What transparency in healthcare is sort of a, it's a buzzword.  For me and our organization, what we're thinking that means is, on one hand, accountability. So sometimes, even though it's uncomfortable, hospital administrators, medical professionals, when they see their numbers compared to other hospitals numbers and other providers' numbers, they make changes. And the other thing is being able to engage with consumers in a meaningful way, using data and transparency. So that's this idea of creating a culture where a woman doesn't feel pressured to have a C-section, where she knows that if she wants to give birth on her terms, she will have a better chance of doing that. And she was a hospital that might be more suited to their preferences and values. You know, we all have the same goal here, which is to keep moms safe so that they can be healthy and strong to raise their babies.


f the public engagement that needs to happen at that next phase. From an administrative standpoint, there's something nice about making it simple. That said, many people have unique situations. They may have a large yard and can compost in their yard and therefore really only want trash and recycling. And with composting added to the collection, essentially you're reducing your garbage anyway. So what might have been a weekly pickup could now be in every other week pickup for trash because you're eliminating that waste stream out of here. Councilor Jay. Thank you, President Tracy, and thank you again for being here. The public engagement piece, I think it's very important. And it seems there has been some that has been done, but I wanted to know the new public engagement you referred to, how it's gonna look like and also what's the timeline of that? Yes, Lee, do you wanna go back two slides, I think? Our thought was to take four to six months to engage the public. Here we go, we talked about completing in early 2022 this public engagement. And our thought was it would be a mix of online engagement and in-person engagement where we could have a dialogue around what people's needs are. There are many unique situations. Do people need backdoor pickups? Are they space constrained?  So those are some of the things we hope to hear. The other question that I have is specific to if we go to the, with the private holders, you know. How many years do we need to pilot the program with them? How long? Great, maybe Jennifer, Jennifer, yeah, you wanna? Jennifer, can you hear us? Great, so Jennifer, the question from Councillor Jang was how long do you need to pilot? Can you pilot consolidated collection and what's the minimum term that you would need to do to kind of run a functioning program? Thank you so much. And I have Sam Lybrandt on also and I'm gonna ask Sam for a comment on that. Sam, did you hear the question? I did hear it, Sam. It would be useful to have it repeated, please. Okay, Sam, the question was around piloting consolidated collection and whether it could be piloted, what the minimum duration of a time period would be to successfully run a period of a franchised collection? Get the best possible effect of the city of Wellington. Is you need to have a contract in effect or the potential for a contract of a minimum of five years, preferably seven to eight years. Otherwise, if you do something less than that, contract term, the companies that have been on or submit proposals provide those services. We'll have to spread the cost of a far smaller time period. This will increase the city of Wellington's time. You will spend some significant funds going through the process. May also, if you have a small window pilot program of about two years or something, end up confusing your residents. I think it would be probably not the best way to proceed because of the waste of resources and time, the fact that most of your private companies may not view it as a detractive option to submit proposals for. So I would recommend minimum of five, probably with five to seven, certainly seven years is the optimum time. That's my opinion of having been in the business for a long time. Did I answer the question? Yes, I'm just hearing opinion and I don't know who is talking. What is, who is talking? Okay, this is Sam Lybrand. He is a consultant with GBB who did the franchise Consolidate Collection study for the city of Burlington and South Burlington. Yep, I don't know because he's speaking from his opinion and I was wondering, this is a question for one of the private haulers themselves, a direct question to them, and maybe you can find out. Right, and Councillor Jang is asking what the perspective of the private haulers would be and understanding having discussed this with Sam to paraphrase Sam, my understanding is that the private haulers would not be interested in bidding on something, generally experience of private haulers around the country without having a term period significant enough to be worth their investment to set up a contract and to make a certain amount of money over that time. And what Sam was saying is that five years is a minimum that contractors kind of would see it worth their effort. His fear is if we try to do a pilot, no one may bid or we may get one bid enforced into or we just taking the one bid we got. Sam, is that consistent with your perspective? Yes, it was much better presented than I did. Yes, very good, Chief. And I would just add it was significant in the amount of the costs for a shorter term. Yes, I agree with you, Clayton. Okay, thank you. Yes, Councillor Jang. Thank you, and I think the other question that I have is specific to the municipal option. If the argument that I'm hearing, I don't think they are valid because six million, it will take us, let's just think about how we put six million dollars in a park. People use, you know, recycle, people do all of that. This is this culture, people buy things, people need to have garbage, they need to get recycled, need to, we start to 148, the need is there. To me, six million is too much from taxpayers is not a valid argument. What we need to do is to work on this public engagement plan, you know, have a total one in order for the community members to definitely have a say that is strong and valid. So just wanted to add that. Thank you, President Tracy. Thank you. I don't have any other councillors in the queue. Anyone else? Councillor Stromberg. Thanks. Thanks everyone, this is really great. I just wanted to kind of point out one, I'm obviously a supporter of consolidating. I think that's great for efficiency and kind of the direction we need to move into as a city. But I am really worried about the labor perspective. I think municipal really does generate the most jobs. And you know, I think also that that's the most democratic like process in terms of our waste. And it can make sure that it's compost, trash and recycling. And I think with the hybrid model, it's only recycling and that's, like I think we can be a little bit more bold than that. The hybrid model is a great backup, but I want to see us really push and try for the municipal model, because it does give us more local control and it does, it is the most democratic. And I feel like I hear a lot of like, we need more public input, but like then we eventually don't need more public input because we can put this in front of voters and we can kind of have that input. So I value that. And I think that that is something that I do want to see in front of voters with the bond. And I agree with councilor Jang with six million being, it sounds like a lot. And I understand that it is a lot in many ways, but I think that this is so worth it with the city our size and what this can do in a long term and even medium term, honestly. So thank you. Mayor. Thank you President Tracy. And thank you Lee and Chapin for the hard work, really extensive hard work over sustained period of time to bring forward this proposal tonight and these fleshed out different options for the city to consider. And I welcome the partnership of the council and bring this forward as well. And it's my hope that we can continue in that partnership. I think this is an exciting moment for making that we could bring about in a relatively short period of time, very substantial change that as councilors have suggested have been supported for, there's been great interest in this for many years and now we're on the cusp where we could really make something quite transformative happen and we could achieve very significant environmental benefits, very significant cost saving benefits for our constituents. And also improve workplace standards. And I think the way to achieve in the near future those benefits is from my perspective and I am trying to stay open. I appreciate the conversation tonight and we'll certainly be interested and continue to engage conversations but from where the administration stands right now, the route to achieve in the near term all those benefits is through the franchise model. The municipal model, I think put will, if it is what the council wants to consider, will break down that collaboration that has marked this effort up until now and be done over the objection of the administration if that is where the council goes, which for these reasons, from my perspective and from the leadership team's perspective, the benefits that can be achieved basically very comparably through either model. I think there are some details to probe into if arguments come forward that suggest somehow the environmental benefits are much greater with the municipal model that would be new information. It's very different from what the team believes at this point which the environmental benefits can be are comparable. The negatives to the municipal model from my perspective are very substantial. We are talking about the city getting into essentially two new businesses. We do not currently, we're not in the business of handling waste, we are not in the business of handling composting. These are challenging competitive businesses that the city would be moving to enter. We have seen in our recent history the challenges of the city competing in a competitive marketplace. This is one that would have greater protections for the city perhaps than the telecommunications industry but it would nonetheless be the city entering putting capital, the taxpayers' capital at stake in a competitive marketplace. It would be the taxpayers' capital. Let's be clear about that too. We're talking about general obligation authority being used to make the millions of dollars. We say six million dollars now could certainly expand as we get farther into this. That's generally the way capital projects, the direction they go. The only option would be for general obligation funds to be used for that unless we were to go through the step of creating a legally separate charter changed, endorsed, separate entity, enterprise fund. That to get there we are talking about as we have seen recently perhaps years of effort in a contested legislative context of trying to get this charter changed through when there would certainly, for my sense, be people lobbying, objecting to that change in Montpelier. So again, from my perspective we can have essentially all of the social benefits that everyone envisions here. The environmental benefits, the labor benefits, the savings through this franchise model. I think it's, you can see in the numbers why a significant majority of the municipalities that have grappled with this question have come down in favor of the franchise model and barring new information. I think that's where the administration is gonna be when this comes to a decision. So it's my hope that we can find ways of working together to ensure that the resolution that's passed by this council and then the insuring contracts are as strong as possible on those environmental and labor fronts as opposed to a sustained dispute between the administration and the council as to whether this is a wise initiative to pursue. Thanks President Tracy. Thank you mayor, any further comments? Ready to vote? Okay, let's vote on the, not on this issue. We're not voting on consolidated collection, let's be clear. Just on accepting the communication and placing it on file. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All right, any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you very much for the presentation and answering all the questions. Very much appreciate it. Can you just clarify when, what the next steps will be? We are gonna answer the questions that we heard from you all tonight. We'll put those in written communication and we will work with the administration, Councilor President Tracy to figure out when our return is at a meeting in August hopefully. Thank you. Thank you Sam and Jennifer, bye bye. That brings us to item 6.06 review of Sex Worker Charter Change Section and Ordinances, Councilor Freeman. Thank you, I move to waive the reading and adopt the resolution and I'll ask for the four black back after a second. Moved by Councilor Freeman, seconded by Councilor Hanson.  Thank you, I'm really excited to be bringing this forward tonight. It's something that I've been passionate about for quite some time. I think there was one point, I think initially after being elected where I was sort of scanning through all the ordinances in charter and it flagged for me, but I think as many of us know who are in this role, we are often just glorified volunteers and there are only so many projects in a day. So it was something that was on the back of my mind to work on and to bring forward. I was extremely excited by the state legislature. There's various folks working on this on a state level. And then basically last March when the shooting in Atlanta happened and we brought forward a resolution that focused on the sort of racialized aspects of that, the racist aspects of that violence. What else flagged for me was just the way in which those victims were targeted because of their proximity to doing sex work and just the sort of broader, the broader issues around gender-based violence. And so I went back and I looked at the section, the ordinance and I'll read it again and I was like, oh yeah, it's extremely antiquated. So it's more so used the term sex work but I'll use the word prostitution because that's what's in our city ordinance. So it's section 2133 labeled prostitution and it shall be unlawful for any female to be a prostitute, apply the vocation of a prostitute in the city or subject her person to prostitution and no male shall associate and consult with such female for the purpose of prostitution. And then there's another section called keeping house of prostitution. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep a house of prostitution, permit prostitution in any house or building he may occupy, be an inmate of any house of ill fame or in any manner contribute to the support or maintenance of any house of ill fame. It shall also be unlawful for any person having control of any house or building to lease or rent the same to any prostitute to be kept as a house of ill fame. So there were, you know, there's a lot of issues around that, of course, you know, the assumption of gender and that language is problematic.  I think overall though, and the reason why this is proposed as a strike all is because I do really support the effort to decriminalize. It's a way to make people so much safer. Sex work is incredibly and can be incredibly dangerous. It's just, there's so much research, there's so much evidence. I think some of the folks who spoke about it also tonight around why this just allows people to be safe. I think at a bare minimum, for me, I want sex workers to be safe. I also think sex workers are amazing people and they deserve to be celebrated and the stigmatization around it just is something that we need to push through and move ahead with and destigmatizing it and really supporting folks who are doing work in our community. So I was excited that a lot of the counselors and the administration indicated, you know, support or at least interest in the topic. I didn't really know what to expect. I'd never really talked about it with anyone on the council so I really, really appreciate that. It's really, it's wonderful. I hope that if it's not a unanimous vote that it maybe will be near unanimous. I also just want to quickly thank Julie Masuga who spoke tonight who helped me put this together as well as the city attorney's office who supported putting the resolution together and a former senior city assistant attorney, Jean Bergman, who also often helps me with these types of things. I want to quickly put in two changes, if that's okay, which is a little clunky and then I'm sure if other folks want to speak on it. We can, so one was a request, so it's, I'll just do it as one entire amendment. I had a request to extend the timeline a little bit so I'll include that and then also I got feedback that on line, line four that there were better terms to use so I'll move to change on line four, the terms buyer and seller to client and worker and I'll move on line 44 to change the date from September 27th to October 25th of 2021. Okay, so we have a motion to amend, is there a second to that? Seconded by Councilor Stromberg, discussion on the amendment. Okay, seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor of the, Councilor Mason. That went faster than I expected. Can I ask a question of the city attorney relating to, because I tried to pull out the ordinances to figure this out. Based on my review, just to help, if this does get referred to Oran's committee, these appear to be- Councilor Mason, if you could just hold that question for getting back to, we're just on the amendment right now, so- Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, we're just on the amendment, so let's take care of the amendment. That's why I went so fast, thank you. Yeah, so we'll get back to the- Forgive me, my apologies. Yeah, one second. So any further discussion on the amendment? Okay, let's go to a vote on that. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Now, Councilor Mason. My apologies for my timing. In looking at the code of ordinances, these appear to be viola- offenses that are on the books, but there does not seem to be a penalty for them, at least in the penalty section, or included in the ordinance. So, am I misreading that, or is that not correct? Well, I haven't been involved in this issue, but I would assume that they would be, if not otherwise listed, the, I believe it's section one, nine, maybe they would be the general violations is what I would assume, but I haven't, I have not been tasked with looking at that for these yet, but generally the title, the chapter 21 ordinances are do fall into there. So, I do. Okay, we can, we'll follow up after. Yes, absolutely. Let me think. Thank you. Oh, can I just finish? Councilor Finan. Thank you. So, and I just wanted to bring up really quickly, just because I know that sometimes these things can seem really abstract, and how are they, like, how is this impacting people on the local level? And I, are right in the city, and I did find an article that talked about someone who was doing sex work in Burlington who was harmed by a client, and there was no, you know, and of course, there's no pressure I think for folks to engage with law enforcement if they choose not to, but I think the fact that it's, that's criminalized makes people really afraid, and that's something that just, it terrifies me, it terrifies me that someone could be hurt badly by someone, and not feel like they have even the ability to talk about it publicly. So, yeah, that's all, and thanks everyone for, for, yeah, for your consideration. Any further Councilor Carpeter? Just, I am supportive of resolution, but in the resolve clause where it refers it to ordinance and strikes out prostitution, there are other terms there that I'm not familiar with, like vagrants and disorderly people. As the ordinance committee looks at this, is it possible for them to look at that as well? I'm not really making it as an amendment, but it's just a, it's all lumped in there together, and I guess I would suggest they also look at that. Great, thank you, Councilor Stromark. Thanks, President Tracey. Thank you, Councilor Freeman, for bringing this forward tonight. This may, you know, I'm kind of talking, guess more to the broader public, but this might be a controversial topic. I've had conversations with people who definitely believe so, and I do just kind of want to urge us to like really pan out and really look at it as a whole, and that this is not a controversial concept. We're talking about the safety of human beings who are at work, who are working, and decriminalizing sex work is something that seems honestly very obvious to me in this community. I feel like that's something that is, it should be built in, and it should be like safe, but it's absolutely not, and I think that sex workers deserve the same legal protections as any other human beings. And I completely believe that no one should be living in fear of violence or arrest, especially doing work that's, this is not even criminal. And so, innately, I should say. So, you know, there's one thing that the ACLU had kind of on their website about this, that I just, I do want to reiterate because this is a point that Councillor Freeman had just made, but digs in a little bit deeper just for the public, just to know how meaningful this is, but it says that the criminalization of sex work feeds the mass incarceration system by putting more people in jail unnecessarily. Those incarcerated tend to be trans and or people of color, two groups that are already disproportionately incarcerated. One in six trans people have been incarcerated and one in two trans people of color. That's an incredible statistic, and it's terrifying, honestly. And so, that's my introduction, back to the quote. Incarceration is violent and destructive for everyone and even more so for trans people. While incarcerated, trans people are often aggressively misgendered, denied healthcare, punished for expressing their gender identity and targeted for sexual violence. So, and arrests on charges of sex work can result in life changing consequences that last long past the end of a sentence.  And it can also lead to deportation for immigrants. And members of the trans community and sex workers already face discrimination in many of these systems.  This is absolutely a step in the right direction and I urge all my colleagues here tonight and our community to support this resolution. I think this is incredibly meaningful and I appreciate the work of Councilor Freeman and their outreach efforts on this. This is a sensitive topic and it's one that, it's hard to get a public poll on. So, I just, I really do appreciate that in the research of Julie who you had mentioned who spoke earlier. So, thank you for doing this really important work and yeah, I'll be proudly supporting this resolution tonight. Thank you. Any further comments? Councilor Hudson, go ahead. Yeah, I would definitely agree with everything that Councilors Freeman and Stromberg have said. And I think the Councilor Carpenter's points really highlight just how incredibly outdated this ordinance is and this language is and it's a really long overdue discussion and I'm really grateful that Councilor Freeman has taken the lead and ensured that we're tackling this issue especially given some of the really alarming reporting at least that I've seen from seven days over the last several years on sex trafficking in Burlington around the state and as well, I'm glad that there's been work underway at the state level as well. I'm glad that we're hopefully moving in concert with some of the efforts at the state level to yeah, try to address sex trafficking and sexual violence and harm related to sex work in Vermont. Thanks. Any mayor? Go ahead. Thank you, President Tracey. I wanted to voice appreciation to Councilor Freeman for her leadership on this issue and her outreach to the administration. The administration supports this modernization of the city charter and hope that the ordinance committee if it's charged with this will work to repeal or amend any language that is discriminatory towards women, to sex workers and to victims of sex crimes. I think this further, I think this change will bring the charter and our formal ordinances more in line with the actual work that the city has been doing for many years. In the nine years that I've been in this office, I've not seen, I'm not aware of the BPD attempting to use this language to pursue sex workers. I am aware of us attempting to protect victims of sex trafficking. And I think this strengthens in the charter that being the focus of law enforcement activity and is consistent with statewide efforts and really kind of I think is leading on statewide efforts to make similar changes to state statute. So I think this is an important and impactful modernization that I and the administration fully support. Thanks Mayor, any further comments? Okay, seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor of the resolution, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Brings us to our next item, 6.07, divestment from weapons manufacturers. Councilor Stromberg. Thanks President Tracey. I'd like to waive the reading and adopt the resolution, the final revised resolution. And I'd request the floor back after a second, please. We have a motion from Councilor Stromberg and a second from Councilor Hightower.  Thanks so much. So this is the second divestment resolution that I've brought forth to this council for consideration. I don't want to oversimplify things but I'm a firm believer in investing what you want and divesting from what you don't want. Money as much of, capitalism kind of bothers me sometimes but I have to say money does have impact. And I feel like we can be using every cent possible to invest in things that don't involve violence, symbolize threats or terror but rather peace and the direction that we really honestly just need to go in as a society but also just for the environment as well. So I feel like any organization that has investments in, like universities and nonprofits and companies and local governments, any organization that has investments all have enormous potential to influence large weapon producing companies and especially nuclear weapon producing companies. A lot of these institutions usually have investments and pension funds and things like that as we see in this city. And I want to just kind of mention that Cambridge, Massachusetts in 2016 their city council voted to divest their one billion dollar pension fund from nuclear weapons and I think that that's a well-known city, municipality obviously and that's a direction that we're seeing more and more people go into. So I think that this seems again it's one of those things that seems obvious to me but that could just be me but I do want to just kind of lay out what this resolution does and I'm happy to answer questions about it but it does say that the city council formally declares its opposition to investing city funds and any private entities that are involved in the direct production or upgrading of weapons and weapons systems used by military forces whether conventional or nuclear and decides that it shall be city policy to divest from such entities. This resolution also shall be binding city policy and be in full force and effect after adoption by the city council and that the city council directs any and all persons acting on behalf of city investment activity with regard to funds other than those held by the Burlington employees retirement system which is the BERS board which is obviously what we kind of did through the divestment process for the climate divestment resolution and this would enforce the provisions of this resolution so that board would be in charge of that. It also requests that the board of finance report on the extent of the city's non-BERS investments in weapons manufacturers if any as soon as possible but in any event no later than the city's last January 2022 meeting so this revised version the one that I had originally sent in it said 2021 so this is one of the very minor changes that I made and made it correct and the city council this resolution says that the city council requests that the BERS board provide it with a current accounting of the investments in the investments portfolio that are invested in any weapons manufacturers including non-stock investments as soon as possible but in any event obviously no later than the meeting in January 2022 that seems far away but it's not and then finally it states that the city council requests that the BERS commit to full divestment from weapons manufacturers and outlines a timeline by which the divestment will be completed and by the councils you know hopefully by the councils last meeting obviously same date January of 2022 and report to the council on the feasibility of one making an annual analysis and review of weapons manufacturer investments in the investment portfolio two making an annual review of weapons manufacturer free investment product availability and three and this is very important in terms of just kind of us leading the way in the world accessing what other public entities are doing with regard to weapons manufacturer investments so that was a lot I'm sorry but it is dense and rightly so I do wanna thank the organizers behind this effort and the councilors who gave me really helpful feedback in this process of crafting this resolution which is actually you know it's crafted from a larger national resolution movement on this topic so this is not really unique it's just been slightly crafted to Burlington and I do wanna really thank Councillor Carpenter and Councillor Paul for your feedback I really try to incorporate as many changes and you know to strengthen this resolution as much as possible and I also know former city attorney Blackwood is not here and hopefully on vacation but she also deserves a thank you in this so I do hope this resolution passes this evening it's a topic that means a great deal to the future of our community you know everything that we stand for honestly the direction we wanna go in in terms of peace and the trajectory of our planet's environmental health so thank you very much. Thank you Councillor Stromberg, are there Councillor Shana? Thank you President Tracy and thank you Councillor Stromberg for bringing this forward like some other items tonight this feels a long past due for me and I'm actually kind of surprised that Burlington would be investing in weapons manufacturers manufacturing after I mean it is not consistent with our self-identity in any way I don't think so I wondered what are we invested in that we would be divesting in. That's a great question so I don't know off the top of my head like the breakdown I saw obviously like a lot of spreadsheets on this but I know that we have actually I could probably try and pull it up but I believe it was like $2.5 million in a certain stock or company that was supportive of the manufacturing of weapons and nuclear weapons which doesn't sound like a lot but that's money that could be going elsewhere but the point of this resolution is to explore further if we are invested in more than what I found basically and do a deeper dive and research into this so that's really what Atask is here in terms of like the report that we would be getting back in January of next year so yeah so I can't say in black and white exactly what we are invested in that's literally the one of the purposes of this resolution is to explore that and make sure that we're not and if we are then we have a timeline and a plan to divest. So when you say $2.5 million in support of weapons manufacturing actually that does sound like a lot to me and but what's unclear is exactly what that means I'm not sure what in support of weapons manufacturing means so we'll get the report back and then we'll decide kind of where to draw that line at a later date is that correct? Yes, yes, thank you. Any further comments? Councillor Barlow. Thank you and thank you for bringing this resolution forward. I do have some questions though. If you could lean into your mic please. I'm sorry, I'm gonna bring it closer. I do have some questions though. You know when I first saw this resolution being a new Councillor I'm probably not up to speed on many things that the city has here already in place but one of them is investment policies so I reached out to Director Goodwin and he gave me information on both the retirement system and in the city's investment policy and I had some questions around the type of investments that we would be divesting of. Would the, if we were invested in a mutual fund that was pegged to an index and it had a component stock in it there was a hundred stocks in that index and one of them or a couple of them were weapons manufacturers. Would we be divesting of that like industry standard industry standard indexed stock that is part of the prudent investment policies of many portfolios or would we be able to keep that investment because it's almost like you're passively investing because you're investing in the constituent stocks in that index you're not actively making a decision to invest in a weapons manufacturer. They just may happen to be part of an index and so that's something that I'm unclear about and I don't know that I could support divesting of a fund in like a standard and pours index because of general dynamics membership in that index. So I would like to hear a little bit more about that and I know in the retirement fund some of the funds that I saw invested in were index funds that would probably have weapons manufacturers as part of those indexes. So that's one thing I'd like to know and maybe I should just stop and see if I can get an answer to that and then I have a follow up question as well. Sure. Councilor Stromberg? Yeah, thanks. Thanks Councilor Barlow and those are very valid questions. I think again this is the report's purpose is to get that nuanced and so we understand exactly what the dynamics are like if it is one out of a hundred stocks. Ideally personally I feel like that is something that if we were able to divest from and maybe reinvest in something else entirely with I don't know if it's a hundred different stocks that have nothing to do with weapons then yeah that might be the direction that we go in but I don't know all of this so that's why I want this report back because that's gonna really help inform our next steps as a council and as a city. So this is just a commitment to yes eventually we'll divest. How we do so and with what timeline that's what the report is for and that's what the BERS board would be tasked with and the Board of Finance to kind of measure that out so. Thank you and then as a follow up those investments that Director Goodwin provided were he gave me a list of investments it's part of a report on the Burlington employee retirement system but then he also provided a policy and investment policy for non-retirement assets and there's like 12 investment vehicles that can be used and to me it seemed like none of them would even be available to invest in weapons manufacturers and so I was wondering if we even have any investments in weapons manufacturers in non-BERS investments that the city has right now and that's why it would be really helpful to have like an education session maybe another work session on city investments before we decided on something like this. Were you looking for response? If only if one is offered but maybe more of a rhetorical. Okay all right understood thank you. Councilor Mason were you trying to get in? Sure just for a point of clarification as a former member of BERS this body does not get to dictate how BERS invests funds. They're fiduciaries of those dollars. We sort of went through this with climate the first time this council can make a request but at the end of the day the determination as to what to invest in and whether to accept our request is BERS and BERS alone. That is not true Councilor Barlow as you alluded to to other dollars but and I believe the Board of Finance has tasked with that to my knowledge there is no other investments outside of BERS. So just for the public's benefit this I appreciate the request but at the end of the day this tasks BERS with making that evaluation reporting back but it is BERS decision whether to act move out of the index funds understanding and that's part of the conversation we've had before that they are also fiduciaries to the members and trying to ensure that we are able to pay them the pensions that we've promised them. So, thank you. Thank you Councilor Mason, CEO Shatt. Just a clarifying point that aside from investment in BERS it seems unlikely to me and of course we'll do the research as required but that there are city investments in this kind of weapons because all of our city investments are in things like treasury bills and very safe investments our large investments are with BERS. So just a point of clarification there we're happy to do the research but it seems very unlikely that there are additional city funds that would be exposed in this way. Thank you Mayor, were you trying to get in? Okay, thank you. Councilor Hanson. Thanks, yeah, I don't feel like we're making this aspect of the decision tonight what Councilor Balor raised but I would support a full divestment including within mutual funds or other index funds. So I just wanna go on record and say that but I don't feel like this resolution is predetermining that and it also is just a recommendation, so thanks. Thank you, any further comments? Okay, seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Please note that Councilor Balor is a no. All right, the resolution carries brings us to item number 6.08 a resolution on Colchester Avenue. Councilor Hanson. Yeah, I'll move to waive the reading and adopt the resolution. Okay, we have a motion by Councilor Hanson seconded by Councilor Stromberg. Do you want the floor back, Councilor Hanson? If DPW is gone, I can try. I wasn't expecting to present on it, but. Yeah, I didn't expect it. I can do my best shots for the moment. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay, well I can speak a little bit. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, I've been involved in this issue for a while. This is around a redesign of Colchester Avenue, which we had gone through previously in 2019. We had made changes on Colchester Avenue. These are more substantial even than those changes and as you can see in the resolution would create new dedicated bicycle facilities and new pedestrian infrastructure and intersection changes as well that focus on safety and yeah, it really would be pretty cutting edge in terms of the level of service for people trying to get around on bike and the level of safety and comfort. It went through a project advisory committee that I was on and I think Councilor Hightower, maybe it was. The alternate. The alternate on behalf of the Council and this version of it was approved through that and then it came over to the Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee and we advanced it with just one small change which is around essentially leaving the possibility of around about dependent on funding and subject to further conversation but the possibility of around about at the East Avenue intersection. So that's a summary of how we got here and hopefully if people do have questions, hopefully DPW will come back or I can try to field them. Okay, Councilor Carpenter. Chair Bush's comments about the parking removal and the discussion you've had on that. Councilor Hanson. Yeah, this redesign would include removal of on-street parking. It still would retain some on-street parking that would be specifically for short-term parking and that compromise was really around delivery vehicles and Campus Kitchen. I was, you know, we could speak generally about businesses but really there's one key business in question which is Campus Kitchen. There's also Cathy's flowers there but they haven't really expressed concerns but yeah, it would be a diminishment of the existing on-street parking. Yeah, if you can answer that right away. I think that it's from East Ave down to pretty much where Campus Kitchen starts. There's like some on-street parking the North side that would be removed. Currently, it's already not allowed kind of as you round the corner down Coldchester Ave. That's already been eliminated with that. Yeah, the South side. The parking's on the South side right now just for that stretch. We had previously removed parking on the other side as part of that previous change. So this would remove much of the parking that still exists just, yeah, and that one stretched the top of the hill to East Ave. Does that clarify for you? Okay, great. Any, Councilor Shannon? Wouldn't India House still be affected by that as well? Or have they participated in the discussions? Were they sold recently? It's a different business there now, yeah. The parking, the on-street parking is a ways away from that business though. They don't really consider themselves to have accessible on-street customer parking but the businesses were all reached out to as part of this and we didn't hear concern with this proposal. Councilor Mason? Thank you. And I didn't see a diagram so I can't, I'm trying to visualize this. How are we expanding a bike lane but leaving a parking spot in place? I mean, I sort of think of the Pine Street, if you're coming down Pine Street where it sort of goes on the sidewalk in front of Arts Riot, is that, how is that constructed if we're leaving some parking but not all? Yeah, maybe now that we have Director Spencer back can feel that maybe a little bit better than I can but yeah, I'll let him go for it. Thank you. Is the question about the on-street parking that would be preserved? Yeah, we were sort of, if I may jump in, we were talking about following up on Council Bush's comments about some concern. I think Councilor Hanson addressed most of them but indicated that there was going to be some temporary parking left to accommodate Campus Kitchen and my question was really just from a, we don't have a diagram and I wasn't involved so I'm trying to figure out if the purpose of removing the parking was to expand or increase the bike lane, are we narrowing it or what's happening where the parking is not being removed as you had, I guess, I don't know which direction, toward Winooski. Right, so these are conceptual designs, these are not engineered designs so as the engineered design is, as we advance this may change but fundamentally where you are accommodating on street parking, you're losing green belt, you're transitioning from a parking stall to the sidewalk instead of having a tree zone and there is some savings for just the lane widths and the road and not having inconsistent lane widths but having consistent lane width through the corridor so it is tight in that area, it is not a full kind of crate street to having the green space that we want but in that section where parking was expressed to be really important, we found a way, didn't the conceptual design to accommodate it? Thank you, I guess the only other, when you were out, Councilor Hanson did address that there had been outreach done to, follow up on former Council Bushers concerns that no one has talked to neighbors or businesses, Councilor Hanson alluded to that none of the businesses has spoken up or they're content. Have you heard any concerns raised by residents? Councilor Bushers refer to multi-unit buildings that are relying on that, have we? Right, unfortunately I'm not the best person to answer it, Jason Shrest who is the project manager at the RPC is on vacation this week so he's not here and he was the one who led a lot of that outreach. I have not personally received concerns from residents but I was not the express point of contact. Okay, fair, thank you. Okay, any Councilor Hanson? Yeah, I would just add that we did hear a lot of support for the project from members of the public in the committee so and if people wanna look back and there was not only people who showed up to support but there was also a petition that had a couple hundred signatures supportive as well. Okay, any further comments? Okay, let's go to a vote. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Brings us to our final item of the evening which is a resolution regarding the dog task force. Councilor Shannon. Thank you President Tracey. I move to waive the reading and adopt the resolution and ask for the floor back after a second. The motion from Councilor Shannon. Is there a second? Second. Is there a second? Seconded by Councilor Jang.  Thank you. I really wanna give a lot of credit to Councilor Jang for bringing this issue forward. This came to the Council a couple months ago, was referred to the PAC for further work to determine if a dog task force would be appropriate. In the meantime, Councilor Jang had really done a lot of legwork talking to all of the different, all of the different parties and putting together kind of a package of people to bring to the table to engage in this conversation. There's, as many of you know, Burlington has a very high population of dogs on a per resident basis, I think. And there are sometimes conflicts, even between dog owners. So there have been some complaints, particularly in the New North End. There has been past work done that really needs to be revived and revisited. So what we have here is a proposal really to bring stakeholders to the table, including the volunteer coordinator from Star Farm Dog Park, representative from either a dog shelter, dog rescue group or other dog group, a dog trainer, veterinarian or animal health professional, Burlington Police Department Community Resource Office representative, someone from the Parks Department. Two community members, one dog owner, one non-dog owner, and a representative from the Parks Commission, which is something that was added because the Parks Commission has been doing some work on at least a piece of this issue with regards to dog parks. So I appreciate everyone's support in putting this on the agenda tonight. We wanted to, hopefully with your support, start advertising these positions to the public so that we can close the applications by the end of August. And the public appointments would then be made by PAC at our September meeting and allow this process to continue to move forward to work out, hopefully find common ground with these various issues and figure out solutions to problems. Thank you, Councilor Shannon. Any comments on the resolution? Okay, seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. That completes our deliberative agenda for this evening and we have done committee reports and all of those items. So we'll go into, we did have two executive sessions planned for this evening, one having to do with personnel matter and another one having to do with city place redstone mediation. Mayor Weinberger has requested that we go with the city place redstone mediation first and then the personnel matter second. So I will go for that, go in that order. I believe we can make both sets of motions now and then we'll have the different folks who we need for each executive session either leave or come in and those are listed in each of the memos, I mean in each of the motions. So let's go, let's make the motion for the city place first. Mayor, please have a motion. It's a two-part motion, so we need Mayor Weinberger. President Tracey, I'm just wondering if you would like, generally when we do these executive sessions in city place, we try to give as much information to the public ahead of time as possible. Sure. So I didn't know if you wanted me to do that before the motions. Briefly, I just wanted to note a couple of things. First of all, it is, there's been some public discussion I think worth noting again is it pertains to part of what the executive session is going to be about and what the mediation that is going on is about is that we've made substantial progress in recent months. Assembling all of the real estate rights necessary to connect the new streets, the reconnected streets of St. Paul Street and Pine Street. The land for the bulk of, the bulk of the land needed for those streets is now owned by the city, it transferred to the city in May, following the completion and sort of full implementation of the council approved settlement agreement with BTC mall associates. And so with that full implementation, the deeds, the land transferred to the city. Further at the June 28th meeting, this council approved the final, or the near final, the penultimate, the real estate right necessary for building the new Pine Street connection when the council approved an agreement, an option agreement essentially for the purchase of a small slice of the People's Bank lot or a lot that's now actually owned by the new builder there. So the former People's Bank lot. The remaining, the only missing property right is the property right that is currently controlled by 100 Bank Street LLC, a LLC that is controlled by the Redstone Company. And essentially this is the land, that goes through that building that we have long been contemplating that we would secure in one form to build the new street and sidewalk through there. That is one of the topics that has been discussed in the mediation that I convened last week and there will be a second session this week. This is a mediation that seeks to resolve all the disputes or at least a sufficient number of the disputes between the three parties such that the project can move forward. The three parties being the city, 100 Bank Street LLC and BTC mall associates. I reached out to both parties as it became clear that their differences were deepening and hardening and as the city, to our surprise, was drawn into a legal dispute as well several weeks ago and both parties responded positively, favorably to that invitation. And we sat down with Kurt Detman who was the mediator during the last mediation that we did with BTC mall associates that resulted in that settlement. He is again the mediator this time and we met for an entire day last week, I believe it was Wednesday of last week and that was sufficiently productive that we will be having another full day mediation session that I'll be attending as well as representatives of those other two parties and our legal teams as well as Jeff Glasberg who is here tonight tomorrow in the hope that we can bridge the remaining differences and announce soon some kind of settlement agreement that would allow the project to move forward and that would remove the city from any legal exposure in this matter. We don't think we are very legally exposed with this lawsuit, but we are seeking dismissal of that suit. The reason that executive session is necessary is because this is a real estate negotiation, we are interested in being able to talk for really the first time with the council about several financial, a couple financial details that would be very helpful to have the council's feedback on before entering, returning to the negotiating table tomorrow. So that's the update present Tracy. Okay, thank you. And for the other executive session, was there anything you're able to publicly share, Mayor? There at this point, there's nothing additional that we can share. Okay, not even the general topic. It's been announced as a personnel matter. It is a personnel matter that has been widely publicly discussed over the last week. Thank you. Okay, Councillor Pollard, will you please make the motion, motions? So I'm happy to. So this is the motion, sorry. This is the motion relating to the first executive session. So I would move that the council find the premature general public knowledge of information related to the recent confidential mediation session, the city's strategy and legal advice related to the pending litigation with BTC mall associates and 100 bank LLC would put the city at a substantial disadvantage. We have a motion. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Carpenter. Any discussion? Councillor Shandon. Really just a point of order to understand what we're doing. Are we going to go through this motion and then immediately go to the next executive session motion? We won't be going into executive session coming out and then voting again for the. Yeah, exactly. My plan is to have us go through these. I'm just doing them in the order that the executive sessions will take place per the mayor's request to have this, the city place one go first. Thank you. Do we have who will remain in the room? That's the next motion. So we need to discuss this. We need to vote on this first motion. Councillor Mason, did you have something? It's a point of information then note to the attorney's office. I'm not sure. Well, I should first make it disclosure. I will not be participating in this matter due to a professional conflict of interest. In light of that, am I not supposed to vote on going into executive session or do I just not go into executive session? It seems kind of odd for you to vote on it. Okay, so I will be recusing from myself on this vote and not going into executive session on this matter because of a professional conflict of interest. Thank you. Thank you for that, Councillor Mason. Any further discussion on the first motion? Okay, seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Now, based on that finding, Councillor Paul. Yes, based on that finding, I would move that the council go into executive session to consider pending litigation and confidential attorney client communications pursuant to one VSA section 313A1ENF. Individuals to be invited into the executive session in addition to the council and mayor will include the mayor's office staff, city attorneys, CAO, Jeffrey Glasberg and Downs-Rackland and Martin attorneys, Jennifer McDonald and Tim Sampson. Thank you, Councillor Paul. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Stromberg. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. We'll now move to the second set of motions regarding the second executive session that we will go into immediately after the first executive session with the recognizing that there will be different people as recognized in the second motion. So, Councillor Paul, may I ask you to make the first motion, please? Sure, President Tracey. I would move that the council find that the premature general public knowledge of information related to a personnel matter would put the city at its substantial disadvantage. Thank you, Councillor Paul. Is there a second to that motion? Seconded by Councillor Stromberg. Any further discussion? Councillor Mason. Thank you, President Tracey. I would also note that I will be not voting on this and not participating on this matter in the executive session also under our conflict of interest policy and just a point of information we are not... Is there anything we'll be taking action after we come out, meaning should I leave or do I have to stick around? I'm seeing shaking head from the mayor, so... I will not participate in this vote and not be an executive session on this matter either. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, any further discussion? Councillor Hanson. Yeah, I'm just wondering if we can get clarification on the substantial disadvantage that we're talking about. It's legal in nature or... Attorney St. James or Mayor Wemberger? Sure. That's language from the statute regarding... Before it's a finding you have to make before you get the confidential attorney client communication, so that's statutory. Sorry, could you repeat that? So that is statutory language, the substantial disadvantage that premature public knowledge would place the city in an adverse position and that's a finding in order to get to the subsection which is receiving confidential attorney client communications. So that's sort of in order to get to the attorney client communications you need that first piece of that motion. Mayor, did you have something to... Well, yeah, just to make it more concrete here, we're going to be talking about financial terms for the purchase of real estate rights and we would like to get... Mayor, this is on the second executive session. Oh, sorry, I apologize. Oh, sorry, am I getting... Yeah, go ahead, you can. No, all I was really trying to clarify is that this discussion, this executive session regarding the person on matter, just that it's illegal. We're going into executive session for legal reasons, not for reasons of sort of public reaction to the situation or something like that. That's what I'm hoping to clarify. Yes, that's accurate. All right, thank you. Okay, any further discussion on the first motion? Okay, seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. Councillor Palme, please have the second motion. Great, based on the finding, I would move that the council go into executive session to consider confidential attorney client communications pursuant to one VSA section 313A1F and relating to a personnel matter pursuant to one VSA section 313A4 individuals to be invited into this executive session in addition to the council and mayor, will include the mayor's office staff, the acting city attorney, the CAO, and the human resources director for the city. Thank you, we have a motion as our second, seconded by Councillor Hanson. Further discussion? Okay, seeing none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. So we will go into executive session. On these topics, as we said before, we're not expecting action to come out on the other side. So what I'll do right now is give CCTV a chance to just take their stuff down because we're again not expecting further action at this meeting and then ask folks not listed in the motion to please clear the room.


What makes a battle? This is what it takes to make a battle. These are American supplies out of the factories, foundries, mines harvested from the soil, pouring in from all sections, all states, from the east, from the south, from the midwest and the west, supplies, equipment, weapons, made with one purpose and one purpose only. These are the factors of war, the backbone of battle. Take them away, destroy them, diminish them in number or quality, fail to replace them in time, and first the soldier and then the nation, faces defeat, destruction and death. Without them, no battle is possible. You the millions of workers, men and women, young and old, high school kids and grandmothers, Democrats and Republicans, Protestants, Catholics and Jews, white and colored, you who make them know their purpose. Give them to our fighting men and you give them the overwhelming power of the world's greatest industrial democracy, the power we are now using to rid the world of the Nazis, the power that will break the empire that produced the Jap executioners and murderers. Here we are combat loading our transport. American sea power, probably the greatest naval force ever assembled, head for our first land penetration of Japanese territory, the Marshall Islands, center gate in Jap fortress specific. Timed with new blows at northern Paramashiru and southern Rabao, the invasion of the 32 Marshall Atoll stands as a masterpiece of amphibious strategy. For 75 days, our land and sea based bombers blasted the outer islands. This was the first battle mission for many of these aircraft carriers, but our later tactics depended on them, depended on their softening blows, this was the first round in a finished fight. If you look at those Jap hangars, you'll see them again later, trying to drive us off, but the attempt ended in spectacular suicide. Hardman led the Japs to expect our attack on the fringe of the Marshalls, but our blow was struck at the very center, the Kwajalein Atoll. We struck at both ends of the 70 mile Atoll simultaneously. While the 7th infantry headed for the main island of Kwajalein in the south, here in the north, the 4th Marines prepared to invade Roy and Namor. The battle wagon blasted Roy and Namor with 5,000 tons of anger, twice as much as Berlin was getting at just about the same time, 0 for 8 hours, coordinating the battles on land, sea and air. They started straight in, covering their advance with mortar fire. There's no room for complicated tactics and flanking, there's just in-fight, shell-hole hopping across flat empty sand with no cover. Each man fights his own war against the Japs, hidden out there somewhere in the rubble. Fiercely up with the Japs on Roy, Germans would have quit right away, but Japs, they crept behind wreckage and took part shot. They dug into the ground like rats. It was a matter of finding out where they were hiding and blowing them apart with Bangalores and grenades. There they go, to their Jap ancestors. Complete job on Roy took five and one half hours. The stuff you see here and the stuff you're going to see was brand new, secretly assembled in depots for this particular battle. It was new because the older stuff gets used up and burned up or worn out. The faster we move, the more stuff we need. Each success leads to another and larger battle, which cannot be won, cannot even be launched until the mountains of equipment earmarked for it are actually at Dockside. While the Marines were organizing their supply dumps here at Roy and Namor, the 7th Infantry were riding in for the kill 50 miles south at Quajolaine. Quajolaine was a bigger island than Roy and Namor, more powerfully defended. It was harder for our planes and naval guns to level it completely, easier for the Japs to hang on. Before the direct assault, our tactics were to flank Quajolaine. We landed artillery on the two small islands on either side and blasted at close range. We brought artillery shells ashore. It took only a few moments of firing to empty these shell cases. 60 seconds after the barrage was lifted, the infantry hit the beach at Quajolaine by making a break for nowhere, like that, smoking and burning and blasting them out dead or alive. Only it was tougher. Out of 10,000 Japs, only 264 surrendered. When they did, they came out dazed and shaking, indicating that there were 10 other Imperial Marines still living in that kill box. We can't blame them much for not believing what the loudspeaker was telling them, that we treat them fairly under the rules of the Geneva Convention. The guy was nuts enough to believe that Japan was going to dictate peace in the White House. You'd hardly expect him to believe the truths when he heard it, or even when he saw it, as we fixed up the wounded. These sullen human beings were in terror that they'd received the same fate they had given our boys at the dance. Instead, we gave them cigarettes, food, and water. The record shows who saw it. We just happen to be civilized. That's the difference. We told you to remember those hangers. This is what it took to make a battle, burn twisted broken equipment, stuff made for battle and destroyed in battle. You've got to be able to lose it, lose it all, make it all again, keep on making it, no matter what, for that last battle, that final battle. Jaff pill boxes, five feet of concrete. It took 16 inches of American firepower to let the air in. Anti-aircraft guns, gun mounts, shore guns, radio tower that flashed the last message to Tokyo that came too late. And this, also, is what it took to make a battle. These men will be forgotten. This American will not go to his grave unquazalain unidentified. He'll be remembered, too. The brave Marines and soldiers who fell here have comrades who will never forget, nor let the murderers in Tokyo forget.  And from home, the millions who make the stuff of battles must come the power for this justice. Calling the safety of our native land, the American people have invariably rallied against the danger with courage, faith and resolution. For the past two years we have been in one of these moments of crisis, perhaps the greatest in our history. On the battlefield and on the home front, men and women are daily making great sacrifices, so the freedom and our way of life may be preserved. There is now in progress the fifth war-loan drive to raise money. So is to ensure that this conflict will be brought to the speediest possible conclusion and with the least lost in lives. The complete success in that drive will meet the acclaim of the forces in the field and will be renewed proof that all Americans are one solid phalanx of determination in this great war. All of us profoundly trust soon the world may be restored to a just peace. Until we can, with God's help, bring about that happy realization of our dreams, each of us must seek incessantly for ways and means by which the value of our services to our country may be enhanced. Right now we can do so by buying bonds. Let's make this particular victory a quick and decisive one. Buy more than before.


So I am reading the Gospel of Mark for a class and let me tell you that Jesus may have been loving, but he was not passive. Jesus was a badass when he needed to be. He knew that every person needs to be loved differently. Some need love through compassion. Some need love by having their bullying tendencies pointed out to them. Some need straight-up physical healing. Others need leadership training. Loving others is not for the faint of heart. It requires wisdom, selflessness, and bravery. Lord, make me a better lover of my neighbor and my enemy.