It's already February. It's halfway through winter. The February meeting of the ward one neighborhood planning assembly, and it is 701. So we're pretty close to being on time. My name's Tom Darenthal.   And then we'll go to the people who are online. So I'm, again, I'm still Tom Darenthal. I live on the next place. And I'm on the steering committee. And we're going to start back here with Richard. Richard India. George. I'm George. 27. I tip the already also at 27 colonial square with Sam. I'm Rob, and I live on North. Mary, Sarah and I'm on the river, and I'm over at a culture strad. Jonathan Chapel so called North prospect street and on the steering committee. on North Prospect Street. Hi, I'm Carol Livingston. We live on Clarco Court, and I'm also on the steering committee. Cappy Allwell, North Prospect Street. Jake Schuman, Hildred Drive. Gary Golden, Clarco Court. Larry Crisp, North Prospect. Michael Long, Henry Street. Aaron Long, Henry Street. Dean Corrin, Brooks Avenue. Katherine Bach, North Prospect. Upstairs from this room, actually. Hi, I'm Troy Hedrick. I live on Bili-Ducourt, and I'm also one of two state reps for Chittenden 15, the other being Brian Sheena. Hi, I'm Inie Melnowski. I use she, her, and I live on 71 South Williams. And I'm new to word one. Hi, I'm Stephen Chiza, 71 South Williams. OK, we've got some people online. Dave, you want to start? Sure. Hi, everyone. I'm Dave Colley, and I live on Nash Place. Sophie, you're next. Sophie Quest, Chase Street, and part of the Old East End Coalition. Sam? Hi, I'm Sam Connick, some of the CEDA staff. Sarah? Sarah, if you're on, you're on mute. Sorry, I had such a hard time. Yeah, Sarah Flesh off of East Avenue. And Sharon? Yes, hi. Sharon Buescher, East Avenue. All right, did I miss anybody? Yes. Fletcher Riverside Avenue, Ward 1. OK, anyone else? Yes, Mayor Brandt, East District City Councilor. I live on North Street. The next is announcements. And we have we have sort of two two items here that are somewhat similar. One is announcements and then their speak out. So if you have an announcement to make, we'll we'll start with that. So people in the room, if you have an announcement, raise your hand and we'll go around and yes. Yes, I have an announcement. The shelters. If you have a microphone. Oh, I'm sorry. Just put it down. Yeah. The shelters are open near the post office on Elmwood Avenue and there was a press conference and we were able to see them and they are up and running people were chosen by a committee. And it was as far as I understand, it's sort of a first come first serve list. And there will be social services available. This is really just such an important step toward eliminating homelessness and providing shelter for people who really needed it was not ready during the incredibly cold streak, but just after. And some of the shelters were made elsewhere and they were brought in and others were made locally. And I think that we're going to see more shelter communities like this around the country. This is an important step. Thanks. All right, thanks. Anyone else in the room? Progressive counselors, McGee, Hightower and Bergman are going to be putting out a update and some information about ballot items. So that should be going up on FPF across the city and also there should be physical updates at people's doors in the next couple of weeks. So look out for that with some information about what's going on. Thanks. Karen? Thank you. With that in mind with the ballot items, I understand at the Miller Center there is going to be like a community sort of a speak out meeting to kind of vet that stuff. Does anyone know the time and stuff? I read it somewhere, I didn't write it down, but I know it's at the Miller Center. So. Hi, my name is Farid. I'm a volunteer with Proposition Zero and Independent Oversight of the Police. There will be community dinner and discussion on the two petition backed ballot questions. There will be one event this Saturday at Democracy Creative from 6 to 9. And the second event is going to be at the Robert Miller Center in the New North End on Friday the 17th from 6 to 9 also. It's open to the public. Everybody's invited. There will be free barbecue meal with vegan option and gluten-free option. So if you want to learn more about the two ballot questions, have questions about the process, or if you just want to eat good food and talk to your neighbors, please join us. There will be enough food for everybody. Yeah, that was what I read about. I think that's great. And I also wanted to announce that my husband and I, and Caviel, well, and her husband, Wolfgang, are hosting a house party next Thursday, if anyone wants to come, to introduce and learn more about Jake Schuman. So I'm at 55 Henry Street. It'll be at 630. And I think this is a really important election. And we need to know who we're voting for and how they're going to represent us. So again, Kathy, the Cook School Commissioner, myself, Michael, and Wolfgang will host a party at 55 Henry Street Thursday the 16th. Oh, 630. That's what I said. Sorry. Yeah. It might be segue.  My name is Jake Schuman. I usually don't do this kind of shameless self-promotion, but it's part of the gig. Jakeforbtv.com. I'd ask you to check it out. I'm saying it now because I know some people won't be here when we do the candidate forum later in the meeting. Long signs are coming later this week. So if you want one, let us know, and we will get one to you. And if you want to come hang out with us this weekend, we're going to be bouncing around the neighborhood, meeting neighbors, having conversations. That's for the folks at Salmon Run. And yeah, I just would add on to what Karen said. The House Party next week is going to be after the candidate forum on Live at 525. So you can watch that, get some thoughts, come prepared with some good questions. Thank you. Okay, Dave, you're on. Thanks, Tom. I wanted to let everyone know that the Winter Loots Celebration in Shamanica Park, which was scheduled for last weekend, of course we couldn't do it because of the cold weather, is now scheduled for this coming weekend. So Friday night, starting five o'clock, Shamanica Park. We're going to have a bonfire. There'll be hot drinks, there'll be snacks to eat, and it's a place to come out for the evening and just enjoy the park and enjoy the decorative lights that are going to be there. We've got lanterns. And then on Saturday, starting at 10 o'clock, we'll have a celebration there. There's going to be sports equipment now. We don't know if any snow is going to be left over after tomorrow, but there will be some skis, snow shoes and sleds. Music will be there. A group called the Brass Balgan will be performing at 11 o'clock, and then Sambu Tukata will be performing at 12 noon. We'll also have food. We've got some giveaways for folks that arrive with a drink container, and it should be a good celebration. So we'll also have the fire pit running on Saturday as well. So if you've got some time and want to stop by and meet some neighbors and have some fun Saturday, Friday night, Saturday, will be it in Shaman's Good Park. Thanks. Are there other announcements? Do people want to make other announcements? Seeing none, I actually have a few announcements myself. First is I'd like to thank Domino's. They donated the pizza for tonight. They've done that once before. And actually we've had a number of local vendors provide food for us. Domino's is doing it at no charge to us. Also, if you're a fan of the campus kitchen, it has reopened under new ownership. And I don't know if they're gonna have a grand opening, but they do have a sign that says when they're open, as opposed to just a, I mean, a lit sign, as opposed to just a sheet of paper tacking thing that they're closed because they can't find help. Also, with regard to the upcoming election, I did check their sample ballots online. They're really easy to find. You can do a search for them and go through and see who's running for what and what all the issues are. It's pretty good to see. And a couple of other quick things. One is there was a meeting last, I think it was Sunday, with our state senators who had been here a while back. And there was Martine, oh, she's like, I, Gulek, I always, I cannot pronounce names well. So, Antonia and Irene Renner were there representing education, traditional and agriculture committees. They did a really good job. They were very well informed, at least in my opinion. And so they're going to continue to have these meetings, these coffee meetings up in Essex periodically. I don't think the next one has been scheduled yet, but if you're interested and you have a chance to go, I would recommend you go. The last thing is that we're coming up to February 15th, and that's when our ballots will be mailed to all registered voters, or, yeah, registered voters. So if you don't get one shortly after that, you should be concerned. And I'm going to pass around the cook one. Thank you. If you signed it, thank you. If you haven't signed it, I'll be taking your $25 fee at the door on the way. No, we're just looking for who's here in attendance. Yes. Just following up, you can probably search on the city website under March election or something like that to get the samples, the sample ballots. I'm just pointing people to this. We're only 10 Vermont sample ballots and it should bring it right up. Okay, thanks. Oh, there's one other thing I forgot to mention that I forgot to put on my list. And that said, if I've been a little bit confused about what the official map is that we'll be voting on for the redistricting, but it is available on the city's website. And unlike what it says on the ballot, it's actually has a slightly different date, but, and Earhart's gonna say a little bit more about this. Sure. Yeah. Or step on, I'm just gonna put this to you. I'll try to hide behind the column here. Yikes. Thank you. Thanks Karen. Am I in your way? So, I don't know if I'm visible here. Oh God, this is so exposed. Oh my God. Thanks for the prompt. Are you shifting over to speak out? Well, maybe. Okay. I was gonna do this during speak out, but you kind of prompted me. You're the first speaker out here. Sure. Well, as Dave mentioned, the map that was passed by the city council is on the, is on board docs. It should be for, oh Lord, I can't remember the date. It might have been January 23rd. It is not the map that was passed in December. Okay. The map that was passed in December, did so a fair amount of the service to read one. I will say that this is not my idea of an idea for the city in general, more than one. But I think given how they had the city council had been with them in specifically the award one, this is much better. So it folks will maybe recall that the map that had been passed in December excluded the Brooks, to cut the Brooks Avenue neighborhood in half basically and took the South Park, the houses on the South side of Brooks Avenue, as well as the West side of North Prospect. In other words, the whole block described by Brooks, North Prospect, Pearl and North Willard. That square, all the houses in that were in a different ward. So I've been taken out of ward one. They have been rejoined into ward one, as well as some areas just north of Riverside Avenue near the community health center have also been rejoined toward one. What has been removed from ward one, and this is the same for both the December map and the final map that was passed is basically all central campus and the medical center is now in a new reconfigured ward eight. So basically hollows out the middle of ward one and then it also has added a couple of the dorms living learning and I think March Austin Tupper on the South side of Main Street. So that's kind of where ward one is at. The other thing that the final map did was it rejoined a section of the King Street neighborhood that had been split between two wards and put it back into ward three. So that not all, but most of the King Street neighborhood is in one kind of community, in one ward and being a community of interest. The other thing I'll say just is that the map unfortunately still splits the old North then kind of North South instead of the traditional West way. I think it was a real challenge for the council. I think they finally got into a better place as far as I'm concerned, I think as far as ward one is concerned, not ideal. People do have an opportunity to vote against it if they don't like it on community day. And if anybody has detailed questions for me haven't really followed this process pretty closely, let me know. Sort of a comment. You had told me that this is, this new map retains the four district eight ward. It does. So when you vote this time, you're not only voting on where the lines will be drawn, but for retention of the structure that we currently have. Right, and as Tom just to add to that, I mean, one of the main recommendations from the public input process by the ad hoc advisory committee on redistricting was get rid of the districts. And that was one of the things that was clearly not going wrong in this particular iteration. So yeah, and if the map goes down, then it's back to square one. Aaron, would you advocate voting against this map because of its flaws or they so serious that perhaps we should not approve it? Well, thanks for that question. I am, for me personally, I'm not sure yet how I'm gonna vote. My sense is that having engaged personally with the council and with other folks on it, I kind of feel like this is, in my view, the least bad map and I'll probably end up voting for it. Frankly, I don't really want to go through the process again, I'm pretty sure the same council either, they'll have to do it in another 10 years. All right, thanks. Did I just add? Yes, yeah. It may sound like the last thing I said, but if you search the city website for 2022 redistricting, all this information maps are available. So 2022 redistricting is the webpage in the city website. Can I just say a couple of things? So my first comment is, when people use the microphone, you really don't want to do this because of the starts. You want to keep it like down here or like that on the top, that's very good. So just kind of keep the microphone down and wait for your breath. Now the second thing is, so all the ballots on the state of Vermont are required to be mailed by February 15th. If you don't get one and you live in Burlington, you call it Burlington City Clerk. If you live in Montpelier, you don't get one. You call it Montpelier City Clerk. It's no address the situation. So if you don't get a ballot, call the city clerk. Thank you. All right, Sharon, I see your hands up. Yes, because we're on redistricting. So just to add to this, I think I heard Earhart, but the voice went in and out. So as he said, this maintains the districts and we are still coupled now with Ward 8. There was some discussion around changing that coupling, but we are now still coupled with Ward 8. And I think that I feel that because it maintains the districts, I am incredibly disappointed with that. Because I think it doesn't really reflect the will of the people of Burlington. However, based on, I've been following this, I'm a junkie. I actually zoom into every city council meeting from beginning to end. And I feel that the representatives from the other parts of the city are pretty much on board. And I think that there will be the votes for this redistricting map. That doesn't mean that you have to vote for it. I like Earhart, I'm on the fence with this because I really wanted to have them consider, unfortunately, a larger city council, but with each ward having two city councilors, I felt that was far better representation than the current format. So I wanted to say that. And then the next thing I wanted to do and speak out is that I appreciate all the different meetings that are being held by people who are for or against a proposal. But I was hoping that there would have been an opportunity to present each item on the ballot as it is and identifying pros and cons from a kind of legal or formal perspective as opposed to having a bias. I think that each one of us are fairly intelligent and can form our own opinion based on our own political viewpoint. But I think there's a great deal of value in having that untainted presentation. And I'm kind of disappointed that I don't see an opportunity for that to occur. So I just wanted to share that. Thank you. Thanks, Sharon. Any other speakouts? Yes. Hi, Amy. I just wanted to speak out about ballot item number seven since it's one of the two people powered ballot items and I was one of those people. I know we'll hear about it later today, but I just wanted to share a little bit. I think the main thing about this ballot item and this proposal is really the issue is I've written in our city charter the police chief holds a sole authority to discipline officers in case of misconduct and then other professionals in high stakes fields like doctors or lawyers or teachers and so many others. There's an external oversight. And so the police really should have that too, especially given that they have guns and use of force and put people in prison. And actually this is something the mayor said himself in 2020 quote, he said, such a monopoly of an important authority is an aberration in our democratic system and that the current charter quote is problematic and there's urgency to amend it. And so we bring ourselves back to 2020. Actually a proposal that is very, very, very similar language was put forward to the city council and there was a lot of legal vetting. There was a lot of time spent deliberating in the charter change committee. There was many, many hours listening to public forum. For example, on December 7th of 2020, 150 people called in in support of them passing this proposal just on that night alone. And so the city council actually did pass it in about a seven to five, but then the mayor vetoed it. And so that was 2020. It's been over two years since then. What's happened? The city leadership hasn't done anything to fix this problem in the charter. And so meanwhile, we've spent over a year talking to over 2,000 neighbors getting these signatures to get this on the ballot so that we can decide for ourselves what we want. And we've gotten the support of many, many grassroots organizations like the Battery Park Movement, the Howard Center Workers Union, Rights and Democracy, the Progressive Party, the Burlington Tenants United, Migrant Justice, Vermont Racial Justice Alliance, Peace and Justice Center, Serge Burlington, Community Voices for Immigrant Rights. And I think even also very critically, we have the support of local and national experts on this topic, such as the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement and the ACLU over a month. So if city leadership is not gonna make progress on this, it's really important that we do because the stakes are really high. The use of force incidents, according to the city's own data, increased by 18% between 2020 and 2021. And these use of force incidents are disproportionately affecting black people in our community. Of the 348 subjects of force in 2020 and 2021, 116, that's 33% were black. Well, only 6% of our population is black in Burlington. So I think, you know, Burlington is, we wanna feel confident that there is oversight ensuring that the police department is operating in alignment with our standards. And right now, this is the only charter change that's on the table that's been proposed in the past two years to ensure that this happens. So I know there's a kind of a lot of misinformation and things going around. If you have questions about it, I'll be here to look the, just talk to you about it. Sure. There's a one right in front of you. I'm sorry, Peter, can I? I'm wrapping you up in a wire here. Is this good, Charlie? All right. Yeah, I just wanna voice my support as a community member for community control. I don't think it's that radical of a proposal. I think in many ways it reflects what Burlington's structure, like our entire structure of boards and commissions is, which is involving non-elected community members in governing different city departments and having some oversight over decisions being made. And this is talking about in like the worst case scenarios, we need to have some somebody tasked with being sort of objective, standing back, having a body made up of experts from different organizations in our community, as much as I understand it, and you guys probably know more, but, and then making a decision and having some actual resources to like investigate what happened. And clearly this is a problem. It's been happening for years in our community and we need to do something about it and we need to build trust. So we need to have some like non-political, not in the sort of like back and forth around policing body have the resources to make some calls here. And the police commission doesn't have ultimately authority to make decisions like that. The police commission is simply an advisory body, often the feedback that I've heard, maybe Milo could speak to this, but from police commissioners is that a bunch of stuff happens in executive session that they're not allowed to talk about that's really concerning and they're not allowed to talk about it. And they have no actual power to do anything about it. So just want to voice my support. And then the other thing was I like Sharon will often, I don't do the Zoom, I do the YouTube, I will not live stream them because I have to go to bed but I'll like catch up on my city council meetings every week as I'm making dinner. And I'll just say I was really concerned by what I was hearing around. I mean, regardless of the issue of policing regardless of where you fall on community control board this idea that like we can't trust voters to make decisions was like really concerning to me as a constituent and just as like somebody in this community there's, I think, I don't want to misquote anybody I'm paraphrasing here, but there was some comment by one of the South end counselors around somehow other towns will have town meetings where 200 people in a small town get together and make a decision about ballot items and that like it's different in Burlington and literally the words were said like elected officials have more influence over that process which was amazing to me. And somehow it's less democratic was the argument that we have an election where people where 40,000 of us can go learn about issues and then cast a ballot. Like I really like, I don't even see how that makes sense but I encourage everybody just go watch that council meeting because I was really just taken aback by like the lack, like just this inclination from like we got to leave it to the experts. We're not far enough to decide for ourselves as a community or learn about these issues. I just am really surprised by that. Anyway, I'll stop ranting. Yeah. Hi, yeah, Maya Brandt, oh, Charlie is this better? Sorry. Yeah, I'm going to talk about the ballot items later at my allotted time, 7.50 and I want to go over this. There is a lot of misinformation going around and this sort of what I keep hearing is this indignation that the people are not being heard and that's not what's happening. That's not accurate. The community control board issue is so important and we need to continue to debate and to crash something that really works for the city of Burlington with regard to policing and the idea that people are, that counselors are suggesting that people are not smart enough to make a decision is simply false and kind of incendiary. In this democracy, we need to craft the right kind of police for our community and this debate is a step in that direction and the powers afforded by this, the control board are unprecedented and so sweeping that this kind of program does not exist anywhere else in the United States. It simply does not exist. There is a program in Wisconsin, but it does not have the civilian powers to fire people to investigate this very loosely defined idea of misconduct in people's private as well as professional lives and it does pit the people against the police. Yeah, so let me finish up and I just wanna say that this is a debate that we all need to engage in, but there is, I would agree, misinformation about it and let's not make accusations. Let's figure out what is going on with the language and the repercussions of this. We're gonna circle back to this in a few minutes when we talk about the city council update and it's, we have an item to review ballot items. So we're gonna get to that in a few minutes, but right now we're gonna shift gears and go to the school commissioner update and speak out. What? Speak out. Speak out, it's coming gone. Well, we're not resuming it depending on what. I mean, some people just don't get to speak out. That's right. We ran out of time. So, it's tragic. It's not, when we have a schedule, it's a fixed schedule, mostly. Did anyone not get a sheet that would like a description, a high level description of the Burlington budget, school budget? Oh, yeah, we did. Good day. We're standing here. We don't have to see it. That's it. Okay. We're gonna come over here. Go again, so you can either hold it or you have any extra copies. You can put it up here. More copies. I don't have any more. Okay. We're gonna go over there. That's probably what's been voted in the commission. Awesome. Yeah. Yeah. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Akiala Slecosu. I am the world one school commissioner for the school district. And I'm Kathy, all well, the East district. So, Ward's one and eight school commissioner. So, many of you guys had this flowering hand. So, I kind of wanted to get school. We're what the flower says. And then at the end of our discussion, we can have extra questions that people have. So at the top of those, shall the voters of the school district approve the school board to expand roughly 104 million? I can't read that full number, which is the amount the school board has determined to be necessary for the insurance fiscal year. It is estimated that this proposed budget, if approved will result in education spending of 21,000 or 21,000 for equalized pupil spending at this level could produce a property tax increase of 4.03%, which is a rough estimate, I think. Yes. And so for the FY total budget, it's 98.2 million. The annual increase to wages and health. So wages went up by 6% and healthcare or health insurance went up by 12%. Much of that has to do with the health income reimbursement allocation, HRA, which is that people get paid out a certain amount of money. It used to be that the teachers and everyone that's employed at the schools had to pay the first, I don't remember what it was. I think it was a hundred or $200. And then the school took over, but there were a lot of problems with that. And once it went to the state, this year is the first year that we are paying the first dollar as opposed to the teachers, which is actually more egalitarian because we have deeper pockets than they do. And then, so that comes to 3.8 million and the BHS, BTC, 2025 boroughing, we will borrow 2.1 million this year to get start or next year to start building. And that increase is 6% from 2023. So the tax impact is that it's estimated that the base is based on surplus from Vermont. We are going to have a huge surplus in the state of Vermont. That will come back to each district. That will then be taken out of this so that you will get a lower tax rate. So, but the property taxpayer will pay 4.3% increase, which is on a $370,000 house, $207 more. People paying by income tax will have a 0.07% increase and for a 50,000, with 50,000 income, that will be a $1 increase in their taxes. So, a few of the guiding principles is that when we recognize our staffing levels must be responsive to enrollment changes. We limit budget growth due to increase in income tax and wages, benefits, and penny, BHS, PTC costs. Ensure funding to meet strategic plan objectives. Continue to offer robust programmatic offerings and consider multi-year impact of changes and minimize annual disruptions. Maybe turn this document to the back. Do you guys need me to read the line out? Oh, it's kind of explaining what's on the front. Yeah. Oh, do you want to take over? Okay, well, I mean, you kind of read it. I don't, do you want us to read it to you or? No, I didn't think so. Okay, maybe we should just ask for questions. Yeah, if they have questions, that's probably easier because we can answer those or hopefully we can answer those. Do we have questions in the room? Yeah. We're doing fine, even. Right here. Kathy, one thing that could save some money. Why don't, we heard that in the January meeting here, I think it's troubling announcement from Green Mountain Transit that bus fares in Chittenden County are going to increase which seemed troubling. Now, where I stand for an hour and a half a day, I see dozens if not hundreds of people getting on buses but Green Mountain Transit buses, many of them going to our schools. Yet, I also see the yellow dinosaurs running around which we presumably pay for and presumably are carbon unfriendly. So why don't we save some money by getting rid of them, getting rid of that service and somehow getting funneling the money back to benefit the community in Chittenden County? Are we, we have tried to do that and those dinosaurs you see are the North, South buses. So we have in Burlington, children and families are allowed to pick the school they want to go to. And so in order to do that, they can't do it and get to school on time. Green Mountain Transit did not want to run those. So we have run them in order to get kids that are at the South end and choose to go to a central city or North end school back and forth every day. That has been debated. I would just say that when Steve Leffler took over at the hospital, one of the first things he did in response to employers was get rid of the yellow dinosaurs that were servicing the hospital. So if he should do that for employees there, we should also do it for our children. And that's the only thing I've got to say. Okay. But right now, we just asked you for a huge amount of money for our high school. So I, I mean, yes, I understand what you're saying and we should do it. If you look at it in the picture, definitely vehicles, definitely. Anyway. Love guys. Any other comments? Yeah. Here's one on the chair. Got to go around, Peter. Yeah. Thank you. This may be mixing apples, oranges and pineapples, but with regard to the 12% increase for health care costs, I understand part of it is, is the, the queuing of who pays what when. But is, is the teachers contribution and ongoing payout or retired teachers through the Medicare Advantage Program? Is that part of this increase as well? Yes. And do you know how much the increase is? And the reason is I'm a state employee and the governor is telling us it's going to be so much cheaper if state employees do that. And it doesn't sound like it is. So. I would have to get back to you on it because I'm not sure the breakdown of that. They just finished. We just ratified the contract. So how could one find out what portion of that has to do with? If you leave me your email address. Be happy to. Thank you. I will find out and I'll get you the answer. Okay. Quick question. So one of the things that I found not on your sheet was some explanation around how income sensitivity works. It's my understanding that approximately 70% of Brawling's taxpayers as a result of the way income sensitivity works for education funding would be insulated from from tax, education tax increases. So maybe if you guys could just elucidate that a little bit. I mean, it's that's what this in the thing where it says if you're paying by by income taxpayers do you see that that's it goes up 0.07% and someone owning it having an income of 50,000 or yeah, 50,000 would only increase by $1. So it does insulate them. I know it's not. Wasn't real. Sorry, I missed to miss that. It wasn't real explicit. Yeah. Well, okay. Got it. Thank you. Oh, Sharon. Yes, hi. Kathy, when you all came to the city council meeting that I listened to your presentation included what cuts were going to be made. And there was some controversy around programs and positions at the arts academy. Can you touch upon what this budget does eliminate for positions? How did it all come together? Okay, that's, it's, there are many. I think it's important. There are all together 10 positions that were eliminated, three that were added, 3.2. And so as a result, there's 6.8 reduction. And that is because of the number of students we have. It has gone way down. We have, we have between 19, 2019 and now we have 50 less students at BHS, 85 at the two middle schools and 129 students at the elementary schools, the six elementary schools. Right. But was there a program that was eliminated or were there some key positions eliminated at any school? I understand the overall, but there was the problem with the, with the arts, with the, oh God, it was the dramatic drama. Coach that was, but that, that was kept in the budget. We do, we are now since last year doing a new type of budgeting because we spent two years going to the state trying to fight for an equitable budgeting on the state's side of giving out the money to all the difference fools by looking at ESL poverty levels, children with disadvantages. We then decided to, we don't do that, we didn't do that before that in, in Burlington. And so we decided, well, maybe we should be doing more equitable budgeting within our own district so that there is the rise allocation. There's the largest percentage of our budget is the teachers for the number of children. And that is set and that's the base budget with all the other personnel, et cetera, to run a school that we need. And then there is the rise allocation and that is allocated to each school according to how many children are in poverty, how many children are on IPs. There's four different things that they look at just as the state does. And if you look on the back of this, it shows the rise allocation for 23 and now what is being proposed for 24. This is the second year that we have done this. And so it was under, there are many things that each school decides than what they need. And they use the money accordingly. And in the case of IAA, they do have more teachers and more special teachers than even essay does, which are both magnet schools. So they decided they really wanted to keep this person and they have done that through the rise allocation from their school. And every year those allocations, if they keep a teacher, it's for a year. And then the next year, I hope they will say yes to that again, but it doesn't mean that they will be put through the regular, that they will become a employee of full-time workers. They are an employee. I shouldn't say that, but they won't have a permanent contract. That's what I want to say. Kathy, that was very helpful to explain the difference in how you budget now and that key position. Thank you so much. Sure. We've got time for one more question. We have another question on the floor. Jonathan? This may just be simple-minded and I apologize because it might just demonstrate how little I understand this, but the 4% increase that you talk about in taxes, could one assume that that's about what a renter's increase could be? Cause renters pay taxes too. So would that mean that in general proper, even rental properties, you're gonna see something like a 4% increase that will be passed on to the renter? It could be, but that's really up to the person renting the apartment. It isn't, it isn't, right? Right, but yeah, they... So is that the accurate number? It would be the same for a duplex or a triplexer? We won't know this exactly the percentage. If I can just make a quick comment. There is a renter's tax credit that they get when they fill out their Vermont tax return. And so they may be assessed an increase through their rent, but they would be getting more money back from the state.  I don't know. Real quick? Well, real quick. I mean, it really depends on what the landlord does because the landlords, yeah, normal mics, you put them right in front of your face, but I'm sorry about that. Yeah, it depends on what the landlord does. If I mean, landlords are increasing, as I think most folks know, rents like ridiculously in all around the state and especially in Burlington. If they choose to increase the rent as a result of a small property tax increase, that's their business decision and it gets passed on to their tenants. I will say that there's a separate tax rate for residential commercial, for all commercial property, including residential commercial. And so that 4%, you can't extrapolate from that 4% because it's a different statewide tax rate for commercial properties. I think I'm assuming that the 4% is based on the residential property tax rates, the homestead rate. We're gonna move on. And the next agenda item is, Kathy, thank you, and thank you very much. Is it a city council update? And, yeah, I think you've got everything. I do have the language here of the... Good question, are you gonna go through all the valid items one by one? I could, I wanted to ask you if that's... I think that would be a great idea. Because I don't think they're all controversial, but it would be good just to get out and say, what does this, what does it really say? Right. And then people can ask questions about them as you go through them. Yeah, and Carol was sent something from Zariah Zariah in Hightower. And I didn't know if you wanted to pull that up as well, as well as the language. Oh, I think you should just do it. Well, also there is a link to the actual language. Yeah, I know that. Maybe put that up so everybody could see it. And then Zariah, she couldn't be here tonight, but she did send in her position on these valid items. So we could go over that too. So the first item is on the school board, which we just did. So if anyone has any questions, I think Kathy is really the expert on that. And it, should I read it out or do you wanna read it for yourselves? I can read it out. Shall the voters of the school district approve the school board to expend 104,144,584 dollars, which is the amount the school board has determined to be necessary for the ensuing fiscal year? Question mark. It is estimated that this proposed budget, if approved, will result in education spending of $21,325.14 per equalized pupil. And then it does mention the 4.03% property tax rate increase which would be, according to Earhart, would be residential. But it seems like that will be in the language on the ballot. Item number two is implementation of a carbon pollution impact fee for new construction and large existing commercial and industrial buildings, 50,000 square feet or larger. And then can you see the language there? I'll briefly go through this. This is very important. Begins, shall the city council in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the city, be authorized starting January 1st, 2024 to implement a carbon pollution impact fee in the permitting process with the fee to be set by resolution starting at up to $150 per ton and rising annually at the rate of regional inflation but capped at no more than a 5% annual increase for. New construction buildings that install fossil fuel thermal energy systems instead of using renewable energy systems or renewable fuels with the exception that the fee would not be implemented until January 1st, 2026 for domestic water heating systems in a new construction multifamily residential building with more than four units. And this is the second item for existing commercial and industrial buildings, 50,000 square feet or larger when the building is installing fossil fuel thermal energy space conditioning or domestic water heating systems instead of using renewable systems or renewable fuels. I know. Okay, so that was important to say because it is about a tax on new development and it is an attempt to have developers use alternative energy sources, not fossil fuels but the tax, the money from the tax will go to low income people who need heat pumps. And so this money will be used possibly to develop a fleet of electric vehicles, a charging station and clean heat technology. So for the city, this is real climate action. So... We have questions about this particular item. Yes. All right, sorry. I feel like I've been talking a lot. Well, just because it's my day job, I work at 350 Vermont and one of the big conversations happening in the Senate Natural Resources Committee right now is speaking about, we have the Affordable Heat Act and what actually counts as clean heat because biomass, which if you look at the full lifecycle is as bad as fossil fuels like McNeil and the health impacts and the economic impacts when you really go down the chain. There's a lot of good evidence to support and I think every peer reviewed study that's looked at it, there's been 33 independent peer reviewed studies. Anyway. What, you have a question? Yeah, my question is, is there anything in passing this that restricts us from in the future defining what clean heat means or how BED actually defines clean heat? Yeah, that's a great question and I met with Department of Public, I mean the Burlington Electric staff, they're quite amazing and I brought this up because burning wood seems very old school and their answer was right now, this is what we have. McNeil is aging out and new technologies will be the next phase, but right now we have a lot of wood chips and these are not virgin forests being cut down. There's a lot of wood in the state and it is right now being used to generate heat. The heat pump technology is limited depending on the temperature as well. So they're working on it and this is real. There is, there are issues with biomass, yeah. Sorry, no, no, I can put this in here, but I think it's a problem that we are going to producers of this heat or of this energy to ask them, we need to ask scientists and the problem here is that they want to increase the McNeil in order to do the, what is it, Fahrenheit or whatever, I don't know if that, this or TV, I'm using the German word, sorry. Anyway, and that would mean far more wood that they would be burning and they will also be using far more gas for this, natural gas. So which are all the things that we have to stop using. So I'm worried that we're going to increase this, McNeil in order to then turn around when we know it's antiquated. Just to have clarification, when I read this and as moderator, I guess maybe I shouldn't speak up, but it basically, it defines the offenders as not including renewable energy. And so as long as wood is considered renewable, it would be allowed. I'm not saying that's too bad or ugly. I'm just saying that's what the text, that's what the text says. So if you think- And that's what it's considered from the state of Vermont. What is- That's not science, thanks. That is- Well, it is- Yeah. So I did bring this up at Burlington Electric as well. And apparently a lot of the steam at McNeil is just lost energy. It's just, if you look at it, you can see it going up. And the idea would be to cap that and capture much of the heat in that steam and then pipe it to large institutions. It cannot be piped to smaller homes. It could go to the university or the medical center, for example. But think about getting that from McNeil up that hill to the hospital and whatever the university. Right. I mean, think, first of all, you would have to have a lot more energy put into that. And that is they will increase the wood that they're burning and they will start using far more natural gas and they don't admit it. Yeah, and that's why this initiative is very important because it is an acknowledgement that fossil fuel use or biomass and wood, which many of us are fond of burning, but no, it's not good for the environment, that action needs to be taken. And this kind of carbon tax is really an important step in acknowledging that and doing something. So isn't this question not about McNeil, but about individual development- Exactly, yes. Developing individual properties. Yeah.  I'm just saying it doesn't really apply. I do have a question about this though, Maya, and I'm sure it was considered and I'm curious to know if you can share any perspective on it. Instead of taking a tax approach, take an incentive approach, because I don't know if anyone else here has used the incentives to install heat pumps in their home, but certainly, I mean, that works. I mean, I know a lot of people who've done it. I've done it myself. And so I think that an incentive approach would make more sense, especially since we're kind of in this place in Burlington, where we need developers to develop places to live. I agree with you. So I was wondering if that was part of the conversation. Yeah, the incentive would be this wonderful carrot as opposed to a punishment for creating new fossil fuel-based. Did you have a question? Yes, really quick. It calls for... Well, penalties. Carbon tax. It's a tax. Well, there's a question as to whether it's an annual tax or if it's a development tax. Right. But regardless of which it is, it's looking to have developers move away from fossil fuels, biomass, et cetera, to move to electricity. I mean, that's the alternative at this point, but does it have a corresponding production side? Where is the electricity going to be produced from? Because if we aren't producing it, it doesn't matter how many people move to it, there won't be enough. We've already seen a rush to electricity in some of our lifetimes and then a rush away from it when it couldn't produce enough. So the question is, there needs to be a balance. If we're gonna say, let's move to electricity, which I think we all agree on, where is it gonna come from? And those don't seem to get addressed in the motions. Yeah, that's such a good question. And here it is, 100 tons. So this would be an ongoing tax. No, it's not. Oh, really? It says it's a development tax. And rising annually at the rate of original inflation. No, that's the rate that it would be charged, but it says the impact fee in the permitting process. So once you have a permit, you build your building, you've paid your fee, you can do what you want. That's my opinion. I'm unfortunately not a lawyer, so I can't tell you exactly. Yeah, I'll look into this. It looks to me like it is ongoing, but let's clarify that. And then that was a really good point, and I did ask them about this because recently because of the conflict in Ukraine, many people in France converted to electricity because they're anticipating problems with gas coming through the pipes. And the gas, excuse me, the electricity price is skyrocketed. So I did ask at Burlington Electric about this. And they said that they were going to have contracts to stabilize the prices for electricity. And they were looking for other ways to produce electricity. Apparently right now, there's a lot of lawsuits against wind turbines, which seems like an amazingly efficient, great way to generate electricity. But, you know, sorry. We're good, we're good. Here's a challenge. I know. Speed up. Yeah. Mask of question. No, there's 10 minutes. We have 10 minutes to do all the rest of the ballot items, you guys. 10 minutes. Well, how about if I finish and then we can look at that. So number three, charter change regarding the Ward boundaries. And I think that Erhard has really touched on that. I fought hard to have the opportunity for Ward 1 to not lose, you know, really important neighborhood community on Brooks Avenue. And there's a lot of there are a lot of hard feelings by Ward 8. There was negotiation with other counselors when there was no representation for Ward 8 or Ward 1 or, you know, less for Ward 1. And I did suggest in the future, Ward 1 and Ward 8 need to work together on this because it was very emotional for many people. You know, the idea of neighborhood and the power to vote, the power to vote in representatives, which is really what's at stake. It's not perfect. Erhard did an amazing job of re-envisioning new ways of mapping, you know, these areas and it's philosophical. It's complicated. It's not just geographic. And so people will need to vote on that themselves. The map is not perfect, but it's better than what was available before that, you know, tweaked map was voted in on the 23rd. So that's all we have. OK, I can do that. Do you want me to read what Zariah said? Sure. All right, redistricting. No, Zariah says, no recommendation. I am not taking a stance on this. I think the final map accomplished more than previous versions, but didn't accomplish everything. Most importantly, it preserves award district model that many wanted us to get rid of, according to a citywide survey. And she has a pointer to the to the survey. And that's what Zariah said on that. Thank you, Erhard. OK, and number four is the charter change regarding requirements for legal resident voters who are not United States citizens. This I am for this. I know Zariah is as well. And for legal citizens in Winooski, they are able to vote and that would this would make this possible in Burlington as well. Did you want to read Zariah's or not? This is ranked choice voting. No, this is. Non-citizen. Yeah, OK, Zariah said recommended. Yes, residents who aren't citizens should be allowed to weigh in on municipal matters. And when Montpelier and Winooski already have this tested this approach, and I think we could join them in an expansion of democracy. And then five charter change regarding qualifications of voters and siting of polling places. And this is for smaller wards, you know, if a polling place were outside the ward, that that would be OK. For example, a public space and municipal building where a polling site could be. So I support that. But you know, this is this is the polling places. Yeah. It's number two. Yeah, and this is number two. It says she says recommend. Yes, see above for non-citizen reasoning for polling places, small, small wards mean that polling places that are familiar and accessible to voters, maybe just outside the ward, this provides flexibility in using historic or accessible voting location. So she's saying that. Number six, charter change regarding the ability to use ranked choice voting for the election of mayor school commissioners and ward election officers. This is a choice that is up to each and every voter, whether or not you choose ranked choice voting. So that's what I'm going to say about it. Yeah. And Zariah recommended yes on this one. And it expands ranked choice voting from city councillors to mayor school board and and some. Voting officials. Are you a no no comment on that one? I think it's up to individuals to vote the way they want my stance. Yeah, I'm sort of undecided when I was being elected to city council, I saw what I thought was an unusual use of people teaming up to use ranked choice voting as a team, which didn't seem which didn't seem the way ranked choice voting should be used. I really do believe in one vote, one person. So you're an employee. And so as I just told you, I'm still undecided on how I'm going to vote, but I'm looking at the pros and cons of ranked choice voting. Thanks, Troy. So let me go on to the next item, which is number seven. Charter change regarding the creation of independent community control board. We just were talking about this. And I am I am against the control board. I mentioned a little bit before it's sweeping powers. To control police, sworn police officers and the police chief in a way that doesn't exist anywhere else in the country. I do believe in accountability and oversight. But, you know, this is something that everyone should look into carefully. Zariah is for it. All right, community oversight of police. She recommends yes. I honestly don't think this will pass the legislature and it's not what I would have written. But I hope that Burlington can send a strong signal that after two years of politicians, myself included waffling on this issue and lacking the political will to move this, we will as a whole support a change in community oversight of the police department. We all agree we need this and our community has risen to the challenge of making it happen. I know legislators are also working on broad enabling language from municipalities across Vermont. And I believe passing this would support that effort as well. And then she asked a pointer to, where you can get more information. And I do believe that the city does need to come up with some better solutions. So we hired a consultant or company or whatever. And that was one of the things they recommended with the police. So, and I guess I agree with Carter about I watched that council meeting. And to me, it's disgusting that almost, I mean, I heard nobody who had your opinion that we shouldn't be doing it. Everybody spoke and they were like passionate, intelligent people and still to vote against that. Like I want a counselor that will think it through and listen to the people. And this isn't, even if it passes or doesn't pass, but to have so much money put into killing it and all the people I heard that, you know, they had to get those signatures. Like to me, that's like disrespect. It's sort of, it's the same thing that happened with city hall park. We got more than 2000 signatures. And instead of it going on the ballot, the mayor decided and the council, not just the mayor decided, don't put it on the ballot. Don't let the people vote. And I think they were scared because it was going to pass. City hall park was not a success. It was way too much money and we are no better off.  And frankly, I don't go and speak at the council because what's the point? You, I feel the counselors go with their, you know, mind made up and why do you have speak out? And I know it's not you and I know that this wasn't your thing because you're not even going to run again, but it was so humiliating for all the people that spoke and then for nothing. So anyway. It wasn't for nothing, but it is a debate that's ongoing. There are many constituents who weren't at the meeting who also spoke to counselors. And so this is, it's not as though everyone is, Karen, let me, let me speak. Yeah, there are many voices and the counselors are listening to many constituents. Because I keep hearing this brought up that this commission would be able to fire people and I as a school board member also do that same thing. So teachers, we in the end decide if it's a licensed, if it's a licensed teacher and they are going to be fired, they can bring it to the school board as the final say. And we listen and we then vote. So I guess I find this odd that that's being said when we have already commissions, yes. But you're an elected official. We're not talking about elected officials. Right, right. May I say something? These people are going to be elected, aren't they? No, they're appointed. These are not going to be elected. Yeah, may I say something? Oh, Karen, you have the floor. I'm sorry, yes? Yes. Yes, so I think that what everyone in this room wants an advisory board that is, that oversees the police and holds them more accountable. I think that what we have is to disconnect with communication and I do believe that this model is flawed because as you just said, the individual, the group that is being proposed when people cite other agencies like lawyers and medical boards that hold their professional people accountable, that board is made up of some experts within that profession, yet this particular model doesn't allow anyone with any expertise in policing to be part of it. So I think that the idea is wonderful. I think we all agree. I think we just have the wrong model and I really feel that that's really important because this will be totally separate from the people. There will be, there's no election process. There's no removal process. So I want everybody to think carefully about it because I want what everyone else wants but this isn't right. And I think with just a little more process and I know you all hate that word, we could get it right. I don't think there's any value in putting forth a wrong model and there's no real value in being first in a design that is flawed. Thank you. Thank you, Sharon. That was well said. Just so you know, in comparison to city council where people can make statements and city council doesn't respond, our forum here is for people to have sort of an exchange. We're trying to have a discussion. People can voice their opinions and say their for or against whatever. And so our NPA is a little bit different from council. I just wanted to bring that to people's attention and continue our discussion error. Yes, if you want to say anything else, we'll be here. We'd like to speak. Thanks for grounding us, Tom. I just wanted to put my opinion, which is a little different from my good friend, Sharon. I agree with Zariah. I think, you know, whether this is flawed or you know, could use that process or not, I think we need to send a message and the message needs to be that there needs to be some sort of oversight of the police and the behavior and there needs to be greater accountability than we currently have. If this is not the perfect model, so be it. But I think it should be supported to send a message that something needs to change. And if this is voted down, the folks that are including our mayor and some of the city council will take that as a message that we do not need comprehensive reform. So I think this is more of a message issue in my mind rather than making sure that it's perfect and follows all the right processes. I think we need to make sure that the message is heard to lead strong accountability and reform for the police. Thanks, Anne. You are welcome. Just real quick, and I don't want to get like super dragged down into details. I know we don't have a lot of time. So if you have questions about this, please come see me. But I know it gets thrown out around a lot about how they're not elected. But actually, if you look at our current police commission, they're not elected either. They're appointed and there's like a whole appointment process. It would be the same. It also gets brought up a lot about folks they're not having law enforcement experience. But actually, if you look at our current police commission and every single member of that, do any of them have law enforcement experience? No. And Milo Grant often talks about this. In fact, it said like, maybe one of the useful experiences is like having an attorney on there. And they go through extensive training with like NACL to make sure that they're supported to be able to do these kinds of responsibilities. The last thing I want to bring up is that if the voters do pass this through, it's not just going to end there. It goes to the legislature and they will have a chance to have an editing hand on it. So if there are details that people want to have worked out, I'm sure your city councilors can lobby for those things to happen. And also that NACL, which is a national organization, really focused on this kind of thing. What they recommend is that we're not trying to look for best practices around the country and just like steal those. It's more about finding the best fit for your place. So really looking at what the needs are of your community and then designing that model. So it's really normal that we would look around and not see things that directly match what we're trying to do because we're looking for best fit and not best practices. Thank you. Yeah, I just want to say thank you so much. Tell me your name again. Amy. Amy, thank you for all those details. And the piece I want to say too is we are Burlington, Vermont and we know about doing things for the first time. We elected Bernie by 10 votes, for example, and look what's happened since then. And if you look at the land trust, for example, we're risk takers, you know? And we've been really solid positive risk takers. And I think this is another example. Let's call the comments on this. Can I just say something? I really appreciate what Sharon was saying about not having to be the first. This is such an important matter that we can work on the details. It doesn't have to be a program that doesn't exist anywhere else in the country. And people's lives are at stake and public safety is really at stake. And then the other thing is that Sarah Carpenter, who helped start the land trust is actually against the control board. She feels that it should happen incrementally and that as a community, we can develop controls and a police force that is right for our community. So the last item is number eight, charter change regarding proposition zero. And proposition zero is the process by which the control board issue has come up whereby maybe someone can help me with this, but if you have enough signatures, you can bring something to the ballot. And the idea is that it is powered by the people. I think the percentage is 5%. It's about over 2,000 voters in Browning County. They have to get signatures from them. And with this list of 5% that you can adopt or repeal the ordinance at issue. And so that is the last item on the March ballot. Does anyone have questions about the? I think we have to raise our eyes. When it's right, Steven. He says recommended, yes, allowing direct democracy in ways that all the other Vermont towns do in allowing an easier pathway for citizens to get referendums on the ballot by petition. And she points to proposition zero.org website. So she says, yes. I'd love to share a little bit more about it, okay? I also talked to a lot of people about this, help get it on the ballot. So I think the thing that's really, I think this is the most exciting ballot item personally because basically it's about continuing a Vermont tradition and bringing us unto an alignment with what people are enjoying everywhere, nearly everywhere else in Vermont through the town meeting day tradition that we really cherish. Earlier we talked about all legal resident voting. Do we know how that actually happened in Wintersky? That happened because they passed their own version of proposition zero in 2015. We are literally just stealing their language. So the voters passed it and went to the legislature. They approved it. Now we're just taking it and trying to do it here. So I think it's pretty exciting. This is proposition zero. So I put forward, what's gonna be proposition one once this gets passed? It's really just, that continue your tradition, recovering a proven balance of power and making sure that we have a pathway. If there's an issue we really care about to prove that enough of us care about it, that action can be taken to get it on the ballot. Yeah. Roger. Sorry, I keep talking a lot. I just have to say on number seven to not to go back to it, but it's really important. There are elements of the community control board. It is true that this specific exact program does not exist in other places in the country. And yet there are elements throughout it that exist in municipalities and states across the country. So to say that like it's something that's never been tested, I just don't feel as accurate. The way it's presented now, it does not exist anywhere. But the legislature will help. Well. I'm just always wary about talking in these meetings. I truly believe my role is to listen in these meetings so that I can bring your voices to Montpelier. I just want to say with regard to the community oversight, I personally am very excited about the direction that we are moving towards decarceration, towards community justice centers, towards lower security reentry facilities, towards prison moratoriums. You're going to hear Brian Chien as Bill on that very soon. Everything we're doing with regards to policing and incarceration is moving towards community justice models and restorative practices models. It only makes sense to me that that would include community oversight to the policing aspect of that system. So I just, I want us to think about where we want to move as a society with regards to involving the community in these decisions. I've actually got a question and that's it. Number seven is a charter change based on a petition, right? And number eight is saying that we would basically have that same capability for ordinances. Is that true? I think that's the same. So number seven is sort of a, I mean, number eight is sort of an extension of the underlying power of number seven. Yes. Okay. All right. And it's been asked that I read something from Zariah that I didn't read before. And it's really at the top of the email she sent out.  My fever is climbing and I'm feeling pretty unwell. So I don't expect to make it to the NPA even remotely tonight, but maybe I'll get lucky and it will break early. Please excuse any typos. So she wanted to be here. She did send out an opinion on all the ballot items. And I don't know how it's been distributed. I don't know if it was on front porch forum. We posted it with a minutes. So again, we can post it with a minutes, but we'll post it in our minutes. And if I can get permission from Zariah, I'll, I can, I'd be willing to post this, just her email out on front porch forum as well. And I'm going to put something on front porch forum as well. So yeah. All right. We're going to shift gears. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. I should always thank you. All right. We're going to go to the candidate forum. And we have two candidates for the East district council position is Jake Schuman and Tim. Don't worry. You got, I, if you know me, you know, that I don't pronounce names very well. So I'll follow that in advance. No, you got it right. And you guys can come and sit right here. And this is sort of free forum. Well, we wanted them to do a quick introduction of themselves. Tom used to meet you likewise. But I think you should each take about three minutes to introduce yourselves. And we would, I'm going to move. So you got, we can take care. And then I will be back to help moderate questions. So with that, I'm going to get out of the way. You want to go ahead? After you. Sure. So my name is Tim Doherty and I am running for the East district city council seat. It is a real pleasure to be here. Thank you so much for having me. And I've really enjoyed listening to everybody's strong opinions on these issues. And I'm, I've already learned a great deal. Let me tell you a tiny bit about myself, but I'm also happy to answer questions about who I am in my background. My wife, Kate, and I live pretty much kitty corner through the backyard here on 27 Colonial Square. My son, Sam is here. My eldest son, he's 15. He goes to BHS downtown. My middle son, Abe is at Edmonds. And my youngest Malachi is at IAA down in the old North End. So we have three in public school. My wife is the principal of the Winooski Middle and High School and I am an attorney in downtown Burlington. So we have lived here for quite a long time, although not consistently our very first apartment as a married couple. Actually, we moved there the day after our wedding was on 401 North Street, right across the street from Maya's house. Although we didn't know you then, you know, there. And we live, like I said, we live on Colonial Square now. So I know we're going to talk about the ballot initiatives, some of which I have views on, some of which I'm still learning about and learning about people's views here in the East District. But I will tell you a little bit about why I am running for city council. I'm running for city council because I love Burlington. I have a huge stake in the success of the city. It's been our home for a long, long time and it's given us a tremendous amount, my family, a tremendous amount. And I have been concerned in recent years about the direction that the city is going in. I've been tremendously concerned about public safety. I've been tremendously concerned about rising property taxes. And I've been increasingly concerned about the discourse and the civility that we've seen in our local politics. One of the things that I value so much about Vermont politics is our ability and our tradition of working across party lines, talking to one another civilly, even when we disagree strongly. In my field, there's a saying about lawyers who can disagree without being disagreeable. It's always been my approach to my practice, not always completely successfully. But it's something that I value tremendously in politics and it's a commitment that I have. And I worry that we all, and I include myself in this, have moved away from that to some extent in recent years. So if I'm elected, my priorities are going to be, in some senses, small bore.  I pledge to be a good listener and to be engaged in the details. I am a detail-oriented person by nature. I'm going to be responsive to constituent needs. You're going to get calls back. You're going to get emails back. You're going to get texts back. You can come find me. I live right over there. We're always around. There's always about six or seven children, not to mention chickens and dogs and other creatures in our yard. And I'm going to be open and available. And I'm going to be committed to the real, needy, gritty work of city governance. I am not running because I have some high-level partisan agenda. What I'd really like us to do is focus on some basic principles of good governance. So on some of these ballot initiatives, I'm still thinking about my own vote, like it sounds like some of you are. Some of them I do have opinions about. And I spent the last couple of weekends knocking on doors and talking to people in the East District and trying to get a sense of what people are thinking about and what their views are on some of these issues. And for me, that process is ongoing and would continue if I were elected. So I'm really looking forward to talking to everybody here, talking more about these issues, and hope people ask me questions now and ask me questions afterwards and ask me questions in the weeks to come. Well, questions in just a few minutes. Jake, you're up. Yeah, thank you. Thanks, Tim. So I've been writing down some notes throughout the evening, and as you were saying, what you were saying, just so I can respond to everybody. What's been hard for me in campaigning is you enter it and you think that what you're going to be doing is interacting with lots of individuals. And what I have learned through this process is that, yes, I'm interacting with lots of individuals, but what I am also learning is how our community is an individual. Like our community is unique. We have a way of thinking and being and interacting and doing together that is unique. That's what makes Burlington special, right? That's why for the past 14 years, I have said to people, I try to find a place I like more and I've been hard pressed to do it. And that kind of brings me to what Maya had been saying and Sharon and others about how Burlington doesn't have to be the first to have a community oversight board for police. And we shouldn't try to be the first because people's lives are at stake. I would say that that's an argument for me to turn it around. I would say that we are a community that cares about one another. We don't just consider somebody a neighbor. We consider somebody a friend. We feed each other. We provide each other diapers. We repair each other's wounds. Like we are a community of care. And that's exactly why we should be willing to take the risk of being the first. Because we trust each other. If there's something that goes wrong, we will fix it. We will address it. We will work together because people's lives are at stake, right? So I think something that I've really noted and considered to be very positive is that over the past couple of years, our city counselors have really endeavored to move on and move past the partisanship and the divisive rhetoric of 2020, right? And I'm afraid that on Monday night, a lot of that progress was undone. That city counselors now will have harder relationships with each other and that our community will have a harder time trusting city council when the city council advises voters how to vote when city council says, in the title of the resolution, upon failure, upon defeat, that, hmm. And so it made me think of what you said, Tim, about lawyers who can disagree without being disagreeable. Like, I've worked with Ben on different projects, like when a building burned down in South Meadow connected with him and a couple of other people in our mutual aid group to make sure the affected families got what they need. And I felt like I had a personal relationship there that I feel like I no longer have. And I think it's important to prioritize our relationships with each other. So I guess I'll just respond to two more things. You said that you were going to be responsive. And I just say that that's why I think folks should vote for me is because I have been responsive. Like, I've been doing these things before and it's like regardless. I don't need to be on city council to care about this community and to serve it and to take care of it. That's why I've always said I don't consider this a job. I don't consider it something that I can benefit from. I consider being on council the executive level of volunteering, of being just a good human. And so it's because I've been thinking about these things for so long that I think we want to make sure that we have people on council who prioritize relationships, prioritize working together, prioritize the human elements of our community. But they do have a rich and deep understanding of these issues cultivated and informed by years of experience of doing the work and a vision. Right? And I think that's why I stepped aside in the special election was because I got to know Dina and I got to be able to say, I trust this person to carry this piece of our struggle. And I'm going to step aside and carry this other piece. And that was the petition drive. And I didn't carry it. I just participated. I was one of many concerned citizens who helped get these ballot items before you. So I think that the voters of this city have an opportunity with Proposition Zero, with Community Oversight of Police, with Milo Grant's candidacy and with my candidacy. I think that we can make some changes that will lead to meaningful police reform that is collaborative and compassionate. I met with Mirad and I think that there's a lot of mutual respect there. I think that we had a great conversation and I look forward to working with them in the future. All right, we're going to open it up to questions. So, Gerald. Hi, I'm going to talk about something that's not a ballot item, but it's really important, I think, toward one, which is the relationship that the city has with UVM. And at this point, I hope, Tim, you're gaining more and Jake, you as well, about understanding of where we are and the fact that we've had for a very long time and Earhart, our historian, could tell you how long we've had an MOU that's been functional, that Bernie was part of setting that up. And before then, it's a nonprofit that was able to do what it wanted to do. So we've had some kind of relationship that they've, the president has said he has no interest in pursuing that. And I feel pretty helpless about that. I don't know how other wards may not feel like it's their territory or their worry, but I'm really concerned that it be something that you both become aware of and can help us advocate for, and just welcome any energy that you can put into that issue, because I think we need that. Who wants to go first? You ready? Sure, I'd be happy to. So I guess I just, I want to say one more thing that I forgot, and it's very quick. The last night in the state of the union address, President Biden said, we need oversight of police. So I would say on the UBM issue, Carol, I went back to school in 2018, and I went to CCB because I had a hard time in school. You know, the demands that it places on you, public school was difficult for me, and that's why I went to a community school on the farm in Tennessee and finished up my high school education on a hippie commune. So, you know, I needed a long break, and I needed to make sure that I was gonna be okay and see it through. So I went to CCB for two years, and then I started at UBM in the fall of 2020, right? Like right after the pandemic had hit, and I was a full-time caseworker at the Holiday Inn, CBOO, helping folks get housing, where I got like 30 people housed, either just through my own efforts or as a member of a team. When I attended UBM 2020, 2021, 2022, I paid or I didn't pay, right? That's the point I wanna make, I didn't pay. And even if I did pay, the tuition was lower than it was for my contemporaries when they went to school 2009 to 2013. So I hear you, and I think my response is that I have defended Suresh in the community to say he has put in a lot of effort to make sure this education is affordable and that it prioritizes Vermonters. And over 50% of in-state students go completely free of charge, not a penny. And so I think that's where we start, right? Is saying you've looked out for this group of people. Can you look out for this group of people, right? This group? Can you help us? Can we find some common ground and build from there? Cause, yes, the MOU is essential. No buildings, no more. You can't do anything without the MOU. That's what I would say. You know, Carol, I think Kate and I share what I think I understand your concerns to be as well. You know, we love living in a university town. I love living close to students, the vibrancy, the diversity, the energy that UVM brings to the community. I think we all value. I worry that right now that relationship is out of whack, perhaps badly out of whack and needs to be realigned. The university is an important stakeholder in our community. It gives us a lot, but we give it a lot as well as a city. And it needs, the university needs, in my opinion, to bear its fair share of the responsibility for things in the city, like affordable housing, like our homelessness crisis. And it really needs a tribute. So, you know, the devil is in the details, of course, when you're negotiating with an institution like UVM and I'm a careful and deliberate person. So I'm not gonna over promise. I'm not going to declare no development unless X at this point. I do think, though, that we ought to be negotiating any discussions, any development with a hard and sharp eye toward the needs of the community. So, you know, yeah, we get it, Kate and I get it and we're concerned about the balance. And I think that's what you meant if I understood you correctly. Karen? So I also want to speak about Trinity.  And I was really offended by it because it's all about the money that UVM brings, but it doesn't talk about what UVM has done. I live on Henry Street. I've been there, I don't know, almost 40 years, 38 years. And, you know, I've been so lucky, so lucky that we have, you know, really, we have rentals and we have homeowner homes, but they're all like everybody respects everybody. We are not like some other areas where we've got some rental properties that are just really rundown and, you know, loud. I mean, there's a lot of problems. And I think UVM has done little to really help with that. I mean, I've walked with so many of the presidents, you know, around our neighborhoods to show them the properties. But anyway, what they are doing, their current plan is to increase the first year class size to 3,000 and build housing to accommodate these first year students. They are not, and so the problem with that is that in two years, those first year students are gonna be on my street looking for a place to live. So this to me is what we have to stop because, you know, unless we have an MOU and UVM will commit to also housing juniors and seniors at Trinity, we can't, you know, and I feel like that was really clear. I went to the planning commission meeting and I heard them, Alex friend was the only one who voted against it, but all the planning commissioners said they were approving this, passing this onto the council, but they all recognized we needed an MOU to protect the neighborhoods, protect the whole community with the housing prices. So I think that's what Carol's getting at is that we want a counselor that is gonna really fight hard for us because, you know, really, to me, we can't let this happen without having housing for upperclassmen also on the campus. Yeah, you know, Karen, I heard one of the things you said was, you know, the difference between Henry Street, which I love, my kid's absolute favorite trick-or-treating street in some of our other areas. And I was at an NPA meeting for Ward 8 a couple of weeks ago and was hearing from some folks in Ward 8 on this issue. And, you know, the MOU I hear you on, but I also think we should be thinking creatively about other pressure points. So I was talking to someone who suggested, you know, one of our issues perhaps in the city is that we do not have enough robust code enforcement going on, you know, why not see if the University of Vermont who does have a lot of students in her communities, and not just juniors and seniors anymore now. I think it seems like it's bleeding even more. Why shouldn't they pay for some code enforcement to make sure that these buildings are safe and kept up and rigorously maintained and put some pressure on some of the landlords who not only make so much money, but also make it so difficult for people to move to Burlington who just cannot compete with the rent that this housing distortion has created. So I think that there are a lot of areas to work on, what you're not gonna hear from me are sort of bold promises that I won't be able to deliver on. I'm a careful person, I'm a deliberate person. I don't know, frankly, how much leverage we can really bring to the University, but I will promise that I'm gonna do it as much as I can and explore it rigorously. Code enforcement, yeah, it needs to be stronger, but the flip side of that coin is zoning enforcement far too extreme, very little leniency. You know, the first day I went canvassing, I started on Henry Street because it's such a lovely neighborhood. I knew I was in good company there. And I was talking to a fellow who just moved onto that street and he was saying, I wanna put a solar array on my roof because that's like it's perfect, it's at the right angle, it's facing in the right direction. People will hardly even notice that it's there. I wanna do the right thing for my community, for the planet and my family, but my house is old, it's got like one of those little placards on it and there's a chimney. Chimney hasn't been used in 50, 60, who knows how many years. You can't even see it from most angles, but we must preserve the character of the neighborhood. We cannot remove the chimney so that we can put solar panels on this home. Yeah, I think that's why I say so often. We need to be more human with each other, right? Like we need to be more open to granting variances. It takes a while to change things, right? But there are bodies in our city that exist in large part to grant variances so that people could do the things that we need to do to meet our needs. So I guess, like I kinda wanna bring this back to Suresh a little bit, who makes $860,000 a year, throw in the free parking and the free house over a million dollars a year. And so I think it's like a lot of people in the city, they think about these problems in a very intellectual way. That's why Suresh is really great at taking care of the low-income undergrads and making sure that tuition is very affordable for certain populations. And a lot of scholarships are provided to certain populations because it's an intellectual understanding of these issues that we face in this city. But we need to work together to understand each other and to respect each other. And that's why I'm so disheartened by all of the resistance I see to these community-led ballot items because it's a fundamental disregard for the people who are dealing with the pain, presenting their solution for how to heal it. It's saying, no, the people who can make the big political contributions, we know what you need. Don't worry, we'll take care of you. That's it. I think Sharon, you've got a question. I do. I wanted to ask both of you. Do you support putting a cap on the number of students that UVM can bring in? I think that you've drifted away from the MOU. The MOU was really specific. There are other initiatives that can tap into funding for different proposals than we do. And the mayor has worked with the university to extract some funding for infrastructure, et cetera, and for some services. So there are like fire services, et cetera, et cetera. But the MOU really dealt with the number of, when the student body grew, the university had to add a bed. And that has now gone by the wayside. So when Karen Long was talking about when we have more students after their sophomore year, they dump into the community, that will be a, we will never get a handle on this unless we have a honest and frank conversation with UVM about capping their enrollment. And I want to know both of your positions on that, please. Yeah, Sharon, you'll have to forgive me for getting away from the prompts a little bit. Compared to the special election, when we had very many, I believe five community forums and they were all about an hour to two hours long. We have two half hour forums at this point. And a lot of my opinions are out there on the record. So I apologize for deviating from the script, but that's why I have said before, and I will say it again, I fully support a cap on students. But what's more, I think that we in the city should invest in a municipally owned development, so that we can build the housing for ourselves. And I also believe that we should have a strong, well-funded tenants union to protect the people living in these units. Sharon, I don't mean to respond to your question with a question, but can I ask, when the original MOU was negotiated, what leverage did the city use to extract that promise from the University of Vermont to go for one bed to one student?  We would held the zoning permit. It had to do with development. Earhart can speak to it because he was on the city council with me. But anyways, we would held something. So when the university comes to the city because they want something, that is the time, that's the only time that they're willing to negotiate. I have to say sadly. And so that we have to seize that opportunity to have those conversations and collectively, I mean, it's in both of our best interests to make progress on this. And I just wanted to know your position on capping the enrollment. Thank you. So I absolutely agree that when the university comes to the city and wants something, that that's our time to negotiate. And if we had the leverage to extract that promise and we could do so without the likelihood of years of expensive litigation, I would certainly wanna press as hard as we could. But the devil is in the details. Always and you never wanna overplay your hand either. So answering in the abstract, I think is difficult. But if the principle of sustainable growth of the university or growth that is consistent with the integrity of our neighborhoods and the size of our neighborhoods is what we're talking about, I am 100% behind it. And as someone who lives here and owns a home here and has a huge stake in the integrity of our neighborhoods, it is a top issue for me. Thanks. Ian, do we have a question? Sure. In this context, I have a very blunt question having represented this community and having cared about it as you do Jake for several decades now. And Tim, my having concern like you about the direction of this city, I wanna ask a very blunt question. I want each of you to give me your frank assessment of the current administration because my concern about the direction of the city has involved a number of things, everything from the park to the giveaway of Burlington Telecom that we created and built and the data that we have about the public safety problems that we have now, I think they are squarely at the feet of the current administration. And I would like to know what you think. So I'll tell you, Dean, my current principal concerns about the city and where we at start with the East district. Kate and I, and I think this has been shared by many of the folks that I've met over the last couple of weekends, canvassing and friends and neighbors in the community have been profoundly disappointed and profoundly worried that we in the East district have lacked our full complement of representatives on the city council. We were surprised from our perspective, it seemed to come out of nowhere that we went from, in the East district as a total, three people on the city council did down to one. And I think that that has had a lot to do. I think that's played a big part in these issues in the hard feelings with respect to redistricting. And so that has been a big concern of mine that lately in my neighborhood and in my district, we have not had full representation. With respect to what I think about the administration as a whole, I think that there are compliments to be paid all around. And I think there's some blame to be paid all around. And it really depends upon what issue you're talking about. I don't agree with everything that the mayor has done. I don't agree with everything that the city council has done. And so it really depends on what issue you're talking about. Can you give any more detail? Sure, public safety. So I'm really concerned about public safety. And I'm sensing that you and I might disagree on this. So let me just tell you bluntly. I think that the decision to slash police funding and reduce the size of the police department was a terrible mistake. I think it was a well-intentioned decision, but I think it was a mistake. And I think the reduction in the number of police officers has had a negative effect on our city. I do not think that it is the sole reason that we're facing a public safety crisis right now. I think it is a complicated problem, a multifaceted problem with many different aspects to it, the public health issue with respect to addiction, socioeconomic disparity, but I think public safety and law enforcement and a police department that's well-trained and right-sized for our city is critical to the health and wellbeing of our city. I worry about my son in downtown Burlington right now. I know mayor worries about her daughters. And I think that that, frankly, falls squarely at the feet of some decisions that were made by the city council. I think we can rebuild. I think we're in the process of rebuilding. I think it's more productive, frankly, to look forward rather than to look backward and talk about blame. And if elected, I think that's what people are gonna want me to do is work to sort of address the problems going forward rather than point the fingers backward. Dave, can you repeat your question for Dave, please? Assessment of the current administration. Jake, that's it. Yeah, I think it's funny, like in a not funny way that, you know, it has to be on the platform, right? Like what's your thoughts on housing?  Like as a young man or a young human, you know, I was an intern on Murrow's campaign. That was my first foray into electoral politics. I was like, I don't know about this guy, but you know, I want to be in the room and kind of learn how it happens. Yeah, he campaigned on housing, a lack of housing. I vote for me, I'm gonna fix this issue. What happened? A whole decade passed and we are in the same exact place. So I mean, like I hold a cognitive dissonance, right? Like you want to believe the best. So it's like, I see, you know, a police department that hurts people, but most of them don't and they all want to be there for the right reasons. I see a mayor, I don't know what's going on. I think he's trying, but I don't understand what's going on in his mind. Like who is whispering into his ear that he makes certain choices to me that really just boggle my mind, right? It's like the priorities. We were told on Monday. Yeah, well, we tried to, you know, we tried to start a conversation in January of 2021 about a community oversight board and we were gonna do it, but then we didn't. So it's like, what happened, right? Like where did the momentum go? What is the, what is the design, right? And it makes me think of City Hall Park. Somebody mentioned, Karen mentioned City Hall Park earlier. It was like a pet project of the Palmer Lowe's who pays for so many of the Democratic candidates, financial contributions, the Palmer Lowe's. It's like who is running our city? Is it the rich and powerful and elite or is it the people? So my assessment of Murrow is that I think at one time he was a good guy trying to do the right thing, but I don't know what happened. Something happened somewhere along the line. And I just, I have a hard time believing that he really has the best interests of the community as his number one priority. All right, thanks. We got a question from the hero. Yeah. Nice to meet you, Tim. Thanks for, it's so different when you have a real mic. You got a whole, and I appreciate both your comments. So I do have a, oops, sorry, do have a question. And it's about the ballot initiatives. I'd like to hear from each of you how you're gonna vote on what I would consider probably the three more most controversial ones. One being the police, the police initiative. The other being ranked choice voting. And the third being the voter initiative on the ballot. And before the answer, I just wanna say I really, Tim, appreciate your concerns about your children and their safety downtown. And I know May and I have talked about this as well. Let me just say that for as a father of a young black man who grew up in this town and now lives in Baltimore, I am concerned when my son comes back to town because one of his high school friends was brutalized by our police and has a life-changing traumatic brain injury. And that's the other side of some of the fears that people have about their children in our city. But my question's about the three ballot items. Thank you, Erhard for saying that. Thank you, Erhard. Well, I ended the last one and we, right? We were, or did I lose track? I'm very tired right now. Okay, Tim, then you're on. Erhard, thank you so much. So let me take them one by one and I know people are fading and so I'll try and be brief. You talked earlier in the meeting about the message coming across from the commission and what you said, I believe, to correct me if I get you wrong, you said that from your perspective, even if it wasn't perfect and even if the legislature wasn't going to support it or you didn't think that they would support it, you really wanted to send a clear message that police accountability and police oversight was really, really important to our community. That is also a message that I have been hearing for the last few years in my close circle of community members. It's something that I've been hearing recently now that I'm, I guess I'm hard for me to believe as a long-time wallflower that I'm a politician, but it's something that I've been hearing a lot lately and it is a message that I agree with and that really resonates with me. The Burlington Police Department has to do a tremendous amount of work to repair relationships with this community. This community demands police accountability. It demands a rigorously trained police department, rigorously trained in de-escalation techniques, rigorously trained in implicit and explicit bias, and it should be held accountable, should be held to the highest standards. I do not believe that the commission as proposed in the ballot is the right tool to achieve those ends. I don't think it's fair to the police officers. I believe it will hurt our ability to recruit the best and the brightest. And I share a lot of the, and I won't repeat them, but I share a lot of the procedural technical, which I think are more than just technical, but the detailed criticisms that Sharon Busher brought. So I'm against it, but I am in favor of rigorous police reform and rigorous police accountability. And I would just say to everybody who feels really passionately about this, which I think is everybody, I would be inclined not to go with a law or a change that is wrong just because we feel impatient or we feel that things haven't moved fast enough over the last two years. This is really, really important stuff. It has really profound ramifications on people's lives, people who are abused by the police, but also this community that needs to be safe. So I'm against it. Number two, the referendum voting. Ranked choice voting. Ranked choice voting, I'm in favor of, I hope that they explain it more because I find it very confusing. All right, number three, referendum. I'm against it. And here's why as quickly as I possibly can, I worry that it is going to unleash, Jake talked about the influence of money. I think we look hard at places that have this, look hard at California, look hard at what Prop 13 has done in California since 1978. This is, I am a huge fan and as a sort of lawyer government geek of representative democracy, not perfect, but I don't think this is good for our community. And I've been listening to people, not everybody agrees that it's the right thing to do. Thanks, Jerry. Yeah, I'll go quick. But can somebody tell me real quick what's the population of California? Anybody? Yeah, like tens of millions, tens of millions. Yeah, they don't all know each other. We all know each other. We all have relationships. We respect each other and we can engage in dialogue. That is why that argument does not hold water. Also, look at Winooski. They've had Prop zero for a number of years already. Thank you, Erhard for saying what you said. I think it's important to note because as we talk about the police department, reforming public safety, community oversight of police, it is important to recognize that, yes, both sides feel aggrieved, but one side, their sense of feeling aggrieved is based on their identity. They cannot change. A police officer, if they feel like the community, it does not respect them. They feel unsafe in this community. They can get a different job. And I think that we need to recognize who we must prioritize in this conversation. So yes, I will support the community oversight board. Yes, I will support ranked choice voting. Yes, I will support Proposition Zero. Proposition Zero, by the way, there's, you know, if we have different competing ideas, right, then you can have ranked choice ballot measures. And we could be doing that. And we could be having that conversation with community oversight of police. We could have competing ideas of how we implement community oversight of police. But I just wanna say we can't talk only about those airheart because I have to highlight the contradictions. If you support ranked choice voting and you support all resident voting, but you also support redistricting, cuts into three, the most diverse neighborhood in the state, the neighborhood where I bought my first home and lived for three years, the character of that neighborhood suffers because it is continually divided. And to everyone in this room, I noted before that everyone said non-citizen voting, please don't refer to it as non-citizen voting. That is a negative way of framing it. It says what these people don't have, please use the preferred terminology, all resident voting, all legal resident voting. Well, I put the legal in brackets because that's also another thing. But so, and I apologize, we've run over, but I'd like each of you to summarize in one minute. Go for it. We must restore our sense of humanity. All right. I'm here and I'm really excited to talk to you all. So I look forward to meeting with you more and having more discussion and thank you so much. All right, thank you. Thank you, Tens. Nice to meet you.