Burlington and throughout the state of Vermont roundly reject. So those towns started with Winooski, as Olga said, and then many others have followed Winooski's lead. Burlington, Norwich, Hartford, Richmond, most recently as of last week, Brattleboro, Vermont voted, as well as the Addison County Sheriff's Department. So all of these jurisdictions have already implemented the policy that's being presented in front of you this evening. And we fully hope and believe that South Burlington will follow suit. This policy improves upon the state's model policy in a number of ways, closing different loopholes that currently allow for discrimination when determining whether or not to cite somebody and release them, as opposed to hold them and ask for bail or a bond determination. It closes a pretext that allows for officers to investigate undocumented individuals or suspected undocumented individuals on the supposed suspicion of that they've unlawfully entered through the border. This has been a glaring loophole in the current state model policy that allows officers who are looking to jam up somebody because they think that they might be undocumented by saying, oh, I wasn't investigating your status. I was just interrogating whether or not you had unlawfully crossed the border, which, as we know, in essence, leads to the same impact on an individual. This policy also better supports victims and witnesses of crimes by guaranteeing them that their information will not be passed on to federal immigration enforcement. The current policy allows for that information sharing to occur. And beyond that, it protects the confidentiality of everybody with whom the South Burlington Police Department come into contact, making sure that absent very specific circumstances that are necessary for the ongoing investigation of serious criminal offenses that people's information will not be shared with federal deportation agencies. And finally, it allows for enhanced due process for people who are in detention or who have been detained by the South Burlington Police Department, ensuring that the South Burlington Police Station won't be turned into a de facto holding cell for ICE, as has happened elsewhere. One very important issue which we want to touch on is this policy's relationship with state and federal statute. As you heard, the current policy has what's known as a savings clause, essentially saying that, though there may be certain restrictions on collaboration and communication in this policy, it does not prohibit such communication in all circumstances. We see that savings clause as very dangerous as allowing for ongoing collaboration and as undermining the entire thrust of the policy, which is to limit such collaboration and communication. It replaces the savings clause with a much simpler statement and a statement that's also defensible, which is in the preamble and says nothing in this policy is intended to violate federal law. The difference here, although the language can be somewhat opaque and legalistic, is really significant. The savings clause, which refers to two federal statutes, allows for continued collaboration. However, these two federal statutes are the subject of multiple lawsuits. And courts have called these statutes, quote, unconstitutional on their face. So this is an ongoing legal issue. We don't believe that agencies in Vermont should be bound to the U.S. Department of Justice's strict and untenable interpretation of what these statutes mean. And we would ask that South Burlington join the many other jurisdictions around the state in writing those savings clauses out of their policies and replacing them with a simple statement of intent. This is allowed for in state policy. In 2019, the legislature overwhelmingly passed H518, which clarified that the state model policy is a floor, but not a ceiling. It allows for jurisdictions like South Burlington to enhance protections and to further restrict and limit communication between your agency and the federal immigration authorities. And the policy that we are asking you to adopt tonight has already been certified by the Attorney General's Office of Vermont in every instance in which it's been adopted. So though these are complex issues and we understand that there could be a reticence around them, at the end of the day, this policy will not force any employee of the Burlington, the South Burlington Police Department to violate federal law. It simply allows them and encourages them to exercise the discretion that they have not to collaborate with federal deportation agencies. And this policy is coherent with state statute and will be certified by the State Secretary in general. So I'll end the presentation there. Thank you very much for your time. I apologize if we went a little bit over time. And again, we will send those lines at the conclusion of the meeting. So I'm going to ask Cara Kelly to, Kelly to speak. And then Susan will wrap us up. Cara Kelly is a member of the National Lawyers Guild. But you're muted. OK. The video is. It looks like she froze. It's frozen. I'm frozen. I'm trying to close some tabs and see if that makes things better. OK. Can you all hear me? Yes. Yes. OK. Sorry about the tech difficulties. Thanks for having me here. So I guess I would first like to just speak generally to the flood of lawyer speak and legal constructs that we're hearing around this topic. And I want to be upfront that sometimes the obscuring of clear cut moral issues with complicated legal doctrines can be a tool of oppression that keeps people out of democratic processes in favor of just letting lawyers sort it out. And lawyers are trained in law school to learn to argue any side of an issue. So any legal opinion that you get from a lawyer is going to be informed at least to some degree by the interests and the morals and the goals of the lawyer's clients or the lawyer. We've probably all heard that anybody can get sued for anything and that lawyers are always going to find ways to disagree. So I just would encourage everybody to really stay in this discussion. And as much as being neutral comes unnaturally to people who are as opinionated as me, I've tried to work up a three minute quick and dirty explanation of the interplay between the U.S. Constitution, the U.S.C. 1373 and the fifth. Is my video cutting out? Can folks hear me OK? OK. Good. So first, the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution gives full power to the federal government over specific areas like immigration that are enumerated in the Constitution. And then all other powers that are not explicitly given to the federal government are left to the states and towns. These are literally called the police powers. And the most recent Supreme Court case interpreting the 10th Amendment, what's called the anti-commandeering doctrine was a 2018 opinion, Murphy versus the NCAA. And this holds that federal laws cannot force states and towns to act nor prohibit them from acting. A quote from this case, Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures. So this is the conflict. Eight U.S.C. 1373 is a federal law that orders states and towns to refrain from essentially putting a firewall up between police and immigration authorities. So eight U.S.C. tell states and towns not to pass FIPS that prohibit police from communicating and furthering federal immigration laws. And interestingly, this law was passed in 1996 and it wasn't really used much until President Trump took office in 2017. And in the same parcel of executive orders as Trump's billed the wall funding allocation, Trump ordered compliance with 1373 and threatened to revoke grant funding from towns that are out of compliance with 1373. Now, since then, Biden has revoked this executive order and there is a possibility that that 1373 is going to kind of fade into the background like it did before Trump revived it. But let's assume the worst for the sake of discussion. So we have the 10th Amendment that prohibits Congress from ordering states and towns around. We have 1373, which is a federal law that orders states and towns around, but it's not taken off the books formally yet. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of eight U.S.C. 1373 in light of the Murphy decision. But district and circuit courts all over the country have overturned eight U.S.C. 1373, saying it's unconstitutional and violates the 10th Amendment. And so we're in a circuit split and there is one court that I know of. It might be the only one. There might be a couple others, but the one that I know of to have upheld 1373 in light of the Murphy decision is the Second Circuit, which is the circuit that we are in in Vermont. And like I said earlier, lawyers can find ways to disagree about everything. Judges are no different. So 1373 is still technically on the books in Vermont. In many other parts of the country, it is not what the Supreme Court has yet to formally knock it out for good. And I have to apply this to the FIP that South Burlington is contemplating. The current policy that you already have contains the savings clause, provision 13E, which we'll already talked about. Nothing in this is meant to conflict with 1373. It's a specific reference to this unconstitutional, but still on the books, federal law and the committee is asking that this be replaced with the more general, less specific and more concise savings clause. Nothing in the South Burlington Police Department, immigration, very impartial policing policy is intended to violate federal law. So that's the language of the Winooski policy, which the Vermont Attorney General's Office has said because 1373 is a federal law, then nothing is meant to conflict with federal law. Statement has the same, technically the same legal effect as the more specific savings clause, but the benefit to this minimized and generalized language is that if and when the Supreme Court overturns 1373, like we think and hope that it will, the FIP will automatically incorporate that update. So it'll automatically become stronger as federal law comes into harmony with the U.S. Constitution. And just as a note, other towns in Vermont and New Hampshire who have passed FIPs and welcoming ordinances have done away with even the more generalized savings clause, it's actually the welcoming Hartford ordinance. So those towns took the tact of challenging 1373 directly, knowing that one way to resolve conflicts between federal laws in the Constitution is to pass local laws that affirm the Constitution and then entrust the courts with the task of resolving the inconsistency. So there are towns who have gone even farther than this, which hopefully should make you all feel a little bit safer if for, you know, whatever reason in a very far and remote world, the Biden administration does want to continue Trump's crackdown on sanctuary cities. You know, they're more likely to look for towns that don't even have this savings clause at all, let alone the more specific savings clause. So two last concrete takeaways. When a when a town isn't in violation of 1373, the worst case scenario is that they lose access to funding opportunities from cops and jagged burns grants. So those are federal government grants that specifically are for the purpose of policing. They provide things like military grade weapons, upgraded surveillance capacities to police. That's the only federal funding at stake. And so in a time of defund the police and a widespread movement to reconsider our police budgets, we can take heart knowing that even the most adamant sanctuary cities, the only funding that they have at risk is funding for their police departments from the federal government. And as we know, most police funding does not actually come from the federal government and one last point. And this one has been a misconception among a lot of towns we've been having these conversations in requiring cops to comply with the FIP does not require the cops to break federal law. This is because as we learned, the federal government cannot require states and local police to enforce immigration laws. So they're not breaking any federal laws simply by saying to ICE or to Border Patrol, hey, sorry, we can't talk to you. It would be a hard sell to ask towns to force their police to break laws. And we understand that. And nothing in the FIP requires local law enforcement to break federal laws. So I think that's just really important to hammer home, like to make sure that people are not afraid that by passing this or by supporting this, you're you're putting cops in a position where they would have to break laws. That's the last clarification I'll give, but I'd be happy to answer any questions that might come up later on. Thank you so much. Hi, I'm Susan Schoenfeld, myself, Burlington resident. And I'll just say a last couple of words to wrap up the presentation. I'm not a lawyer. I won't say anything legal. I was pleased to see the attorney general statement in the Chittenden County State's Attorney Office that supported what we call the Winnowski model of a stronger FIP or fair and partial policing. So so for me, that's as legal as I get. But the heart of this for me is the morality of it and what it means for what it means for us as a community. I think all of us really want South Burlington to join other cities and towns, counties in Vermont to adopt a stronger policy. And these policies would help people in our community be assured that they're not going to be singled out for scrutiny because of the basis of physical characteristics of their immigration status. I want a policy that's strong enough that someone doesn't a farmer doesn't have to worry about being stopped in a car for a traffic violation and end up deported. And another point is protection of victims and witnesses of crimes. I don't, you know, I wouldn't want every situation where a woman is afraid to report report violence and abuse because of concern that either for herself or for someone that she loves could end up be deported because of that. We've really respected our conversations with Chief Burke. And I know that he feels that officers here are trained and they're not going to be likely to make these just the loopholes that I think we're in knowledge by the state's attorney's office give you a sense that by error or by misintention that information could be shared that we run our council and our community to build trust. It's not that passing a stronger fit is going to automatically between create trust between communities and the police, but it's an important step. It's important to step to know that we're acknowledging those concerns. And we just feel it's being on the right side of the issue and the right side of history to be supporting a policy that protects people as much as we can. And thanks for giving us a chance to express our thoughts on this. Well, thank you to all the presenters. That was very concise and helpful. I would like to ask the council members if you any questions for any of the percent presenters in favor of the FIP. And then I'll ask Chief Burke to make some comments and share his thoughts about the proposal. Does anyone have any questions, Megan? I just wanted to share, you know, that we have always been told as a council. Every time we have asked this question, our police does not check immigration status. And so I see no reason not to put this into writing. Absolutely none. And I'm eager to hear from our chief. But if it is the practice, let's make it the law. OK, thank you. Well, anyone else, Tim? Yeah, so we we went through this with Chief Whipple like in 2017, I'm thinking we had this exact discussion. If I remember, does anybody else recall that? And he was he was very clear about what the policy would allow and wouldn't allow. And it seems like and I and I don't know where that policy went after the Trump administration came into power, whether there was some, you know, movement drift in one direction or the other. So I like to hear from Chief Burke. But thank you for the presentation. I also attended the Shelburne presentation a couple of weeks ago, and it was very powerful. Thank you. Great. Anyone else have a comment or question? Yeah, just to comment, just to highlight what Susan said about the people who have are concerned about their immigration status, concerned about not using the police force as a resource. That it's not just about it is about people being pulled over, but it's also about people who see Chief Burke and his team as someone to protect them from crime and to not fear them because of an immigration status. So I want to highlight what Susan said and how important that is. Thank you. OK. Chief Burke. Comments. Thank you very much. I appreciate everyone's work on this on this policy. I don't want it to be understated the amount of collaboration that the committee had with myself in sharing ideas around the policy to answer counselor's question about what has gone on with our policy throughout the administration change. And that's nothing. So we had the the standard state fair and impartial policing policy in place. And then after a couple of meetings with our local group and some consultation with the city attorney's office, we issued a new more progressive edition of that policy, which still had the same clause and amongst some other bits of language that we've worked through. And what we have now is what I would call version three point oh, I think before us, I think the committee and I have largely agreed on all the edits. The last piece was the savings clause. I will say that Sarah George's publication, as well as the AG's memo, which came out in early 2020 are very, very effective in moving my belief that we can rely on what I call the Winooski sentence. I would just like to leave as a placeholder that we don't do this work and that as long as those federal statutes do exist, if there came a time where an employee of the police department were to share information with Border Patrol, there would be no ability to take an adverse action against that employee, meaning what that statute says is that we can't prevent them from communicating and all other facets of the policy. We've got our communication severed from Border Patrol and we understand our role. But as long as those statutes do exist, if an officer were to pick up the telephone and say they had an encountered an undocumented person and this is where they could be found, there wouldn't be anything that we could do adversely to that employee for having that communication as long as that law exists. But I do support the edits revisions and moving this forward in a way that's much more inclusive in terms of public safety and builds trust in all community members that we serve. And I just want to thank the committee for their thoughtful presentation tonight and for the council for taking this up. I think it's more about awareness around these issues and much less about the policy in this community where we don't have specific acts of enforcement to point at. But this stuff does go on in other places and it's very appropriate to have this level of discussion to raise community awareness about the importance of this work. So, Chief Burke, I'm a little confused. Are you suggesting that the council approve these language changes because you've agreed to them, including the Winooski sentence? So I think that was the last bit of information that we hadn't sussed out completely between the committee and myself. I know our city attorneys on the call as well. And I've had Andrew engage in this thought process along the way. And I feel as though that we are comfortable in moving this policy forward. Andrew can speak to any of the legal parameters around this. But I know that I am comfortable in moving this forward. OK, great. Andrew, did you want to just say yes? Sure, yeah. I think the opinions both by the state's attorney and the attorney general's office are very compelling and I see no reason to sort of diverge from their approval of sort of the Winooski sentence. OK, so what we is there any other comments or questions? We don't have this warned as an action item. So I would suggest that we get the the final agreed upon language changes and have that as an action item for our next council meeting. Is that amenable to everyone, Tim? You just quick question, Chief Burke, where this policy language, where does it fit into? What document does it become part of if we vote on it? If we pass it from a council perspective, I don't know where it fits in. So it's a standalone general order within the police department. I would suggest that we could probably have this work done and report back that it's done. But I don't I am completely naive as to the function under the rules in which you approve things at the council, what you actually have to do. But I think that we can report back that this is done and in place by whatever day you you choose. But I mean, does it become part of a physical document that is is used within the department for training purposes or establishing policy or? It's a standalone policy. A standalone or that's yeah, that's published like the dozens of other police policies that we have around use of force and driving vehicles. OK, OK, OK, I understand. Thank you, Andrew. Well, do we need to approve it? Or is this is a good enough to have the police chief say this will become a standalone policy and maybe he can report or share with us the actual language of the policy? Yeah, I mean, as far as what needs to be done process wise. Yeah, it's nothing used to be taken, I think, from council's perspective. Chief Burke implements all the general orders sort of unilaterally at this point, although, you know, typically in consultation with the union representation, but it's entirely up to council, you know, what how they would like to form their support with the note that since this isn't worn for action, any sort of resolution or other approval would need to be done at the next council. OK, and and Chief Burke, once it's formalized within the police department, will that be posted on your website? Along with your other orders? Yeah, we have a little bit of work to do, but we can get that done in terms of getting particularly the the general orders, which have a lot of public interest up on the website. OK, does the council wish to have a resolution that supports this? Or are you comfortable with requesting that the chief complete this by a date? Certain. I think go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. What would have more more weight for this with the union and the police force? Chief Burke, what would have more weight for Andrew and this letter or a resolution? That would be the process in the past with our with our general orders and policies has always been an internal one. What I suggest is a chief makes these changes in policy and reports back to the council with with the language and show you which that it has been in fact implemented. I just I that's it's it's not it's not an ordinance that has to come before you. It's a policy. It's an internal policy. So I'd like to give the chief of the time he needs to incorporate the policy and then get back to the council. Hopefully at the meeting on the fifth and let you know that it's in place and what kind of training is going to come along with that for his staff. OK. Well, I think that sounds reasonable. Sandy, if there's no other comments from the council, so I'm sorry, Tim, did you want to say something? No, I just I think it's important that if we have a policy statement that it needs to be printed out and made available for the public to see so that we can vote on it. Oh, so you would like the council to vote on it or approve it? I think so. Yeah. Even though that isn't typically what we do with standing orders. But this is a little larger than that for political, I guess. I mean, if we we don't need a resolution, but. We had the actual policy statement, the general order. That'd be nice to share with everybody and then be able to to take a vote on that. Right. But I wouldn't have a problem that we think this is great. I just wouldn't want to set a precedent where the council is voting on every change in policy that we make. Right. An endorsement of what has done would be great by the council. But we're changing small things in policy on a regular basis. And I just don't want the precedent to be that they have to come before council for approval. The ordinances are different. But I think a joint statement would be appropriate. And because I think education is part of this initiative. So a joint statement and rather than a formal vote would work for me. I think that sounds like a good idea. I'd like to see it and then you can present it. Sean, you can explain the training that will go behind that. And the council can applaud those efforts in an open way, whether it's a joint statement or just a thank you, Nancy. Helen had wanted to say something and then so does Sandy Dooley. So Nancy. Yes, thank you. I think you've got to that point. I think a statement, if not, if I would I would urge you to have a resolution is this is a public statement that would support the concept of strengthening the fair and impartial policing policy. This has I'm not sure with the idea that you wouldn't want to set a precedent, but this is an important Vermont wide effort that is also happening. So I urge you as a city council to try to make as strong a statement as you can to the public. OK, well, I think we can have a joint statement that we support without setting a precedent of making joint statements about every standing order that the police department puts into effect. Sandy Dooley wanted to speak and then we'll land back and then we'll close out, I think, the topic. Sandy. No, we can't hear you. Tonight's not your night. All right. Sorry. So will. Yeah, thank you very much for recognizing me and speaking again. And I apologize. I think this comment may be putting a wrench into things at a late hour. But I was quite concerned hearing the chief's remarks earlier and as the the authors of this policy, Michael Justice has a very different interpretation of any example that Chief Burke gave, how that would need to be enforced. Chief Burke said that if an officer in the South Burlington Police Department were to call board of patrol and give them information about an individual, tell them what their documentation status was and where they could be found that South Burlington would not be able to discipline that officer. We we see that as an incorrect interpretation of the policy. And we think that if that were to happen, it would be incumbent on the South Burlington Police Department to discipline that officer for violating the fair and impartial policing policy and specifically the language here is that no information about an individual shall be shared with federal immigration authorities unless necessary to an ongoing investigation of a felony for which there is probable cause and the investigation is unrelated to the enforcement of federal civil immigration law. So unless it meets that very specific requirement, let's say a joint investigation into a human trafficking ring, which requires a communication and there's been probable cause established around a specific case. We think that if an officer is calling board of patrol and providing information, that would be a clear violation of the policy. And again, it would be incumbent on the the department to discipline that officer. And so we think that policy language is quite clear, but we would counsel the city council not to take action. If it seems that the policy is just going to exist as window dressing and not be properly enforced, Chief Burke. Is that true with other standing orders that if you violate a standing order, you can't be disciplined? I thought that's we're just no, ma'am. So but there is a peculiar relationship between the federal statute and the policy and I would welcome Will to join the committee and we could meet in the near term and we could suss through some of the finer detail there. This is the first time that I've had the opportunity to hear Will directly speak and I would appreciate some time with him. OK, that sounds is that reasonable to you, Will? Yeah, absolutely. I'd be happy to. OK, Sandy, Julie wants to try again. Last time. OK, yes, we can. Well, I just wanted to reinforce, I think it may have been Tim. I think this is a message. I agree with not approving the policy, but I think this is a message the entire community needs to hear and that the migrant justice people can can have something to refer to when they go to other communities. And it's a message to our undocumented Vermonters. They they need to hear that we are a welcoming community and we support their using our services or living here, going to church here safely and and having the protection of our public safety people. So. OK, thank you. Yeah. Um, any other comments? Ken Boyd, you put your picture on. Did you want to say something or are you all set? And then I'd like to. You're not. We can't hear you, Ken. It's endemic now. I know. The time which you know, yes. OK, I've been a listener tonight, and I apologize for not shutting my my camera off here, but I've come into this conversation rather late. And I am. I do have a question. How much public? How much of a public forum has there been on this subject? Am I completely isolated here in 2020? Because I didn't see anything about this until I saw the agenda item just happened to be looking through this week. I may come from the opposite side of the coin here, because I think that putting policies into place like that even at the chief's level, excuse me, Chief Burke, but I think we're handcuffing our officers a little bit here. And I know the argument. I've heard it in several different areas, but I just I'm curious. Is there been any public discussion or has this been in this small citizens committee? The members of the council, the police department is obviously met with this committee. I haven't heard a lot of public discussion on this subject at all. I personally think our police department in South Burlington is very fair and impartial, and I think they would do the right thing when they are looking with an undocumented, working with an undocumented individual. But I just I'm curious what somebody said. Everybody feels the way that they the way that will suggest it. But I don't necessarily think that's true. I think you have to reach out a little bit beyond a small citizens group. And I think there should be a bigger discussion about that, because, you know, frankly, I don't know all that pertains to an undocumented person. You know, we're very thankful to have the migrant workers who come to Vermont and assist our agricultural people who are definitely short of manpower. And I assume that they come here with a proper documentation and they're here working legally within this country. My opinion, if they're not documented and they're here working in this country, that is a problem. I think that's another discussion. And it's way above my my pay grade, but I still think that it kind of flies in the face of our laws and the sovereignty of our country. So I think there needs to be a bigger discussion than just going ahead and saying, yeah, yeah, everything is great. The police have the open book and they know what to do. I think that there needs to be more of a public discussion here before we pass some resolution or an ordinance that I think handcuffs are officers and already the discussions come up, Will pointed it out that and I was thinking that was going to come up that they clearly would object to an officer not being recommended or some action taken against them if he did share that information. And I think we need to work personally. I think we need to work with customs and border protection and with the with the