it's incredibly concerning. And it does not, in my estimation, address the underlying issue. And I do believe that we have the capacity to spend for this issue. It's an absolute imperative. It's part of creating a just transition around this emergency, so. Thank you very much. I mean, I think. That's why I'm voting no. Okay. I think my response to that would just be yes, we're gonna need to find and identify new revenue sources to address the dangers posed by climate change within Burlington. This is a step towards identifying some of those new revenue sources. I don't know for sure if Duke would be one of the ultimate parties that purchase these offsets, but what Duke is trying to do is get to net zero. There are gonna be certain costs or certain emissions that Duke has that it can't eliminate. And so it will buy offsets to offset the impact of those limited number of emissions. And so I think this is a good thing. They are pricing their pollution and they are using that in this hypothetical scenario to fund our tree planting efforts here in Burlington without impacting property taxpayers. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Hanson, then I think we need to move to a vote. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify my position. I think we do need increased investment given the emerald ash borer. I think we should find that locally. And I would say that Duke isn't the only one with the goal of net zero. We have a goal of net zero in Burlington and we're gonna need to meet that goal through reducing our emissions and through uptaking carbon. And so I think it's the wrong move to sell off these emissions reductions when we still haven't met our own goals. Thank you, Councilor Hanson. We are ready for vote. And now with Councilor Mason on the line, we are going to need a roll call vote. So if the clerk will call the roll please. Councilor Bushard. Yes. Councilor Hanson. No. Councilor Jang. Yes. Councilor Paulino. No. Councilor Freeman. No. Councilor Mason. Councilor Paul. Yes. Councilor Roof. Yes. Councilor Shannon. Yes. Councilor Tracy. No. City Council President Wright. Yes. Seven ayes, four nays, one absent. That passes by a vote of seven to four. And we will now move on to item 4.0, 4.08, excuse me. Resolution opposing the basing of any nuclear weapon delivery system on the Vermont Air National Guard Base at Burlington International Airport. Who is moving this resolution? Councilor Hanson. Yeah, I'd like to move the resolution as revised and wave the reading. Oh, okay. Okay, we need a second. We need a second. Councilor Freeman seconds. Councilor Hanson, you have the floor back. Thank you. I wanted to thank everyone who came out tonight to speak on this issue and who stuck around for a couple of hours after that to be able to watch the debate and the conversation and the vote on this. I wanna thank folks who've been working for years and years on this issue. This resolution, I think folks brought up a lot of concerns with the F-35s, which I absolutely share. This resolution specifically focuses on the possibility of upgrades to the F-35s that would make them nuclear capable. So I'm hopeful that even counselors who have supported the F-35s may support them without the nuclear capabilities, will still support this resolution because of what it speaks to, which is this nuclear capabilities, which would have Burlington's airport hosting delivery systems for some of the most destructive weapons on the planet and also make us a potential target in the event of a war. This resolution is the product of months of meticulous word crafting by legal and military experts. It mirrors and builds upon language that passed through the Vermont State Senate, the Winooski City Council and the South Burlington City Council. I have to say, just right at the outset, I'm extremely hesitant to support any amendments to this resolution, particularly to the resolve clauses, which are short, they're concise and they convey a very specific message, as I said, that's been very carefully crafted. I know from speaking to other counselors that this resolution, as it stands now, should have the support to pass and so I hope that's what we can do here tonight, pass this resolution as currently written rather than make changes at the last moment that are not supported by the sponsors of this resolution. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hanson. Councillor Shannon. I don't really want to speak to this yet, but just wanted to know if the maker could clarify there was a new version and if he could clarify what the changes were. Thank you, Councillor Shannon, for that clarification. Councillor Hanson, there were speaking of changes. There were changes made to the resolution actually today and if you could tell us what those changes were. Yeah, so there were changes, the changes were to add citations, which was the request of another city councillor. So there have been citations added into the resolution and at the request of a city councillor, one of the many whereas clauses was removed from the resolution. Again, this was the request of another councillor in an attempt to bring more folks along who did support the substance of the resolution and the resolved clauses, which is the action-oriented part of the resolution. The whereas clauses are laying out the case and the argument behind the resolution. So those were the changes that were made. Thank you, Councillor Hanson. Okay, anyone else want to speak on this? Anyone else? Councillor Shannon. I wanted to just say that I take the threat of having nuclear weapons based anywhere in Vermont very seriously and have tried to do my own due diligence to find out what the real threat is. I am 100% anti-nuke. My father was in the Navy in the Pacific during World War II and was on a reconnaissance mission in Nagasaki three days after they dropped the bomb. He used to send us newspaper clippings. He thought would be of interest to his daughters and he sent us a clipping in the 1980s, espousing a no-nukes position, which was quite a surprise to us because he was very much a World War II era Republican and conservative, but to our surprise he explained that he had been in Nagasaki and what he had seen and that he will forever be opposed to nuclear anything. We are at great risk today with the narcissist in chief who is withdrawing from anti-nuke treaties and the threat of a nuclear war I think is quite real. I wanted, in the process of looking into the relationship between nuclear weapons and the F-35s, the city council really doesn't control the basing decision and it has been advocated by our federal delegation to bring the F-35s here. And I asked Senator Sanders' office to respond to things that have been out in the public about the risk of having nuclear weapons on these aircraft. And I think that it was stated tonight that they had this position and they didn't know what we know now. This is, I want to briefly read an email that I received from David Weinstein at Senator Sanders' office in response to my questions. This was written February 14th of this year. And he says, according to Ethan Rosenkranz, senior analyst for national defense on the Senate Budget Committee, there are no plans to deploy nuclear weapons in Burlington. While the Air Force does not typically discuss where it stores nuclear weapons, it is widely believed that only two or three air bases in the continental US host operational B-61 nuclear bombs, the type that would eventually be compatible with the F-35. Rather, air-delivered tactical nuclear weapons like the B-61 are typically forward deployed in Europe or Asia. Some other general points relayed by Ethan, the F-35 is a short range fighter designed primarily to perform ground attack and air superiority missions. It is not a bomber. In 2014, Congress cut funding to make the F-35 nuclear capable, pushing the early estate to 2024. Even then, only certain blocks of the planes will be upgraded, even if the F-35 becomes nuclear capable, something Senator Sanders opposes. It does not mean all F-35s will carry nuclear weapons. The F-16, F-15, and F-18 are all nuclear capable. Very, very few have ever carried a nuclear weapon. Regarding Burlington, the mission of the 158th Fighter Wing has not changed. Only the plane is changing. The F-16s currently based here do not carry nuclear weapons, and there is no reason to believe the F-35 would either. There is simply no operational rationale to deploy tactical nuclear weapons on a short range fighter based on the border with Canada. Military bases hosting nuclear weapons have to go through an extensive nuclear certification process. Since BTV is a dual civilian military installation that is extremely unlikely, the base would require significant perimeter security improvements, and the construction of hardened weapons storage vaults, new hardened hangers, and nuclear handling facilities. This construction isn't happening, nor would it go unnoticed, and the USAF has not proposed any funding for it in a military construction appropriations bill. As far as we know, none of the pilots or maintainers at the V-Tang base have undergone the extensive training necessary to handle nuclear weapons control and delivery systems. Lastly, and to be absolutely clear, Senator Sanders doesn't just oppose basing nuclear weapons in Vermont, but he is an original cosponsor of a bill to completely cancel the F-35's nuclear mission and efforts to extend the life of the B-61 nuclear bomb. So I share that because I have received so many emails from so many people who are very scared about the things that they're hearing in terms of the level of threat of bringing a nuclear weapon to Vermont. And I do trust that Senator Sanders has information that the rest of us, including city counselors here, are not privy to. So I wanted to share that information. That is not to say that I do support the resolution, and I am opposed to anything that would potentially bring nuclear weapons to Burlington. So I will leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Shannon. I think with that, I am going to pass the gavel to you, Councillor Shannon, and I, as I am going to participate in the debate now and offer an amendment. Not until I call on you. Can we call? Like, we're gonna offer an amendment.  Can we call a recess? We can, sure. We can call a five-minute recess. Is there the purpose of the recess, Councillor Freeman, to discuss the action on the resolution thus far? Is that, I mean, to have some... Can we discuss it at that table, or is there a reason to go into recess? No, just to call a recess. To discuss the... I'm sorry, Attorney Blackwood, is there a qualification that I need to meet in order to call a recess? Is it at the discretion of the council? I don't... It's at the discretion of the chair, whether or not to recess the meeting. So if the chair believes they need more reason to decide, I think they're allowed to ask you for that. Not exactly sure of what. We can recess for five minutes. Okay, perfect, thank you. Councillors, please take your seats. I have President Wright in the queue. President Wright. Thank you, President Shannon. So I am offering this amendment, and this is not changing any of the resolve clause that are in the current... If this is adding to the resolve clauses at the end of this resolution. And I'm going to first lay out why I'm doing this. It goes along the same lines of what Councillor Shannon just said, actually. I have gotten many emails, not many, but I've gotten a number of emails, a number of phone messages, all saying please support this resolution and stop the F-35s from coming here. We also had it said in public forum in previous meetings about the Vermont Senate resolution, which was a mischaracterization a number of times, saying that the Vermont Senate passed a resolution to stop the F-35. And that is simply not accurate. I talked to senators while I was in the Capitol and I got a text from my senator today that says the resolution in the Senate was solely limited to expressing our view that we do not want nuclear weapons in Vermont. So not to try to stop the F-35 from coming here. So this resolution, I'm going to read it now, is we can state our sentiment, and I'm fine with that, and I'm supportive of that, saying that we don't want a nuclear mission in Burlington, but we're not stopping the F-35s. They're coming next month, and I think we need to be honest with people about that. We can express our sentiments, and we will in this resolution, but this is what the amendment is. After the resolve clauses that are already in the resolution, I add to that to say be it further resolved, that the city council recognizes that the Vermont Air National Guard's 158th fighter wing will receive the F-35A three F jets within approximately the next month. We understand that this resolution expressing strong opposition to any nuclear mission for these planes will have no impact on the arrival of the F-35A jets in September. We wish the men and women of our Vermont Air Guards successful and safe flights whenever the planes are flown, and be it further resolved that while we acknowledge the F-35A jets are coming in September, the Burlington City Council also understands how important noise mitigation efforts are, and we recognize the need to deal with this as quickly as possible. To that end, the council requests a report and update on these efforts from the Director of Aviation, Gene Richards, at our first meeting in October. Now that is something that we should be moving forward on and that we should be realistic about that the planes are coming. We should be expressing our that we do not want a nuclear mission. Let me just quote a few things in addition to that. In addition to what Councillor Shannon mentioned, I talked to Lieutenant Chelsea Clark, Second Lieutenant of the United States Air Force myself just in the last couple of days. She sent me a statement saying the Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs stated that Vermont is not getting a nuclear mission with the F-35s. Only units within nuclear mission will be given the hardware necessary to carry nuclear weapons. The F-35 station at Burlington International Airport will not have the hardware necessary for a nuclear mission. So I think that it is important that along with stating that we don't want a nuclear mission, that we are upfront and honest with people because again, I've heard it repeatedly, people thinking that if we pass this resolution, we can stop the F-35s and the F-35s are coming next month. So it's fine for us to make a statement about our feelings about the nuclear that we don't want a nuclear mission here. I'm supportive of that. But we also need to be upfront with people and not mislead people to think that by passing this resolution, and again, just as Councillor Shannon has, I've heard it many times, people urging me to do this because we need to stop the F-35s. This resolution's passage will not do that and we need to be upfront to people. I will add a couple of more comments from the Guard from the Air Force in regard to this. What variant of the F-35A will the Air National Guard 158th Fighter Wing in Burlington, Vermont receive? The 158th Fighter Wing will receive F-35A block 3F jets. Our 35A block 3F jets nuclear capable? No. Will the F-35A jets in Burlington, Vermont be nuclear capable? No. The Burlington jets will have the hardware, will not have the hardware necessary for the nuclear mission. Will the Air Force ever add hardware to the F-35s in Burlington, Vermont to make them nuclear capable? There are no plans to add the hardware necessary to make the Burlington, Vermont. I'm sorry, listen. Excuse me. That's not appropriate. We'd like to keep the decorum of the Council for this. And I'll add to that just that we all listen to you respectfully and I'd appreciate the same courtesy. Will the F-35 in Burlington, Vermont be nuclear capable and fitted with block 4 upgrades? No. Only units with a nuclear mission will be given the hardware necessary to carry nuclear weapons. The Burlington jets as they will be configured will not be nuclear capable. I asked them about the F-16s. The F-16s were similar in that nature in that they could have had hardware placed on them. They were here for many years and they never did carry nuclear weapons.  And that just falls into a pattern of what's going on in Washington. That we're gonna accuse, if we don't like what's being said, they're lying, you're lying, everybody's lying. And where are we if we just think everybody's lying? So the reality is the F-35s have been approved. Let me give you another example. This city council, and I didn't support this action, but this city council asked the Air Force, took an action to ask the Air Force, the Secretary of the Air Force, about a year and a half ago to replace the F-35 plane with a different plane, with a cargo plane or something like that. The Air Force did not do that. The Air Force moved forward with the F-35 despite the majority of the council asking them to do something different. This is not in the hands of the city council at this point. This is a decision that has been made. The F-35 planes are coming. They will be here next month, the first two. There will be two arriving each month after that until the numbers has arrived at, which I believe is 18. So again, I'm supportive of the resolution and sending the message that this resolution sends, but also in addition to make a factual statement so that we do not mislead people into thinking that the resolution is doing something that is really not capable of doing. And again, the same things were said of Vermont Senate resolution, and I've talked to senators and senators, not of my party who have made clear to me that in fact said to me, no, we understand that the Vermont Senate resolution had no impact on the arrival of the F-35 jets. So I hope that the council will pass this resolution, this amendment to the resolution, to add a factual statement, a simple factual statement, and also talk about the safety and successful missions of flying these planes, and also that we move forward on these noise mitigation efforts. Thank you. Did you make a motion? You know what, I need to move the amendment. I need to, I'd like to move the amendment. That you read. Yes. Okay, thank you. Is there a second to that amendment? Seconded by Councillor Roof. Discussion on the amendment. Councillor Tracy. I'd like to note that Councillor Pine has joined us on the phone, prior to Councillor Wright, right after the resolution he joined, he got on the line. And does Councillor Pine have the ability to, is he online or have the ability to hear everybody at the table? I think he can hear everybody, yeah. Is he just on the phone or is he watching online? I'm not sure. Councillor Pine, are you able to hear everybody at the table? Councillor Pine, can you hear everybody at the table? Councillor Pine, are you able to hear me? Okay. Did you have any comments or just wanted to? I'll come back on the comments one second. I just wanted to note that. Yeah, thank you. I just need to second together my thoughts. I just wanted to make sure we noted that prior to that. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jang, you were in the queue to speak to the base resolution. Did you want to speak to the amendment? Yes, Acting President. I want to speak to the amendment. Floor is yours. Thank you, Acting President Shannon. First of all, I want to appreciate all the men and women that are here today. And I think you all look beautiful in red. You're beautiful. Just make sure that, like the requests that are being here, so we stay civil. We're going to have a wonderful conversation here. I want to speak to the amendment. And I do believe that this amendment completely is changing the substance of this resolution. The resolution is very clear. And I think Councillor Acting President Shannon in her remarks or what emails she did receive made it clear. Even if the F-35s currently don't have a delivery, nuclear delivery system, Roséa Greta did state here very clearly that they have the capacity to add it. I think that's very important. They have the capacity to add a nuclear delivery system in the F-35, like you're saying, F-35A3F. That's a fact. And this resolution is saying we don't want to have any, any airplane flying jets that have that capacity. That's what we opposed. This amendment from President Wright is completely changing the substance. Because we're not talking about a nuclear mission here. This resolution has nowhere where it mentioned nuclear mission, a nuclear delivery system. The second component of this amendment is very clear too. It is asking about the noise mitigation, which doesn't even need a resolution. We simply can request the airport director to come here and give us those noise mitigations. We can request it. The mayor can request it. And I think it doesn't have a place in here, in this resolution. Those components are facts. They clear reason why I am voting no on this amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jang. Councillor Paulino. So I would agree that the contents of the amendment are... Do you get a little closer to the mic? Are relevant. However, I do believe that it's in conflict, the spirit of Councillor Hanson's motion. So I would make a motion to postpone the consideration of the amendment for next council meeting so that it could be a separate resolution. I don't think we can postpone the amendment without postponing the resolution. So would you like to... I would, point of order. What is your point of order? Councillor Paulino, you can address me. Can an amendment to an amendment be postponed to the following meeting? You would like me to ask our parliamentarian? Correct. Attorney Blackwood, can we postpone an amendment while moving forward on a resolution? I don't see how you can do that. The amendment is directed towards the resolution itself. I think you could move to amend by pulling that out and putting it in making us and saying, I wanna bring it forward as a separate resolution. But I don't think you can postpone voting on the amendment when it's been made as an amendment to a resolution. Thank you. So I believe the parliamentarian has affirmed my position on that. Councillor Paulino, you still have the floor if you want it. I do. Having said that, I would ask for a motion to amend the amendment and insert a new paragraph or a new sentence. And that would be the third sentence on the first paragraph to read. The third sentence of the amendment? The third sentence of the amendment. Okay. To read, we hope that this resolution will have an impact on the nuclear capability of F-35A jets, period. On F-30, could you repeat it please? Yes. So third sentence, first paragraph of the proposed amendment before Council floor. To read, we hope that this resolution will have an impact on the nuclear capability of F-35A jets. Can you, do you have that in writing? Can you send it to the clerk? Sure. F-35HS, what is it? Oh, A3, I got it. Thank you. Point of information? Councilor Roof. Could the maker, could you request the maker to just remind the council where exactly this line is going? In the context of the resolution? Yes. Is it replacing anything? I just wanna know exactly where this is going to land. That would be helpful if you could read that in the context of the amendment. Sure, so. Read your amendment into it. So it'd be the third sentence of the first paragraph of the proposed amendment by Councilor Wright. So it would read after, we recognize that the planes are coming next month. We understand that this resolution expresses strong opposition to the nuclear mission for these planes will have no impact on the arrival of the jets in September. We do hope that this resolution will have an impact on the nuclear capability of the F-35A jets, period. And then we will continue. It was a proposed amendment to the amendment to insert. Yes, so it would continue, we wish. And there are no deletions in that, correct? It's just an insertion. Correct. Okay, and does the clerk have that yet? Or I'll give you a minute to get that so that we can put it up on the screen so that people can see. Is there a second? I just wanna wait to see it before. Okay, we can wait. I second the amendment to my amendment. Okay, so we have a second. President Wright. And I would like to speak to it. Okay, I think we can do that while we're waiting. Go ahead. Thank you, I'm fine with this amendment to this amendment. The message is still delivered here and I think it's fine to say that we hope that this will have an impact on the nuclear capability because again, I don't think the Air Force or the Air Guard will quarrel with that either because they are saying there will be no nuclear capability for the F-35s. So I think that's fine. So we have it up on the screen now. Is there discussion on the amendment to the amendment? And I'll remind counselors you cannot further amend. Councillor Busher. I don't wanna further amend. To me, I understand the intent but for me it fails because it says we hope that this resolution will have an impact on the nuclear capability of the F-35. Does that mean we want to make sure it has nuclear capability or not? So to me, it's missing the fact that we'll have an impact on eliminating the potential for nuclear, well, eliminating the ability for the nuclear, I don't know but I don't have the language but I just feel like it doesn't say specifically what side of the nuclear capability you're on, it just leaves it there. And I feel like it should say that you don't want, you want this to not allow a nuclear capability as opposed to just making that blanket statement. So for me that the amendment doesn't work. Thank you. Councillor Busher. If Councillor Paulino wants to refine the language, I think that that could be appropriate. You could withdraw and replace the language because I think your intention is a little bit different than what those words say but we can continue the discussion if counselors have further discussion. So further discussion. Councillor Paulino, are you refining your, okay. Councillor Freeman. Yeah, I agree with what Councillor Busher brought forward and but it sounds like Councillor Paulino is refining the amendment. So I just wanted to echo that. Makes sense to me. Thank you. President Wright. Councillor, acting President Shannon, I would like to make a motion to suspend our rules. It's 1030. Is there anything that is time sensitive that's left on here? Is the E911 coordinator? Mr. Mayor, do you know if there are things on the agenda that are time sensitive after this item? So we clearly still have a waste of time. President Wright, it would be important. I think that we make a decision on 4.12 and 4.13 tonight, the two parking related. 4.12 and 4.13. So I would make a motion to suspend our rules to complete this item that we are dealing with now 08 along with 4.12 and 4.13. Is there a second to that motion? Seconded by Councillor Roof. All in favor of suspending our rules as noted by President Wright, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That's unanimous. Do we have a new revision? Would you like to read it, Councillor Paulino? The new, so it would be a motion to insert this language to the amendment, to the amendment. We do hope that this resolution- This is a replacement of your amendment. You can't further amend. So this is replacement language for your amendment. We do hope that this resolution will eliminate the nuclear capability of the F-35A jets. Oh, so that's the old one that's up there. We do hope that this resolution will eliminate, okay. So I would make that motion. Okay, and you still are seconding that motion, President Wright. Is there further discussion on the amendment to the amendment? Seeing none, we're ready for a vote. Councillor Jang. Where is the amendment? It's right up on the floor. Gonna give people a minute just to read it. Okay, are we ready for a vote? All those in favor of the amendment to the amendment as presented on the screen, please say aye. Aye. Actually, we have councillors on the phone, so we need to do a roll call. Sorry. Councillor Bushor. Yes. Councillor Hanson. Councillor Jang. Councillor Paulino. Yes. Councillor Freeman. Councillor Mason. Yes. Councillor Paul. Yes. Councillor Pine. Ryan. Councillor Roof. Yes. Councillor Shan- Yes. Councillor Tracy. No. Council, Councilor Wright. Yes. Seven ayes, five nays. Okay, the motion passes. We are now on the amended amendment that was presented by Councillor President Wright. Yes, Councillor Freeman. Can I move to poll this amendment as a separate resolution? I thought that was what I, was a point of information. That was something I can move. I don't understand the motion that you're making, but you have conferred with, you want Attorney Blackwood to clarify or? I just wanted to make sure, based on the point of information that Councillor Paulino asked earlier, what I understood is that this, amendment can be pulled, you can make a motion to pull it as a separate resolution. Is that the correct term? The decision was actually, and Attorney Blackwood concurred that you cannot actually put that, to postpone that until the next meeting. No, not to postpone it, sorry, to divide the question, to create a separate resolution. To create a separate, to have a separate vote on the amendment. We are having a vote on the amendment now. At point of information, Attorney Blackwood, can you provide some clarity to, I just don't, I don't understand what. Attorney Blackwood, would you like to respond on whether we can make the amendment a separate resolution? I think someone could move to sever this portion of the resolution, into a separate resolution, yes. There are probably several different ways you could term that, how you do that. But I believe that you could make that motion. So the motion would be to, could you tell us how you think you could make that motion? I think there. Give us a sample language for the motion. Sure, I think there are probably a couple different ways you could do it. I think you could say, I'd like to divide the question and pull the amendment in as a separate question. How do we divide the amendment when it hasn't been amended into the resolution yet? Because it's not, the idea is to not have it be an amendment that it would be a resolution that stands on its own. That's, if you are to say, I'm going to divide the question and make that amendment to stand on its own. I'm not sure divide the question is exactly the right language to use, but it seems like that's one possibility. Probably a better one is just to say, I make a motion to move the amendment to be a separate resolution. So if there was a motion to make the amendment a separate resolution and we take a vote on that and that motion fails, then we continue to vote on the amendment as part of the resolution. If that motion passes, then we move on to voting on the resolution as presented and following that, we have a vote on the amendment. Is that correct? As a resolution. As a separate resolution. Correct. Okay. Councillor Freeman, you would like to make a motion to make the amendment a separate resolution. Is that correct? Point of information. Point of information. Councillor Jang, what is your point of information? My point of information is what you just stated is not clear to me. And I would like the city attorney to please explain the process in which we will be moving forward with the resolution that was brought by Jack Henson. City Attorney Blackwood, would you like to clarify? I think what would be helpful is first to have Councillor Freeman clarify what she wants to do and then I'll have Attorney Blackwood clarify that. So I just want to be clear. Councillor Freeman, are you making a motion to separate, to make the amendment a separate resolution? Yes. Rather than part of this? Yeah. That is your motion? Yes. And I'll wait on asking for a second until we have clarification from Attorney Blackwood. I believe you stated it correctly before. You would take, the vote would be on whether or not to sever the amendment and make it a separate resolution. If the vote is yes, then you sever that and you go back to the original resolution and vote on that original resolution and then vote on the proposed amendment as a second resolution. If the vote is no not to sever it, then you vote on whether to amend the original resolution with this amendment and if, and that either passes or fails. Okay. Is there, are there further questions that somebody wants to actually ask? Councillor Busher. In regards to what is being proposed, is that what you're saying? Yes. We can speak. Well, actually just, I want to get a second to debate the merits of it, but I want to make sure everybody is clear on procedurally what we're doing. Okay. So, Councillor Busher, do you have a procedural question? Yes, because I don't understand how something can become a resolution on its own. I understand dividing a question, but to have something that has no whereas, no anything just to become, pluck out of the air a resolution and have us vote separately on that does not make sense. And I want to bring us back to a very un, I'm sorry I'm going to bring us back to this, but when there was a resolution on the trees in City Hall Park, I tried to divide that and have it be separate and was told I couldn't do that. So this seems inconsistent for me in my memory of how we do business. And I don't understand. It opens a door for any one of us to introduce resolutions and this backdoor mechanism of introducing an amendment than having it be a standalone resolution. I don't support this and I won't be voting in support of this process. Thank you. I think Councillor Busher and I have a fairly long history here and I don't recall this ever being done before. So, Attorney Blackwood, I'll ask you if this is something that's at the discretion of the chair. I just don't think it's... I don't see how it's at your discretion. I think if someone wants to make that motion, you're on the merits of doing the motion or not. Okay, we will continue then and I'm going to ask for a second. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Hanson. Discussion on the amendment to separate out Councillor Wright's amendment as a separate resolution. Further discussion on that count. Councillor Wright. Do you want to go to? I agree with Councillor Busher and I clearly remember what Councillor Busher is referring to and her frustration at the time that the ruling came from advice from the city attorney from discussion with other councillors and a ruling by the council president that what she wanted to do was not in order and I think this is, it may be allowed as the city attorney has said but I think it really is a slippery slope to begin to go down to and I think that for at least me, whether this passes or not has some bearing on whether I would vote for this because I think the message, sending a message out without the accompanying message I think is wrong. So, I would urge defeat of this. Thank you President Wright. Councillor Paulino. So, I think I just want to make my intentions clear. I support dividing the question because I showed up to vote on a resolution that was made public. That was essentially a no nuclear capability or delivery systems in Vermont and by adding this other piece to it it sort of complicates things for me and I would like to, it's not because, it's because I would like a separate resolution that addresses the issues raised in that addition. That's all. It's not because I oppose the language, Councillor Wright, I think with my amendment I would support that but I'm also in favor of dividing. Councillor Hanson. I'll be supporting it. I feel similarly, I feel that this language kind of warps the intentions of the original resolution especially the language around reiterating reiterating the idea that this is a foregone conclusion and that they're coming in the context of a resolution that is urging that we don't have these nuclear capabilities and that we're taking a stance against that and making that case. I think it definitely complicates the resolution also the language around nuclear mission rather than nuclear weapons delivery system is a different message there. So I think it's good to look at the amendment as it was written which I do believe has enough support to pass and we can consider these other items separately. Councillor Roof. Thank you, Acting President Shannon. I'm fighting on two fronts here. I'm starting trying to get, I don't have much experience as Councillor Busher and even she is a little perturbed by this so I'm working on that front but I'm also just a little bit confused about the orientation of this conversation. We're talking about the darn F-35s here. If you read the resolution in its original form you look at the Rez clauses. We're talking about the F-35s and yes, the specifics of the language matter but let's just be forthright with the conversation. These amendments are directly related to the conversation that we're having. The amendment refers to this resolution so it's in reference to the rest of the resolution. I've been on the council now close to five years and I can't remember a time where there was a resolution that we just didn't want to vote on and we didn't vote on. I don't understand the approach. I'm working on trying to understand the approach but when a resolution is made typically if you support it, you vote yes and if you don't support it, you vote no and that's how a legislative body such as this typically functions and so I'm working, I'm trying to see what I think others may see much more clear. It's just, it's not hit me over the head here. This is a relatively fair, I think mostly factual amendment. It's been put forward like if you support it, vote yes, if you don't vote no and forward we go on to the next item. I will, I'll see what I'm gonna do, my goodness. Thank you, Councilor Roof. Councilor Freeman. To that point, I just, and sorry, I'm just trying to wrap my head around the concerns that you're bringing, Councilor Roof and also Councilor Busher. To me it is very important to divide the question. I think regardless of whether, and I have to default to the parliamentarian, I don't know, I'm not the final call and I'm sorry that this is under question and perhaps we should call a recess to have better clarity on it because I really think we should have clarity on what we're doing before we vote on it and the rules, I do, I really hear that. I think it is important, but I do wanna divide the question whether it's now or whether it's in the resolution. I don't think that this makes sense that it doesn't to me adhere to the integrity to the initial intent of the original resolution. I think it's just a different, dividing the question because it's a separate issue. I think it should be voted on separately. To me it just doesn't seem germane enough. I mean even the fact around the noise component is so essential. We are getting so many emails about that aspect in particular. It's fantastic. I do believe we should bring that issue forward. It does not need to be part of this resolution which is about the nuclear capacity of the F-35. Neither of these, it's just not germane to that the integrity and the core of the reason for the initial resolution. Further discussion on separating out this amendment as a separate resolution. Councilor Paul. Thank you, Acting President Shannon. I thought this was going to be rather straightforward this evening and it certainly is not at all straightforward. I can see about, I think there have been about 14 different sides to this argument and I probably agree with part of all of them. I feel as though the makers of the resolution put a lot of effort into it. I was the counselor who, counselor Hanson said remained nameless but I was the one that really pushed them to put citations in the resolution. I think it makes it better. And I was the one that asked for a resolve clause to be removed. And I don't disagree with the, with many of the facts, because they are facts that are in the amendments. I'm just not sure that that's a fair way if the city attorney says that they can be, stand on their own, if it is fair to the spirit of the resolution for them to be included. So I'll continue to think about that until my name comes up. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Council President Wright. This is not in any way a violation of the spirit of the resolution. The resolution stands with the main point that it wants to make about nuclear capability. Now, nuclear mission is directly tied to nuclear capability. As the said and what I read, there will be no nuclear capability because there is no nuclear mission. That is the fact. So it's trying to say that the nuclear mission is different, nuclear mission is, because there's no mission is why there is no nuclear capability and there's not expected to be any nuclear capability. There is no mission. This is again, allowing this, I think it was a mistake, this whole issue of separation. This is gonna put us into a whole another issue of turmoil of how to figure out how we turn this into a resolution because it really needs something like this should not be delayed and not voted on tonight. Counselors have, we have acted on issues like this throughout the years. This is not something new and different that somebody comes here and there's a resolution and somebody proposes an amendment that someone changes the resolution. The fact of the matter is, this doesn't even change the resolution. It simply adds some lines that state some facts that are clear facts. And I don't understand, quite frankly, why people are so upset about adding the facts to this particular resolution and still have a stand on the nuclear capability question that still passes. It to me, it says that you wanna pass something without saying the real facts without, while still letting people think that we're gonna stop the F-35s which people have said repeatedly to us, we're willing to pass this and then hope we can defeat this amendment after so that this can stand on its own and people can continue to think that we are going to stop something and mislead people into think we're gonna stop something when we aren't going to and we're not able to. Thank you, President Wright. Just to clarify, if this motion should pass, we will be taking this up immediately following the vote on the resolution. Councilor Jang. Yeah, I wanted to again, you know, bring us back together as to why we're here and until right now talking about this. And I think the whole purpose of this go back and forth, how, what process we should use, it's because of the amendments we have in front of us by Council President Wright are not factual. It completely changes the substance of the resolution that Jack brought here. I think that's why things are complicated in here. It's important. And again, I think we received here an amazing public forum statement from a colonel who's retired from the army. If you want, I can read just one specific paragraph. It is late. If it's already been read tonight, do we need to... Maybe, I mean, to remind people again that when we talk about facts, it's not what Bernie Sanders staff tell me, but I wanna really believe on someone who been in the army, that's those facts that I want. But instead of just a staff of a senator, or any other, many things, sometimes you don't even know what to believe really, because there are so many aspects of this. And I think the resolution that Jack brought, that's what we need to discuss. Anything that's not factual about it, let's take it away, move it separately and move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Council Paul. Thank you. So I have a question for the city attorney, if that's all right, or do you want me to ask you? What is it? I guess I'll ask you. I'm just trying to understand what the criteria is that in this particular case, it's okay to do what is being proposed. But in another case, it was not okay to do what is being proposed. And I just wanna make sure I understand why, because if we're gonna do this, then it may be a first, and I'd like to know why, how it is that we can do this, as opposed to other instances when others have requested, made similar requests. Thank you, Councilor Paul. Good question. Attorney Blackwood. Sure. In this case, when I look at the amendment put forth by President Wright, my reading of this is that it can stand alone, that this can be, if you just take out one of the word, the word further in the first sentence, it stands alone as a resolution. It has no wear abs clauses, but there's no rule that says you have to have wear abs clauses. You have to have resolve clauses, because that's what a resolution is. But my belief is that the rest of it can stand alone. And that's why it can be divided out the way that the proposal is. The Chair, of course, is the one who gets to rule on this, whether or not, and you obviously can disagree with me and go through an appeal process. But my reading of this is this looks to me as though it can stand alone as a resolution, and so that's what I am basing my opinion. You just told me that I did not have discretion on this. If I have discretion, I might do something different, but you told me that I did not have discretion when I asked you that question. Well, I'm sorry, because I probably misunderstood what your question was. It isn't that you have discretion, it is that somebody has made a motion. I've given you my parliamentary ruling. My ruling is merely advisory to the Chair and the body, and you can choose to disregard it in which case someone can appeal your ruling, your decision, and the body can make a decision on parliamentary matters. I'm really just your advisor on this, so I'm telling you what I come up with here. So I can, despite your advice, I can still rule that that motion is out of order. You can rule that motion out of order and then someone can move to appeal your ruling on the being out of order. I think that this matter is important to how the council functions, and it's more important than this vote tonight. It's important as to how we all work together on a regular basis, and for those of us that have a very long history here and have never seen anything like this done, I think that it is actually important that we establish how we're going to treat these situations. So for that reason, I will rule the motion out of order, and I imagine you may want to appeal that. If you do, Councillor Freeman, do you want to appeal that ruling? Yes. And there's been a motion to appeal my ruling that that motion is out of order. Is that a debatable? Yes. Yes, okay. And point of information. We're going to find, point of information? Yes. So you have the appeal, Carrie, it's a yes vote, is that correct? It's a double negatives. Right, right. It's a bit confusing. So that's a good question. I believe that you have moved to appeal my decision that this is out of order, and a yes vote means that it is in order. A yes vote is in support of Councillor Mason's appeal. Councillor Freeman, sorry. I do believe, oh, sorry. Are we still discussing whether it's debatable? Just quickly, you do need a second to it, and then it is debatable. Okay. Is there a second to Councillor Freeman's motion to appeal, seconded by Councillor Hanson? Is there? Can I have the floor? Debate. Yes, Councillor Freeman, I don't know why I'm doing that. It's late. I understand, that's totally fine. I did just want to, you know, the point about, you know, when I hear the concern about this is the way we've always done things, and, you know, we have a certain sort of way of doing business, and it has to follow, you know, the reason why we have Robert's Rules is that it's the authority of the law, that, you know, for our body. The only thing that concerns me is when I last appealed, the ruling of the council president that the resolution was out of order, one of the main arguments entered into the debate is, can that be done? I believe it was, that has never been done before. I don't think we should do it. But it is completely, I guess that part of the debate doesn't, it doesn't make sense, that doesn't seem logical to say just because we've never done it before, doesn't mean that it's not following Robert's Rules of Order and it is fair and, you know, appropriate and proper practice since we are illegal law making, you know, body that we, and so that's, I just have a lot of concern about bringing that rhetoric into the debate. Thank you. Point of order. Yes, Councillor Paulino. Thank you. So I just want to clarify, because I just asked Councillor Paul and I felt obviously I'm new, I do have the rules in front of me, so I'm reading them as I go, but I think I was confused. It seems like the question of first impression is dividing and sending it or creating a separate resolution, but we certainly can divide, right? And then just immediately proceeding after their take the vote on the second question once we divide it, if we divide it. The motion, So I just, We're not having a discussion about dividing the question. We are having a discussion about creating a separate resolution. If we were to get to vote on the resolution itself, we could at that time divide the question. So I was confused about that, so I just wanted, I think that as a new Councillor that was helpful to understand. Okay. Thank you. Council Buescher. Yes. So I'm not going to be supporting the motion to appeal the decision because in order to provide greater clarity to one Councillor who asked for that, what makes this different is that language was put forward that had a second, but we never voted on it. So it actually hasn't become part of any existing piece of legislation. And so that means for me and I appreciate the fact that it was never done before. That's not really any reason not to do it. And I agree. But having said that, what we are really contemplating is now to have any one of us propose an amendment that doesn't get voted on and then say, well, wait a minute, I want to move to divide and therefore I've now created a separate resolution with its own life. I think that is a very dangerous path to go down. I think that is out of order. I don't feel like that is something that I would want to support. So I am not going to support this action at all and I am not going to support the motion to appeal the decision of the chair. I think this is very different than dividing a question and having a piece of legislation that has been voted on by the council. This is language out there that's just there and it hasn't been incorporated at all. And so therefore I don't think it is deserving of being called a resolution that is being sponsored by this council. And I don't think it need, it should go forward in that manner. Thank you. No, no. Okay. Thank you. Councilor Wright, then Councilor Hanson. I believe this has been, we have a number of places we need to get to before we ever actually vote on this thing. People are waiting to see what we're going to do. I think we have beaten this one to death and I'm going to move that we call the question. There's a motion to call the question. Is there a second to the motion to call the question? Seeing no second, I will go to Councilor Hanson. So I don't have the full history and experience but I do think, I see, I think this is one example of when this makes sense and I think there could be other examples of when it makes sense where you have, you have a resolution that is supported by a number of counselors and you have additional language added as an amendment that is supported also by many counselors but that isn't necessarily so in line with the rest of the original resolution that they would be one resolution. Then I think that is a circumstance where you could look at the two items separately because they both have possibilities of moving forward but aren't necessarily seen as pairing together within one resolution. So I do think this plays a role. I don't see it as particularly dangerous and also I think it gets into a bit of shaky territory when we simply decide to disregard the advice of our legal counsel that seems a bit strange to me and I think that is something that could be a bit dangerous because in my mind that was kind of an external authority that we have to be able to weigh in in these situations and give that external advice that is kind of removed from the debate and the substance of what we're talking about and in this case we simply have disregarded that so that I'm not comfortable with. On both of those grounds I would appeal this decision. I will say that the chair's decision was based on the guidance of our parliamentarian and that is part of the process as well. Any further discussion or are we, Councilor Powell? Thank you. Regarding the question of the appealing the ruling and that is what we are on exclusively. So let's say I've been on the council long enough to be to have had a number of people that have been chair. I haven't always agreed with them. I've sometimes I've agreed with them, sometimes I haven't. I think it does set a bad precedent to be disagreeing, to try to overrule the chair unless something is completely egregious which I think in fairness to everyone I don't think anyone does things that are egregious and I don't believe that the decision of the chair is motivated by their particular feeling about the resolution. That's just my feeling. So I will not be voting in favor of overruling the decision. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Powell. Council Freeman. Can I call a very brief recess? Very brief. It is after 11 o'clock we have, I am not going to grant a recess at this point in time. Is there any further discussion? Before you do, I was listening very carefully to Councilor Busher's remarks and I believe that she has a point in looking at the reading Robert, looking at Robert's rules it says a motion to divide the main question cannot be made while an amendment to the main question is pending. That is not exactly the situation but I think it suggests that perhaps you are correct that you can't divide the question until you vote on the amendment. And so I apologize for confusing the situation here. It is late and I apologize that I was not thinking about it in those terms that Councilor Busher just put forward because I would have to change my ruling and say that my advice would be you need to vote on the amendment first and then you can move to divide the question if it is, if the main motion is amended. Thank you for continuing to look into that. And Councilor Freeman. May I pull my appeal? Yes, you may pull your appeal. Thank you very much. Can we have a brief recess? I think we need to move forward with this. If we want to have a discussion, let's have it in public. It is very late and we have several items still on the agenda. Okay. Thank you. We are now on the amendment. We have not yet voted on the amendment. Is there any discussion on Councilor Wright's amendment as amended? Yes, with Councilor Paulino's amendment, two Councilor Wright's amendment included. Seeing no discussion, I'll ask for the roll call vote on the amendment. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Councilor Freeman has a question. Point of information. Can it be amended once it's adopted into the resolution? Can that, is it now considered? Or if I want to make amendments on it, do I need to do that now? On the amendment. She can't amend the amendment. You may amend the amendment now, if you want. Or I could wait until it's into. You can amend the base resolution after it's amended. Is it added? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Perfect. I have the roll call vote on the amendment, please. Councilor Bushor. Yes. Councilor Hanson. Councilor Jang. No. Councilor Freeman. No. Councilor Mason. He has a delay. Yes. Thank you. Councilor Powell. Yes. Councilor Pine. I'm sorry. I just lost him just right now. I'm just trying to get him back on the line. Is that appropriate? Attorney Blackwood. Seems appropriate for you to give him just a second. Give him technology. Keep redialing while you do that. Can we continue with the roll call and come back to that? Councilor Roof. Yes. Acting City Council President Shannon. Yes. Councilor Tracy. No. Councilor Wright. Yes. I'm sorry, I can't reach him. We cannot reach Councilor Pine. So it will be 11 votes and the vote total. So seven ayes, four nays. Seven ayes, four nays, the motion passes. We are now on the resolution itself. Councilor Freeman, did you want to make an amendment to the resolution? I would like to move to divide the question and pull the amended, this amendment that was just, I'm not sure what the lines are, I apologize. That's okay. From the resolution. Yes, you'd like to vote on the two resolved clauses. And I apologize for doing it incorrectly. No problem. So the, what, Attorney Blackwood, could you tell me the procedure on dividing the question? There's been a motion to divide the question. Does that require a second and a vote? I'm not sure how you amend without debate, but there's a motion on the floor. It requires a second, seconded by Councilor Hanson. There is no debate on the motion. All of those in favor of dividing, oh, we need a roll call vote. Sorry, all those in favor of dividing the question. Councilor Bushar. Yes. Councilor Hanson. Councilor Jang. Yes. Paulino. Yes. Councilor Freeman. Yes. Councilor Mason. No. Councilor Paul. Yes. Councilor Pine. I still cannot get Councilor Pine on the line. Councilor Roof. No. Acting City Council President Shannon. No. Councilor Tracy. Yes. Councilor Wright. No. Seven ayes, four days. The motion to divide the question passes. There's, and we will move to the, we'll now vote on the language that excludes the, here, these are the two resolve clauses. It's the language we're now voting on excludes the two resolve clauses that President Wright introduced. Everyone clear on what we're voting for? Okay. So we can call the roll. Councilor Bushar. Yes. Councilor Hanson. Yeah. Councilor Jang. Yeah. Councilor Paulino. Councilor Freeman. Yes. Councilor Mason. Councilor Mason. Yes. Councilor Paul. Yes. Councilor Roof. Yes. Acting City Council President Shannon. Yes. Councilor Tracy. Yes. Councilor Wright. Yes. Thank you. We will now vote on Councilor Wright's amendments, which are two resolve clauses. Everybody know what we're voting on? Do I need to read this? Yes. Are they? Are they? Is it a separate? I think there's two resolve clauses together that we're voting on. Yes, Councilor Jang. What is your point of information? My point of information acting President Shannon is we're talking about voting on a resolution, not an amendment anymore. We just voted on the resolution. Yes. That was introduced. Now we're voting on these, well we voted on everything in the resolution, except for these two resolve clauses. So now we're voting just on the resolve clauses. It's not a separate resolution, it's just these two resolve clauses. No. I have point of information. I think we divided the question to have two different resolution. No, we just divided the question so that we vote separately on the resolve clauses. There's no separate resolution. That's what you wanted to know. That's what dividing the question means. There was a vote on dividing the question. The vote was affirmative. If you would like to, if you voted with the prevailing side, you can retract that. You can reconsider your motion to divide the question, but that is what dividing the question means. For the record, I don't throw up and eat it again. I already voted, we gotta move forward. Okay. Point of information. Yes, Councilor Freeman. When I asked about pulling the language to be a separate resolution, the term that I heard you use, that I heard Attorney Blackwood use was to divide the question. And so that's why I don't understand why dividing the question didn't make it a separate resolution because what I heard being said is that to create a separate resolution, the term and the phrasing I should use was divide the question. Attorney Blackwood, if you would like to clarify, dividing the question means we get to vote on them separately, but perhaps you have another way of explaining that. I don't have another way of explaining that. Dividing the question means you get to vote on them separately. I think if you want to say, I want a separate resolution, you have to somehow make that happen. But that's not what you've got in front of you. There was such a motion. It was the motion to make a separate resolution was not accepted by the chair. And so, Point of information. We did have a vote on dividing the question. Yes, Councillor Freeman. How do you, I don't, how should I proceed at this point? Because what I heard you, the Attorney Blackwood say is that in order to divide it into a separate resolution, I should use the phrasing to divide the question. So what can we have now an additional vote to create it into a separate resolution? That's what the intent was. That was the reason why I wanted to do that. I was utilizing the expertise in order to be able to do that with the correct phrasing. And I would really like to be able to move towards a motion to create that end, which is what I am asking to do. Councillor Freeman, that is not what I heard Attorney Blackwood say. She retracted her statement about creating a separate resolution and then explained that we could divide the question. Do you have anything further to add, Attorney Blackwood? I don't. Point of information. President Wright. So again, just to put this together, Councillor Freeman withdrew her appeal after City Attorney Blackwood clarified what her opinion was. Then Councillor Freeman withdrew her appeal and we then voted on the combined resolution. So we have voted already for the resolution with the amendment incorporated into it. We cannot now go back and do something different and create a new resolution. That is not what City Attorney Blackwood said at all. In any way, you withdrew what you were trying to do. You withdrew the appeal and dividing it means simply we now voted on this whole resolution. It's already passed with this amendment in it. You cannot now go back and create a new resolution because you withdrew the opportunity to do that and the City Attorney made clear that you were dividing it. We are going to vote. We've divided the question. We are in the middle of a vote. Is this debatable, Attorney Blackwood? We divided the question. We ended the discussion. We're just voting now. Okay. We're on the second part, which is the amendment, correct? Correct. That is what we're voting on. Is everyone clear that what we're voting on? Okay. I have a point of information. Point of information because I mean, I do believe that there we- You need to be called on. But you have to- Councillor Hanson, what is your point of information? So I'm unclear on then what we just voted on because Council President Wright said that we have already passed the resolution with the amendment. I had no intention of doing that. I thought we were specifically voting on the resolution without the amendment. Councillor Hanson, we did not vote on the amendments. We started the process of voting on the resolution that did include the amendments because we voted no on, we didn't vote no. It was deemed not in order by the chair to separate it out as a separate resolution which was supported by our parliamentarian. So now we are voting on just the question as it was divided. We're in the middle of a vote right now. So we have not yet voted on the amended language. Okay. Are we clear what we're voting on? Could you please call the roll? Councillor Bushard. Yes. Councillor Hanson. I'm yours. Councillor Jang. I'm sorry, but I don't know what I'm voting on right now. We are voting on this language and I will read it so that everybody is clear what we are voting on. I would like to request a recess because things have been very confusing to me. I would like to get some clarification as to where we are with not doing it on the floor. Okay. I would like to read what it is that we are voting on. We are voting on this language. Be it further resolved that the city council recognizes that the Vermont Air National Guard's 158th fighter wing will receive the F-35A3F jets within approximately the next month. We understand that this resolution, I have some language added in there. Cause this is the old language. Hang on one second. Is it there? I have a point of information. Yes. Thank you acting President Shannon. I think in view of the fact that even with all of the effort that you've put into making sure that you know exactly what we're voting on, even though it's, I think it might be a good idea to take a three minute break to make sure that if you're going to read it that we, that it be read exactly as it should be. And do we have, does the clerk have the language with the amendment that you can put up? That is correct. Okay. So this is the language that we are voting on. Be it further resolved, can everyone read that? I requested a recess five minutes ago. I'm wondering if this language clarifies, I understand that you want a recess cause you do not understand what you're voting on. If you read this language, this is what you are voting on. It's not the language that I'm talking about. Okay, that is what we are voting on, that language. No, I requested a recess acting president. Would you grant it or no? It's almost 11.30. This is an important issue acting president and I'm respectfully. I want you to understand what you're voting on. I will grant a recess for three minutes. Thank you. It's easy to get confused right now. That's why it's very smart. I just need to get you to a point. For whatever it's worth, I'm dying now. Weird thing. Is it okay? Yes. I'm sorry. It's just one thing. Chip? Yeah. Later a point about the mayor through to you. She wants one. She wants one. That's what they called it. It's not in my confidence. I don't know if Chip is still there. I'm having a stroke. I'm having a stroke. Oh my lord. We are going to, councilor Freeman, we don't have a way to, I appreciate the spirit of what you're asking for. We just don't have a way to do it right now. So we are going to continue with the roll call. Can we continue with the roll call? On the amendment. This is the language before you. Okay. It's juncture. Which is the amendment that was adopted into the resolution. The question was divided. We voted on the first part of this. We are now voting on the second part of the resolution. Councilor Busher. Yes. Councilor Hanson. No. Councilor Jang. No. Councilor Polino. Yes. Councilor Freeman. Councilor Mason. Councilor Paul. Yes. Councilor Pine, still absent. Yes. Councilor Roof. Yes. Acting President Shannon. Yes. Councilor Tracy. No. Councilor Wright. Yes. The motion passes. And it's all yours, President Wright. Thank you. Acting President Shannon. Great job. We have two items left to deal with and only two and it is 4.12 and 4.13. 4.12 is a resolution approval of the second amendment with Burlington Business Association regarding downtown parking and transportation management. This was consent agenda item 3.26. Councilor Busher. President Wright, I'm going to move to wave the reading and adopt the resolution. And after a second, I would like the floor back. Seconded by Councilor Roof. Councilor Busher, you have the floor back. So this was discussed this evening at the Board of Finance. And there is a memo that actually does an explanation of what is being proposed and why as many recall, there was a vote in March for the downtown improvement district, which did not get support needed. And so in order to continue to do business, there was a need to continue a relationship that had worked very well for us between the Department of Public Works and the Downtown Business Association. So this is to extend that relationship for one year, that it was a pilot relationship for one year. The funding for this comes from the assessment, the annual assessment that comes from the Downtown Improvement District. And included in the packet is a slate of work that was accomplished in FY19. And then in addition, there is FY20 work plan and deliverables. I know there must be some people here that stayed with us to speak to this. If there were some questions, I know that Councilor Hansen had asked to have this removed. And so I'll keep it brief since it's late, but it was unanimous at the Board of Finance to recommend approval by the Council. And as you know, Councilor Pine was not present at that meeting. Thank you, Councilor Bush, your discussion. Councilor Hansen. Yeah, just to briefly explain why I pulled that and I've been able to have some followup conversations with DPW. I appreciate there are some items in here around multimodal transportation and supporting alternative transportation. However, I don't feel that it goes far enough. I think we have 11 years left to radically transform our transportation system. And I think we need to be more aggressive at every opportunity to do that. And I'm excited to work on that. Unfortunately, I can't support this item because I don't feel that it moves quickly enough in that realm. Thank you, Councilor Hansen. Any further discussion? Mr. Mayor. Can Councilor Hansen clarify what his concern is about the other work, which is not, as was stated numerous times in the public forum, expanding the parking infrastructure, but is making that parking infrastructure better. What is the objection to that if those other elements of the scope are the cause of the concern? Councilor Hansen. Sure. I think for me, so I appreciate that it's not expanding. I think we're incredibly overbuilt in Burlington in terms of parking because of mandatory parking minimums. We have farmed too much parking and I agree that it is inefficient. A lot of it's private and inaccessible and it's not well understood where parking is available. So I think there's an issue of needing to actually reduce the amount of parking that we have in this transition. I think expanding parking, I would certainly oppose, but even working on improving car infrastructure, if that's the main focus, which in this case it is, I can't support it. I think when we're talking about transportation spending and resources and allocation and focus, it needs to be on non-car infrastructure rather than predominantly on improving the experience for those traveling by car, which encourages more folks to travel by car as we continue to cater to that mode of transport. All right, thank you, Councilor Hansen. Anyone else? Councilor Roof. I'll be supporting this. I agree with a lot of sentiments that Councilor Hansen has. I look at this as a way to improve the existing parking infrastructure in many different ways that we have. An inefficient parking system and infrastructure requires people to come downtown. They can't find parking and they start circling. We know that a significant portion of the traffic that we have in the downtown are folks looking for where to park. Not improving that system does not convince them to not drive. That is a problem we definitely have to solve for. This is not where we're solving for that. I don't see that as a reason to vote against this pragmatic and strategic way to improve our parking infrastructure, which will lead to less emissions in our city. Thank you, Councilor Roof. Councilor Polino. I would speak in favor of this. I've been to one of your meetings. I was very impressed by the level of care and thought that's being put into our parking system and renovating it. A lot of my constituents complain about parking and I think it's important to them that they continue the good work they're doing, specifically tracking how many open spaces there are and making paying for parking faster, which is something that I think if we didn't go through with this could be hindered. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Polino. Anyone else? Councilor Busher. I just wanted to say one thing. I think that when you look at this plan, you're looking also at the vitality of our downtown and some of this has to do with a free holiday parking and making stores downtown accessible. And I want the Council to acknowledge that not everyone is one certain age and not everyone bikes, that we have a diverse community who need transportation of varying types. And I think that this is a plan that is about a vibrant downtown, great customer service and a sustainable system. And I think those three things really speak to what we should be looking at. I appreciate the fact that this plan, this plan doesn't yell to me about certain things either, but overall it is a collaboration to make our downtown better and to help people navigate around it. So I think that I would hope that the majority of the Council would look at this and realize that there's something for everyone. There is some section on improving bicycle parking. There is something about TDM. So I think that there's a lot in here. So there is an acknowledgement that many of us get downtown in many different ways and they're trying to create efficiencies, but also remember to give our marketplace the customers it needs. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Bush. You're Councilor Jang. I think it's important to consider that this is specific to downtown parking alone, not in the neighborhoods. And also downtown is our business district. Not only residents of Burlington come here. People from all over Williston, South Burlington, they come here. And when they come to our city, we want them give them options where they can park. And try to tie it also into the way we're losing businesses, the way that people no longer come here, the way that maybe all the municipalities are trying to even create their new downtown. I think for those reasons, there are still a couple of things that I know that I want to understand better. There are questions about the agreement between BBA and the city that I want to understand better. But that won't hold me from voting to support this to move forward. And I can catch up on you. We're here, we're not going anywhere. For those reasons, I think it's important also these parkings are not only for cars run by gas. There are electric cars. When we talk about climate change also, let's look at it that way. My thoughts about Burlington district, the downtown, we should not consider it as any other neighborhood. We should make sure that we understand this is not for us, this is for people, tourists coming from Canada. People who don't buy from Canada to here. We want to give them the options that the city can give so that they can feel comfortable, they can come back and they can invest in our. So I will be voting this, but definitely will follow up with some other questions. And thank you for talking to me at Randolph today. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Chang, Councillor Shannon. Thank you, President Wright. I just wanted to note that what we're voting on does not increase the number of parking spaces. I think it might decrease parking spaces by creating parklets, but it does manage the parking so that people are burning less fossil fuel as they try to find the parking spaces. And it also deals with bike parking and other aspects of this that I do consider to be environmentally friendly. And for that reason, I will support it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Shannon. Anyone else are we ready to vote? Councillor Hanson. Thank you. To me, this is about priorities. I understand what we're saying, that it will make it easier for folks to find parking. I understand that. I think with our transportation system, we have thus far prioritized the car so much above every other form of transportation and has caused immense problems. I think now what we should be prioritizing is making it easier for folks to be able to navigate through our city on other forms. We have a long way to go to get to a point where folks of all ages and backgrounds and levels feel comfortable traveling around the city, navigating the sidewalks in wheelchairs, navigating the sidewalks, who folks who are less sure-footed through the winter, and bike lanes, we still have quite a long way to go. None of the downhills leading into downtown have protected bike facilities. I think we need to make sure that we're getting other forms of transportation up to a baseline level and prioritizing that before focusing on improving the experience for folks who are driving in cars. That's what I would like to see and that's what I'm gonna continue to push for in other areas, but I don't see that happening within this. I think there are some elements that support other modes of transportation, but it's not the focus and I would like it to be the focus. Thank you, Councilor Hanson. We need to move toward a vote. Mr. Mayor. Thank you, President O'Rea. I apologize to have to try many again, but I just think it's patently unfair to the supporters of this resolution to suggest that this is about just making it more convenient for drivers. That is not what this program has been doing for years, is not what extending the contract will do. Even if you are only concerned about the impact of cars on climate, this is one of the most significant things that we can do in the city's role to reduce car emissions. I mean, it's not just that cars circling the block looking for parking can contribute materially. In some cities it's been estimated that 50% or more of the emissions being related to cars circling for parking. I think that's high for Burlington. I don't think that is what is going on here, but you know what does happen in Burlington? We have hundreds of people every day leave our garages, drive around the block every couple hours, and then go back in to take advantage of the two hour free parking system. And that has been the case for decades. This is an attempt to solve terrible inefficiencies like that. We have parking that goes unpaid for people gaming the system, leaving the garages late at night, early in the morning, on Sundays avoiding the way in which the city charges for parking. And that is essentially promoting exactly the kind of behavior that I think we've heard promotes more driving. So this is action that we should take. It's gonna bring down emissions. It's also gonna have lots of other benefits for the downtown and for our alternative transportation infrastructure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And with that, we are ready to vote. All those in favor of this resolution, please raise your hands. No, CHIP is no longer on the phone. Councilor Jayne, we'll wait for you to sit.  And those of, what do you think you're supposed to see, those opposed? So the two in the two opposition are Councilor Freeman and Councilor Hansen. So that I believe is a eight to two vote in favor. And with that, is that correct? City of Clerk's office. With that, we'll move to the final item of the night, 4.13 and 4.13 is a resolution regarding upgrades to the city's parking access and revenue central control system. Councilor Busher. Yes, President Wright. Yes, I'd like to move to waive the reading and adopt the resolution after a second. I'll take the floor back for just a minute. And this was consent item number 3.35. Seconded by Councilor Roof. Councilor Busher, you have the floor back. Thank you. Once again, this was brought forward at the Board of Finance tonight and there was a unanimous vote on this also, noting Councilor Pines absence. And it really talks about an upgrade to a system that we already have in place. The airport went first with the automated system for parking and then our downtown garages got it and there were some problems. So it's an upgrade going from parking soft to flex park and they're going to do that with no additional cost, which is always good. Part of that is also because in the original resolution there was a error and so the dollar amount remains the same even though what we had anticipated spending remains the same even though we are going to have to pay a little bit more, but we had already budgeted for that. I now made it really muddy and I apologize, but I'll now stop talking and if anyone from DPW wants to speak, that would be great. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Busher. Anyone want to address that? You need to use the microphone. So would you like more clarification? You still need to use the microphone. All right, eat it. There you go. There you go. Yeah, so to be clear on the money issue, the memo and the resolution that were approved last April had typos in them that were inconsistent with the contract that was actually attached to the memos and the contract is what was executed. So that is one of the housekeeping items in this resolution is it's actually there was a $78,000 delta. So our contract, so what we negotiated with our vendor is a no increase in what we contracted with them, which was inconsistent with what was asked of you to approve. So that's part of this resolution is to remedy that. And the other part is to allow us to go into a contract amendment with T2 to allow for this significant upgrade to the software, the brains that run the parking garages, that will allow much greater flexibility in how we've managed the parking garages and introduced new opportunities for how we work with parkers, programs we can offer just basically all around a way better piece of software and solve the problems that we've had. We could go into the weeds and talk about the problems we've had, but suffice it to say, this will solve them. And the critical, the big critical part is that they themselves recognize that the parking software is not suitable for our application and they're actually entering into support and stability, support and stability mode, which is their code for mothballing it. So that software that we just bought a year ago will be obsolete in five years and they're not adding any functionality like park mobile integration, reservation parking into it. So that's the story. All right, thank you, Councillor Tracy. So what assurance do we have that the same thing won't happen in a year? We have a performance bond. We haven't paid them a dime. So what does that mean? So a performance bond basically means if they don't deliver, we can sue them and not pay them and retract the money. And so how long do we estimate that this software would be operational? This, the new software or the old? Like, have they given a lifetime of service or are we gonna be on the hook for a couple years? The new software is on this flex platform, which is the same platform that the police are on. This is a known, very stable platform. We actually, we talked to Iowa City and we talked to Missoula, Missoula, Montana. And I actually went down to Harvard last week. Harvard has the same system installed and they're all happy with the install. They're basically happy with how they've been treated by T2. And although we've had a very challenged year with this parking software, T2's actually stepped up in the negotiations and they've worked really, we've been working with them for two months to negotiate the deal that we're talking about tonight. And they've been in good faith negotiating with us. So I have faith that we'll get through this and they'll service as well. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Tracy. Any furthers? Councilor Hanson. Yeah, I'll speak briefly as I pulled this one off too. This one I can support. I think it's an important update, if you will, or correction to past action taken and that makes sense, but I do wanna highlight once again, you know, this is a $2 million expenditure in once again, parking system, maintaining our parking system. And I would like to see us invest $2 million in alternatives. I understand we obviously gained direct revenue from parking and that's the counter argument, but I think the indirect benefits we gain from investing alternatives are also immense in terms of the health benefits, the safety benefits, reduced injuries and mortalities in terms of traffic fatalities. And the tourism that we bring by being a leader and the attention we gain. So I think once again, I'd just like to highlight that I feel that our spending and our focus on the transportation front really needs to start shifting in a drastic way and I'd like to see us putting a lot more dollars into alternatives to the car focus system that we have now. Thank you, Councillor Hanson. Councillor Jang. Thank you. So question, what is the annual revenue of parking fees that you collect on the yearly basis? You're taking an answer that better. I've been so in the weeds with fixing this challenge. I honestly, that's been better off. The on street meter revenue is around $2.3 million dollars a year and the garage and lot revenue is around $2.5 million dollars a year. So basically $6 million total? It's about $5 million a year total. So, and now the upgrade is not only for a specific location, but it will be throughout. This for all garages that would be marketplace, Lakeview and college though, as you saw in here, we had negotiated as well that the airport could benefit from the same negotiation that we have to expand this new system to the airport garage as well. With the same price, with just the two millions, you'll expand everywhere, okay. So now the old parking, the old system that you have, what do you do with that? So it's important to note that really what we're buying is a new software system, that the hardware system largely stays the same. It's the same company, same hardware system. They'll put a new card into the gates and the ticket spitters. So it really is a very small infrastructure change. It's mostly a software change. Okay, so it's not like those, we still have some meters that already put quarters alone. This is solely relative to the garages. This has nothing to do with the smart meters or the pay stations. This is only the garages. All garages. Do? Well, it's the marketplace garage and then the complex of garages, which is behind the Hilton, which is the College Street, Lakeview and Westlake garage. They all operate as a single unit. So there's practical purposes, there are two garages. And then the airport is an independent operation, but we wrap them into our deal with T2 to guarantee that they get the same deal we get because we need to be operating on the same system or the same city, and they don't want to be sun-setted in five years with a mothball product either. And they're getting hotels and, you know, so. And I think Max did ask this question, Councillor Tracy, like if you invest two million, so basically you won't need a new software for the next 10 years, 20 years? That's the general running time. We had the last software for 10 years, the price that we have that you discussed does include five years of support in their bid. And so we're guaranteed to have the support at that price for five years. Thank you, Councillor Jayne. Any other councillor? Hearing none, I think we're ready for the vote. All those in favor of the resolution, please raise your hand. And it looks like that's unanimous. Any opposed? That is unanimous, the pass is unanimous, Lee. And with that, mercifully, I think we need an motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Shannon, seconded by Councillor Roof. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. We are adjourned.


Let's look at the difference between 2007 and 2010 for the file menu, or in 2007 the office button. So here we are. 2007 is blue, and it's on the left here, and this is the office button. And in 2010, they've changed the background of this blue color to just white and gray, and they brought back the word file from the old versions when we had drop-down file menus, because so many people wanted to see the word file. So in 2007, here on the left, I'm going to click on the office button, and it's almost the same menu that we saw when we had a file menu, in that we have new, open, save, save as, print, prepare, send, publish, and close. And we have word options down here. So if I look at, let's look at print preview, because that's really the big difference between 2007 and 2010 in the file menu. So I'm going to go to print preview, and it's the old print preview that we've had from every earlier version of Word. Let me clear this. I'm having both versions on my computer at the same time, and it really doesn't want that. It wants me to have only one version of Word, but so there may be file menus that little pop-ups and we'll just close them. So here's our print preview, and it's very similar to where it's always been. I'm going to close this. So back to this button. So we can see there's print preview, and then there's the print. But in 2010, when I say print, it brings up what they call the backstage view. There's no longer a print preview window. So all of the things that I could do in print preview in the old dialog box are now here. Print what pages, one-sided or two-sided, collated, the print orientation, which is landscape or portrait, how many sheets per page, all of it's done here. And our page setup dialog box is here, and the page setup dialog box brings this dialog box, and it's very similar in here under print preview in 2007 when we want to see the page dialog box, which is right up here. So when I click on the little arrow, the little extra box here, it's the exact same window. So if you read text about 2010 or 2012 as it comes available, you'll hear something called the backstage view, and that's in here. So let's see what else is different. So here's our file menu, and let's look on here. So we have save, and it's the same. Save as, it's the same. Open, it's the same. Close, it's the same. We have something here called publish, and that's a little bit different. That's in the save as dialog box, or save and send. We won't get into that. And so pretty much the same except for the print preview, which is in 2010, is now right here on the file menu page. All right. The only other thing I would say is in 2007, I just said file new, and you can see that we have all of these different options if I wanted to create business cards, if I wanted to create a book. Let's see certificates. I could click on a gift certificate, and there's all these certificates. Now they're pre-built. These are called templates. And let's look at this same kind of template, and these are all coming from what I already have on my computer because I've downloaded these, but I could search the Microsoft online up here, so if your internet connection, it'll take you right to the Microsoft site. Now let's look at this in this one. File new, and this is 2010. So instead of bringing up a dialog box, all of these things are right here. So I could go back to cards. Oh, I guess I was on certificates. Let me go back. Certificates. And then I choose a certificate, gift certificate, and here are the gift certificates. So then I just download it, and it becomes part of the templates I have on my computer. So here's all the certificates. It might look a little bit different on your computer. I have these squished really small so that I have 2010 and 2007 on the same computer. But you can see all of the rest of the ribbons are the same. The home ribbon is the same. It looks different only because of the gray and blue. And Microsoft had the icon buttons with borders around them, and they got rid of the borders in 2010. And the insert menu, and the insert menu. So it's almost the same. Our grouping is pages. This is a grouping of tables, a grouping of illustrations. Here's our grouping of pages, the exact same thing. So whatever I do in 2007, I can again do in 2010, of course, and the newer version that's coming out 2012. Not sure when that exactly that's coming out. But word processing is a word processing, right? So if you're still using an older version with a file menu, I would challenge you to look for the same thing. Go to the file menu button and see what commands are there. You'll have a tab called Edit. And on the Edit menu, you can do things like cut, copy, and paste, which is now here on the home ribbon. You'll have something called Format, which will allow you to do things with your font and paragraph. So all of these commands are on every word processing program. You just have to find them. And once you find them, you know them. But you have to stay flexible in your thinking because software changes every 18 to 24 months. So even though these look quite different, they're really exactly the same. So get kind of flexible in your thinking and allow, just know that word processing is word processing. All right. That's good. So go explore your own word processing program. And I hope it's a Microsoft word so that you can see one of these. And if it's not, then just investigate it and see what kind of things you find in your program.