ular choice was made. Mr. Mayor, did you wanna respond to that or Megan, River? So I appreciate the questions from Councillor Tracy. So I've understood the Housing Trust Fund funding that has been eroded over time to be seen as restoring that funding, creating a mechanism whereby that funding, that base funding can expand over time, rise, not be eroded by inflation has been a long held goal. I think it is something that is on the property taxes I think there can be some debate it is progressive in some ways and that there is higher income households are more likely to be owners than lower income households but I think we all know the limitations of the progressivity of the property tax as well. However, this has been something that has been a long held goal I think of the community to increase this base level as being something that should be part of our property tax structure. We are on two fronts looking at additional ways of supplementing that kind of base funding of the Housing Trust Fund that tonight's action would move forward one of those in that the proposed short term rental regulation has the potential of creating a very substantial new revenue stream for the Housing Trust Fund if we don't know how great it will be but because it is expected that there will be some households that some property owners that will pursue the conversion that will potentially every time a conversion takes place the estimates are 15 to $40,000 of new Housing Trust Fund income will be generated that is large to compare when we only fund even if this proposal goes through on the order of $400, $500,000 a year in one unit you could be adding 10% to that total. The other possible significant new revenue source that is you probably could debate I think there are progressive elements of it is the new inclusionary zoning proposals that have been debated at the committee level for substantial period of time and also represent the possibility of creating substantial new perhaps one could envision if a major project were to come forward it could be a doubling of the annual amount in the Housing Trust Fund. So what the resolution currently contemplates I think kind of bringing it back to the question that Councilor Tracy has asked those are the active funding considerations for the Housing Trust Fund currently that there has been a significant amount of process and effort that has gone into what the resolution contemplates is that if the housing that we build in we commit ourselves to a further review of the funding for the Housing Trust Fund in three years after these changes have been implemented to see what level of new revenue that creates and whether further measures are warranted so and needed. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. May I just ask a follow up? So do you, Mr. Mayor, see this resolution as precluding the Charter Change Committee from doing such a review now? Like why do you think that we wouldn't that it wouldn't make sense to look at other progressive forms of contributing to this in concert with this particular mechanism just to make sure that all the effort that we're gonna put into this one is in fact merited. I don't see how this resolution precludes the Council and committees from pursuing other work. I do think the timeline, I would hope that additional work would be seen as supplemental and additional to taking some action to address this I think longstanding deficiency of sorts in the way the Housing Trust Fund is funded in the way that we currently have on the books in the Charter something that allows the Housing Trust Fund funding to be eroded substantially by inflation over time. I don't think it's something we want to remain on the books. I think we want to find a way for it to be increased and for it to rise with inflation and I don't think and the timeline for doing that and getting on this town meeting ballot is tight. We will have to take pretty prompt action from here. I think would be difficult. The review that I was just talking about, I don't see how we can do it now in that I don't think there's anyone can tell you how much new revenue is going to be created by the not yet implemented inclusionary zoning change or by the not yet implemented short-term rental change. So we can certainly we would welcome, I think and staff probably could do some work to do more kind of scenario forecasting than we have today at about what kind of revenue that might generate but I don't, I think the reason we have framed it as a review is I think we're going to need to see how these changes work for a little while to know what kind of revenue they generate. If the council wanted there, I'm not aware of any other revenue generator for the housing trust fund that has gotten substantial kind of due diligence and work to date but certainly if committees want to, I'm not against us doing that kind of additional due diligence and the additional exploration. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. I appreciate those answers and I look forward to having a robust conversation at the Charter Change Committee, hopefully looking at a variety of different scenarios, getting a lot of different information on the table about this particular change. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Tracy. Councilor Freeman and then Councilor Pine and we may be ready. Thank you President Wright. I wanted to introduce two amendments. The first is on line 146 and this is after one and a half cents per $100. I'd like to add the language of two cents per 100 of assessed property value. Could you repeat that please? Yes, absolutely. So it's on line 146 with the possibility of this tax increasing to one and a half cents per $100 and two cents per 100 of assessed property value. Sorry, $200. Does the clerk's office have that? Do you need me to repeat it? Sure. So line 146 with the possibility of this tax increasing to one and a half cents per $100 and two cents per $100 of assessed property value. I'm not actually, grammatically it might make, I think it's and, not or. Essentially I'd like to add the value of looking at both values, the possibility of increasing to half cents per $100, one and a half, sorry, or two. So and two cents per $100. Is there a second to that motion amendment? Councillor Pyn seconds. Councillor Freeman, do you have more to say?  So that's why I'd like to add this value. All right. Thank you, Councillor Freeman. Open it up to the council to discussion on this amendment on the amendment specifically. Any councilor have anything, we're ready to vote. I think we're ready to vote. No one's raising their hand. All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Councillor Freeman, what's your next amendment? Thank you. I would like to go to line, it's 129. I would like to strike lines 138 and 139. And I would like to add after line 129 or a former 129, I believe the amended resolution would be a different line after council.  You wanted to strike lines 128 and 139. And then what, in addition to that? And then from the original, I'm not sure. I don't have the amended line numbers after Councillor Hanson's amended version. So it's the lines that say an exploration of other possible regulatory mechanisms, including transportation demand management requirements to ensure additional investment, alternate. Do you have this written down that you could send to the clerk's office? I can, but it's going to have the lines from before Councillor Hanson's amendments passed. So I don't, I can send them before the amendment passed. So. I would say if you. Point of order. Point of order, who said point of order? Councillor Plaino. So is it a motion to strike the lines? And. Not a mint? Wait a minute. Councillor Plaino. Or strike and replace. I was just confused. That's more of a point of information. So a point of information is you are moving to strike those lines and add another line in place of those two. Yes. And could you repeat the words that you are looking to add to the resolution, please? So I want to add after point, the amendment that Councillor Hanson just made after line 129 point D, I'd like to add after that a final point, which would be when I have the language here, creating a transportation demand management requirement to ensure additional investment in alternative transportation. Do you need me to say it? Did the clerk say, no, please say it again. Did you send it to the clerk's office? This is why we get in trouble when we have these down on the floor button. I know, I'm sorry. Is anyone clear about the amendment? No, no one, no one is clear about this. Councillor Buscher, you had shed some light on this for us. So what I had thought was the intent but was to actually to move lines 138 and 139 with that language up and put them underneath what now would be a BCDE, I guess would be. And that was what I thought was going to be proposed but I don't understand it now. It's only to look at transportation demand management requirements. Well, we're not going back and forth. President Wright, I want to understand. I understand the, yeah, so. Counselors need to be recognized. Councillor Freeman. I see what you're saying. So, yeah, so striking lines 138 and 139 and moving it under section four and one, which was line 118 to say, does the clerk's office have this? Does the clerk's office have this yet? I have to, no. I'm sorry, we're taking a recess for five minutes and only five minutes for you to get this straightened out with the clerk's office and come back and have this so that we all can understand it. Recess for five minutes. We are back and hopefully we have this straightened out and know what we're doing. Councillor Freeman. Thank you, yes. And I sent the language to. Go ahead, Councillor Freeman and make sure you're speaking right into the microphone so we can hear you. So the motion is to create a line E above existing line 130 that reads creating other possible regulatory mechanisms including transportation demand management requirements to ensure additional investment in alternative transportation and then striking lines 138 and 139 to replace it with this line. All right, thank you. And the clerk's office now has that. All right, and it's up on the board. Mr. Mayor, do we have a second for this? You seconded, Councillor Pine. Okay, so the amendment is on the board, is it on the board? And. I've seen it, I think I understand it, but I'd like to actually see it. Are we getting that up on the, are we getting that up on the board? Have you sent that to the clerk's office yet? So we can get that up on the board. I sent it, yes, at 9.52 minutes. Does the clerk's office have it? This is what should have been taken care of during the recess. We are starting to fall into the not looking good again here. Good information. Councillor Bushier, what is your point of information? President Wright, if the council understands the amendment, would it be appropriate for the council to act on that and let the clerk's office catch up with the transmission? Are we ready to, are we ready to, the city attorney shaking your head? No. No, okay. I don't know what it is. No, the minute taker has to be clear on what the motion is. Okay, understood. One more time. And if we don't have this, then we're gonna have to take another recess.  Do you have it? It's on the board. Okay, it's on the board now. President Wright, I think it's not yet. Mr. Mayor, remarks by the mayor on this amendment. Appreciate the opportunity to speak to this because what is being proposed here is something that quite a bit of staff time and analysis has gone into. The transportation demand management plans are something that can be, they can be very helpful tools for new development. And in general, the city is supportive in many situations when they are done. Unfortunately, it is not such a simple thing simply to require them as this amendment suggests. After substantial time with the regulatory, the people that are responsible in the planning and zoning office responsible for enforcing regulations, no good way of achieving what this, no way that has been found that the planning and zoning office, well, the now the zoning office, or I guess both the two offices, see a good way to implement this. There are concerns, there are just concerns about how we would actually attempt to do it and what the impacts would be and whether it would be creating a major new tool by which opponents of any development could simply stop any project. So we are not recommending this at this time. We, after significant conversations with Councillor Hanson, what is in this resolution now is a commitment by the administration to spend between now and the end of the year to see if there is anything else than what is already contemplated here. And let's be really clear because there was some suggestion, I think maybe confusion or suggestion to the contrary earlier. What is proposed in this resolution is that as we are at the same time that we are removing parking minimums from our regulatory effort, we would also be starting the lengthy statutory process necessary to put in place a new alternative transportation impact fee. That process in this resolution is projected to conclude by October of next year. That is the clearest way that we have seen to ensure that what several councillors have expressed wanting to have, which is to have at the same time we are getting rid of parking minimums, we are moving forward with alternative transportation. That's the clearest way we can see to achieve that goal. It may be that there's other ways to support that goal as well. We've committed over the next 90 days to do some work and bring back a report on that whether anything can be added here. I would encourage, I think it's important that we go in that direction as opposed to put this new requirement in place, which we don't see any good way of implementing at the current time. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councillor Tracy. I'd just like to see this example weighed in the committee work. I see this is the beginning of that process. So I would like to see us put this on the table and hear more about those reasons because we have as a council have not been privy to the conversations that you've been having in the administration, Mr. Mayor. So I think it would be helpful for us to understand the challenges exactly to that because I don't know those challenges. So I would like to at least have that conversation before deciding in fact that your way is the best way. That's it. Thank you, Councillor Tracy. Are we ready for the vote? Councillor Hanson. Thanks. Yeah, I think this is an important discussion. I'm really glad that we're pushing on it. I do support this. I think this is a way to ensure that we're looking at it more seriously. I obviously put it in initially and supported it in that sense, but this is another way to potentially make it more concrete. But I do think it's necessary in communities that have required developers to implement transportation demand management have certainly seen the results of that and employers that have transportation demand management plans have been able to really pretty dramatically decrease the number of folks commuting by single occupancy vehicles. So I think it's a proven tool. I would be curious to hear more about why it seems like it might not work here because I think from what I've seen so far it's a pretty well proven tool. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Hanson. Councillor Roof, then Councillor Mason. Did you, were you in the queue? I wanna go to Councillor Zafiq and spoken yet. Councillor Roof. Yeah, I sort of agree with Councillor Tracy and to the degree that there seems to be a conversation or information that's been pulled together that some have been shared with some, but not all. And I think that whether it's in this resolution or not it's going to be talked about at committee because a non-trivial amount of Councillors on the table wanna talk about it and there's nothing that precludes us from having that conversation. This is a handoff from the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch. We're not contained so much as maybe some readers of this resolution could think. I think I'm not sure this amendment is necessary to have the conversation so I'm going to regardless of the outcome of this request the administration to send all that information that you pulled together to the committee, the relevant committee so that we can look at this and kind of have that contemplation then. I think also there's almost an effort here to stipulate an outcome and we've already gone through the conversation that that's not what we're really doing here. So I see this is really either or. I think this is a conversation that we can have in committee. I understand the point and I'm actually interested in learning more about it and thinking about it. But I think with that I'll vote no and let's get the information to committee. Thank you Councillor Mason. Thank you President Wright. I too will be voting no for, we have put forth a very aggressive timeframe in terms of a report back. I'm a little confused about the need to given the complexity of this issue just based on this conversation to introduce that in and require a report back when as drafted there's already a report coming back January 1st. So I'm not understanding why the yank that has to be passed today. I think I agree and there's nothing that precludes based on the report back in January us from continuing the conversation just because this joint committee happened to have completed its work. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Mason. Councillor Freeman. I'm surprised to hear the aspect about the regulatory framework. I mean if there's a regulatory framework to require parking it doesn't seem like a stretch that there would be a regulatory framework to have the TDM. So that I guess is just really surprising to me and doesn't really pan out but I'm interested in more information about that. In regards to it stipulating an outcome I mean the prior language here is so clear about eliminating the minimum number of parking spaces which is a pretty substantial stipulation. So the recommendation that we put more commitment and more teeth to the aspect of the TDM and to really say that we're not just interested in giving a handout to developers who will see sort of a cost or a benefit in terms of this. I just, it really strengthens the language and I don't think it's satisfactory to leave it as an exploratory. I mean under that argument we should make all the recommendations in this exploratory and what are we really committed to? And I'm not, I'm committed to the TDM model so. Thank you Councillor Freeman. Councillor Busher and then Shannon and then we're going to vote. So I began this conversation saying that I didn't feel comfortable with the resolution because I thought it dictated outcomes. I listened to my fellow councillors and councillor Shannon. I really listened to her and understood that she agreed with me in some respect but was still going to support this because this was a framework for discussion. So with that in mind I don't see why people are concerned about this language when this is another action that if indeed this is a framework for discussion I don't see how this binds us any more than any of the other actions that some people around the table said that we weren't really committing to those actions. So I'm confused by my fellow councillors as to what really the intent of this resolution is. I had fully intended based on Councillor Shannon's comments to support this. With the caveat that the minutes reflected that by supporting this because I want to it didn't mean that I committed to any of the proposed actions but I was committed to having the discussion and not closing the door and being open-minded to what the community and my fellow councillors thought. I still want to do that. I will be supporting this amendment based on what I just said and I hope everyone reflects on what I just said to understand really what we're doing here tonight. Thank you Councillor Bushard, Councillor Shannon and then we're going to vote. I would say yes this resolution is exploratory in the sense that the committee this is a referral to a committee that's going to come back to the council it's going to get referred to the committee again it will come back to the council and possibly voted on. I don't even understand what this proposal is because transportation demand management is already in this resolution but I also don't think it's really, you know there were a bunch of things that I don't agree with too I didn't make amendments on them I stated what my disagreement was and I'm leaving it to the committee to have further discussion on it and I would put this in the same category and I will not be supporting the amendment. Thank you Councillor Shannon.  All those, whoops excuse me put them back up again please. All those opposed? The amendment passes seven to five. We're back to the main resolution. Any further discussion? Councillor Powell. Thank you. I just wanted to mention because I think it is important that people understand that there is a lot of information in this resolution and I agree to be a co-sponsor there are things in this resolution that I'm not particularly in favor of but I am in favor of this having the conversation and I hope that people will vote for the resolution with that in mind so that we move forward and we as everyone has said we'll have plenty of time to come back to this and debate the specifics of what each of these committees comes back with. Thanks very much. Thank you Councillor Powell. Anyone else? Councillor Hanson. Councillor Pine. Who else?  I want to see who wants to speak right now. Get in the queue because I'm closing it down here in a minute. Councillor Pine. Councillor Freeman. Anybody else? Okay. It's quick. It's still on the parking. I just wanted to get clarity on the language here in terms of what zones we're talking about just the language is within the downtown neighborhood activity center and neighborhood mixed use zoning district so those are the districts and is within 200 feet of a property with frontage on a designated major thoroughfare. I just wanted to have clarity around whether it's it has to be in one of those zones and within that district but I thought my understanding was it was within one of those zones or is along one of the thoroughfares. I just wanted to clarify the wording on that and what we're actually what zones we're actually talking about. I've seen the map and I based on the map I think it would be or but I just Okay, let's get the answer. Megan, can you respond to that? Yes. The intention of this is what you had suggested Councillor Hanson that we would be looking at properties that are wholly within those zoning districts that are articulated as well as properties that are within 200 feet of a major thoroughfare which you have seen the map of. It's both. Okay, yeah, I just wanna make sure that that's what the language is saying what we are intention is reflected in this language. Okay, thank you. Councillor Pine. Thank you, Mr. President. Real quick, the three broad goals for the city for pretty much three decades have been production of new housing protection of our vulnerable residents and preservation of our existing housing stock. It was called the three P's. I just wanna point out that this resolution and the work we're doing here tonight is critical for our community to advance the housing needs of all segments of our community. We hope to leave no one behind here. The parking and housing trust fund and the ADUs meets the production goal. The weatherization and tenant protections and housing trust fund dollar increase is covers the protection of our vulnerable residents and the short-term rentals and weatherization hits on the preservation of our existing housing stock. So I just think it's good for us to remember that we actually have goals that support all of these and we're just hopefully bringing these forward with that in mind. Thank you, Councillor Pine. Ready to vote? All those in favor of the resolution as amended, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. And in the future, please, if you do have amendments, that's particularly if they are confusing and not clear, get them in ahead of time and get them to the clerk's office. Item number 5.06 is a resolution regarding city and reinvestment in Burlington Telecom, Councillor Bushert. Yes, I'd like to move to waive the reading and adopt the resolution. And after a second, I'd like the floor back. Moved by Councillor Bushert, seconded by Councillor Hanson. Councillor Bushert, you have the floor back. Thank you. As the council knows, we are about to embark on the second phase of the sale of Burlington Telecom to decide how we are going to deal with the proceeds from that sale. And this resolution just gives, lays out for us and for the public who may look at this, the history that brought us to this point, the fact that we developed the Burlington Telecom Advisory Board and they carefully established criteria, which was really important, noting that it's important for the city's public officials to try to recover as much of the taxpayers, 16.9 million as possible. Part of that should come from the price paid by the purchase of the BT system and part from the city's maintaining a continued meaningful interest in BT that enables financial recovery over the next decades. So now we come down to, that was stated in 2015 and 16. We come down to 2017, where once again, we have now identified a buyer. Gotcha. And we have stated in the agreement and the purchase agreement that we want to enter into a membership interest purchase agreement to purchase up to 33% of the voting membership interests of the buyer and the right to appoint a board member to the board of managers of the buyer provided the city elects to purchase at least 7.5%. Once again, that is stated there. Now you come to the city then talking about, now we've made these statements and do we want to decide, do we want to take a carried interest or not? We had a work session in January of 2018 and in February of 2018, we adopted a city council resolution on pursuing membership interest purchase agreement. So now at this juncture, we, that sale went through and we have the sale closed on March 12th, 2019 and we have until March 11th, 2020 to negotiate and enter into such an agreement. And so this resolution lays out the history in a little more detail than I did. And then says, as we move forward and the administration has already scheduled a meeting to have some of this happen, that we'd like to make sure that we are looking at soliciting an investment proposal from Champlain broadband that identifies detailed projections of revenue costs and capital investment in an updated 10 year financial pro forma, assessing from Champlain broadband and others the market opportunities and competitive landscape in Burlington and Chittenden County, projecting the range of possible financial returns to the city from different levels of investment in BT, the purchase of a 7.5% interest up to possible 33% interest through a redemption process, a dividend option or other possible strategies and exploring the specific ways the city should manage the possible downside risks while still benefiting from the investment. I think that this is really important information that we will need in order to make a good choice. I know we're not of all one mind but I hope we are all one mind of what information we all would like to have as we move forward to help us make the right decision. I know that there is an amendment and I am supportive of the amendment and would have incorporated it into the resolution if I'd had it in a more reasonable time. And actually, Councillor Buscher, you are moving as it is the revised resolution with a small change. If you could let the council know what that was. Oh, certainly. The original resolution, so the revision comes on, excuse me, lines 60 and 61. Originally it said either through the redemption process or other possible exit strategies. And so that was modified and revised to say through a redemption process, a dividend option or other possible strategies. Thank you, Councillor Buscher. I'm going to recognize Councillor Mason now. Thank you, President Wright. I'd like to make an amendment along the lines of what's on board docs. So the specific amendment is deleting and from line 61, adding line and at the end of line 64 and then adding in the following resolve clause, exploring other uses of the sale proceeds in the event the city council elects not to reinvest any portion in Champlain broadband and then ask for the floor back briefly if there's a second. Seconded by Councillor Polino, Councillor Mason. Thank you, President Wright. So this merely recognizes, I appreciate the efforts of the sponsors to put a process which I believe is already underway in terms of getting us diligence relating to the potential investment. This just seeks to recognize that there is the possibility. It's an optional rollover. So this council could elect not to rollover all or a portion of it and it's merely recognizing that fact. And again, I believe that work is already underway in terms of potential uses of those funds and we will be getting a report on that in the not too distant future. Thank you. And as Councillor Burscher said, both sponsors are fine with the amendment. Councillor Shannon on the amendment. On the, nevermind. I'll wait till the. Only on the amendment. Any discussion on the amendment? All those in favor of passing the amendment as proposed by Councillor Mason, please say aye. Aye. Opposed. Councillor Jang opposes Clerk's office. Councillor Jang opposes the votes 11 to 1 in favor. Councillor Shannon. Thank you. I, we received a communication from Attorney Blackwood outlining all of the various information that all of us wanted in this process. And I don't really understand what this resolution is accomplishing that's not already happening anyway. So if somebody can explain if I'm missing something I'd appreciate it. Councillor Burscher. So yes, I can try to explain. I met with the mayor and over the summer and I've been talking about BT and wanted to make sure that our process was all inclusive. And the last meeting I had with him, he assured me that, you know, there was a meeting scheduled in November and that the process would be inclusive. The resolution was in the works before the city attorney sent out the information. So this had already come to the city attorney's office. And so I still feel it's important for the public to have this information and for the council to concur that this is what we're going to consider. And I would hope that the rest of the council would want to support a process that reflected the history and the actions that are consistent with really what the administration's saying also. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Burscher. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the resolution as amended, please say aye. I'm sorry. I think I was on the list to speak. Oh, you are. That's right, my apologies. Councillor Polinom. So I would speak, I would say that I strongly oppose reinvesting funds in BT and I would like to voice that concern. I think that when I read words like, you know, require careful examination of an investment opportunity in a company that we've already lost $60 million and I have a strong objection to that. And I think the question we should all ask ourselves you know, would we invest $4,000 of our own money in this company as individuals? Why would we spend a significant taxpayer dollars at this point, $6.5 million in this company? Is the money that we have left to spend, we have other more safe investments that and opportunities, capital improvements that could be done. And I think that we should vote against resolution for the simple fact that it's designed to incentivize this track of, you know, as I hear the words reflected a process that reflects the history. And I think that we have chosen to sever ties and there's good reason for that. And I don't think that the public wants us to be engaging in this path and I think it's a mistake. Thank you, Councillor Polinom. I'm going to pass the gavel to Councillor Mason. Councillor Wright. Thank you. Thank you, Acting President Mason. So this resolution is an attempt to get all of the information to the council in regards to this issue. There is no reason why we should oppose getting as much information as possible. I don't know where I would come down at the end of this. I'm open to, it could go either way. But we should want to find out. I think we would be negligent in not finding out all the information that we can get, including information about dividends. That may not be the right answer at the end. But let me tell you in regard to the 16.9 million, if we found out that this company was really going to take off and that we were able to actually make significant money or dividends, I think that the voters would actually want to know that and know that there might be a possibility that they actually could get more of their money back than the six or $7 million that we're talking about now. Now that may not be the way it works at the end of the day, but why would we not want to get that information? And I think taxpayers would want us to get that information and find out whether there is a way to get more money back for them than they're currently getting. Bottom line is let's get all the information, let's accumulate all the information and make a decision based on all the facts. Thank you. Councilor Jang. Thank you, Acting President. I do think, you know, based with Councilor Polino, we need to just get out of this deal and just move forward. And I think most importantly, when the mayor of Burlington told us here, in front of everybody that we will not raise the taxes because we will use the revenue in order to do other things with it, telecommunication is changing. I think we need to cash out all of these efforts. I think we need to move away from it and just cash out and then move forward. If there are all the opportunities for that money to bring investment, to bring our $17 million back, but not through the same company, I think we need to explore that. That's the reason as to why I'm voting no to amendments and to the resolution as well. Thank you. Councilor Shannon. I hear that the reason we should pass this amendment is so that we get all of the information, but my feeling is that this is not inclusive of all of the information that we need. And it's not necessarily going to give us a lot of information about, you know, if we could get a whole lot more money back in return. There's certainly the possibility we could get a whole lot more money back in return if we bought lotto tickets. But that comes with risk, as does this. And I think that there's already a process in place where we are going to be getting the information requested here and a lot of other information, I hope, including information that I have requested that isn't included here. And for that reason, I'm going to be voting no. Thank you, Councilor Schoep. Oh, sorry. Any other Councilor wish to speak at this time? Seeing no one, we will go to a vote. Councilor Busher, my apologies, you were in the queue. Councilor Busher. So for those who weren't here through the whole process, I can understand your hesitation. But for those of us who were here through the whole process, the investment, the money we spent, was to lay down the infrastructure for a system that was meant to supply more than just Burlington. And so the money that can be realized since we sold it, it's not the same entity. It's not BT. It belongs to Shores. It belongs to Champlain Broadband. And they don't have the same restrictions. And I think that I'm really surprised to hear that people don't even want to explore what their 10-year business plan financial pro-former would be and not understand what might be realized. And if we carried more than just our 7.5% interest in this company, that maybe we could generate a lot more money for the city than just the few million dollars that we are going to have as a result of this sale. I myself am not a risk taker, but I certainly want to understand the relative risk of investment before I decide to turn my back. This city has already invested some of our money to draw interest. They've made some choices already. So on your behalf, and I don't see any of you going, oh my God, what's happening to our money? Because probably none of you even are aware of that. But I'm just frustrated with the level of, because I didn't, you know, I support a lot of resolutions that all of you put forward that I didn't have my fingerprints all over. I just really am disappointed with the fact that something that is historical that just asks for information is not being supported. I'm glad it got out on board docs. I'm glad the public got to see it. If it goes down, so be it. But I'm very disappointed in my fellow councillors tonight. Councilor Zhang, followed by Councilor Wright. Yes, I just wanted to clarify also that there is nothing wrong about this resolution. It is well-written, it is very smart, and chronologically it is accurate. It is accurate, but we all, I think, sometimes we need to go with our principles. What we think, and I think we need to also go back again, how we voted about this issue personally, and each one of us, we have hold something dear inside us because of this issue, how it plays out. But this is the most beautiful resolution that I ever read because it's beautiful, it's well-written. But it is just that to me, it's not because who brought it or anything, but it is just this has always been my point that we need to cash out, and that's the only reason as to why we don't need to explore anything else. And I'm very sorry. Thank you. Councilor Wright, followed by Councilor Paul, then Councilor Freeman. Thank you. Thank you, Acting President Mason. I'm just gonna make this point one more time. We still can cash out after we've accumulated all the information that we ought to be looking at. We still can end up where Councilor Shannon talked about that we'd be better off buying lottery tickets. We can buy those lottery tickets at the end, but let's do our due diligence here. I frankly don't get what the Council is afraid of here, frankly, in not wanting to have all the information presented. Why would you not wanna find out first and then come back and make these decisions? I may end up in the same place that Councilor Zhang is. I may end up in the same place where Councilor Shannon is going down to the 7-Eleven or whatever the story is now and buying lottery tickets. But in the meantime, let's do our due diligence for the taxpayers at Burlington and find out what the best option is. Councilor Paul. Thank you. So my first comment is through the Acting Council President, just wanted to say that I think a lot of my resolutions are beautiful and I'm disappointed that Councilor Zhang thinks that this one is more beautiful. So noted. Continue. I'm not really sure why people are against this because in online 52, it says that the process and the information that we're gonna get, and it says, will include, but not limited to. So if anybody wants any more information, they can get it. So if people are concerned that there are things that they want that aren't in here, that's not a reason to vote against this because it does include all of those things, whatever it is that you want. The second is that due to Councilor Mason's amendment, we are going to explore other uses of the sale proceeds. So we're gonna explore the uses of it towards potentially making a further investment in the new Burlington Telecom and we're gonna explore the other side of it. So I'm not really sure why people wouldn't want to support this. I will be voting in favor of it and thank you. Thank you. Councilor Freeman. I just wanted to speak. I will be supporting this resolution and I hope that I think the interest in having information and having open access to information is a principle that I feel strongly about and so I really heard and I'm hearing what Councilor Busher is getting at and yeah, I just sort of, I want us to stick to that as a Council. I might not support given this information, this pathway, but it's really hard to make decisions in a vacuum and I've come to the Council and asked for information on a lot of different policy ideas and I really hope that we can support access to information as a body so I will be supporting this. Thank you. Any other Councilor? So can I look to Eileen? I want to correct one point on the record. There's continued reference about us caching out. We have cached out. We do not, I just want for the public and this Council body to understand we do not have an ownership interest. We have cached. The question is whether we reinvest into the surviving entity. Yes, but I think the issue in the resolution was that there was a question about looking forward part of our deal with BT, if we do reinvest is how can we then get our money back out again? Understood. So that's a term and I understood that was what was being referred to in the resolution. I just did not want the public to think under any set of circumstance that we have not cached out. We have sold our interest, we have cash. Okay, with that, all those in favor of the resolution as amended, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, raise your hand please. So let's do that again. Sorry, hands down. All those in favor of the resolution, please raise your hand. Thank you. All those opposed to the resolution. Third time the term. All those voting yes, please raise your hand. Thank you. All those opposed voting no, please raise your hand. One, two, three. The vote passes nine, three. Back to you, President. I'm gonna turn it over. Yes, Kurt, you can handle this one. Go ahead. Thank you, Acting President Mason. And I will, we have reached the 1030 time and we need a motion to suspend rules. Councillor Shannon. I move to suspend the rules to complete our deliberative agenda items through 6.09. Motion has been made by Councillor Shannon to complete the deliberative agenda only. Is there a second to that motion? Second. Motion by Councillor Pine.  Any opposed? That passes unanimously and we will go back to the deliberative agenda now, which is resolution 5.07, expanding voting rights to municipal elections, Councilor Roof. Thank you, President Wright. This will, I will not go into wax on and on, but I would like to introduce 6.07, excuse me, which is resolution related to expanding voter rights in our local municipal elections. A main goal of the city's diversity and equities. What's that? Yeah, I need a second before I. Motion has been made by Councillor Roof and seconded by Councillor Powell. You have the floor, Councillor Roof. A main goal of the city's diversity and equity strategic plan from 2014 is to create a more inclusive and engaged community, which is critical because we know that broad participation in the democratic process strengthens the entirety of any community. The plan speaks to this value in saying the following. Meaningful community engagement deepens innovative silo busting partnerships by connecting the concerns of communities to the decisions on allocating local and regional investment dollars. It goes on in saying engagement brings meaning and relevance to sustainability goals across a broader spectrum of players, which will lead to a shared vision for a prosperous future. While these words are important, it's also important to recognize that in order to make progress, we need to take action. And while considering this action, we can look to a later section of the plan that speaks about challenges to our community engagement. And it says as of 2014, and I quote seven and a half percent or over 3,000 Burlington residents are ineligible to vote in local elections due to their status as refugees, not eligible for US citizenship. In addition to actions such as extending the time period for early voting or investing in voter education, opening up the opportunity to vote on local issues to more Burlington residents is a viable way to lower barriers to our democratic process. And I believe there is a way to accomplish this expansion of voter rights while remaining in line with the rule of law and in line with stated values as set forth in the diversity and equity plan. I wanna also note that this is a complex issue as it intersects with dynamics related to constitutional law, international human rights standards, immigration law, Supreme Court rulings, state rights as well as complexities in administering our elections here with city staff. To close, I'll add that my intent in moving this forward tonight is to keep alive Burlington's conversation about expanding voter rights and promoting local participation while also recognizing that other Vermont communities are discussing this as well. And to that point, the state legislature will likely be taking up this topic next session. And it's my hope that Burlington can be at the table while they do so. It will be five years since the last time our community had this discussion at the ballot. And I think that it's an appropriate time to go back to the public with this question. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ruf. Councillor Polina. Thank you, President Wright. I'd like to thank Councillor Ruf for bringing this issue forward that I feel very personally attached to. And I'd like to speak on it for a moment. I think that this resolution, and actually I also wanna thank the media for drawing attention to his resolution and the issues that are being discussed as a result of this resolution being brought forward. It's a great conversation to be having right now and I think I'll speak to that. So I think this resolution brings more people to the table. When you read the Vermont Constitution, it uses the words qualified to vote. And I think those words have meant different things throughout time. And as we progress and move forward, we are redefining what that means. And on September 27th, our mayor denounced the Trump administration's drawdown of the refugee resettlement program from 110,000 in 2016 to 18,000. We depend on that program. In Burlington, that's a reduction of 29% in the last three years. Every day we read about other ways the Trump administration has worked to discourage and slow down legal immigration. I am myself of the product of legal immigration. I came here because my mother married a U.S. citizen. I often think about my life, what it would be like if I had remained in a third world country. This resolution is about equality. It's about bringing more people to the table and exploring ways of allowing legal permanent residents and others who pay taxes here, who live here, to come to public forum, to put a sign in their yard, to engage in a political party and to hold this accountable. I hope the council supports this resolution. Thank you, Councillor Polino. Councillor Shannon. Five years doesn't really seem like that long a time to take up an issue that was pretty firmly opposed to by the public in a vote five years ago. But I do think that times have changed significantly in the last five years and that it is worth taking up this discussion again. I'm not sure at the end of the day where I will land. And I think that they're, even if our intentions were to grant this power to vote to non-citizens, I am curious about the legal complications in doing so and if that's even possible. But I look forward to the discussion at the Charter Change Committee and I will be voting in support. Thank you, Councillor Shannon. Councillor Hanson and then Councillor Bushard. Thank you, really glad to see this before us and excited to support it. And for me, it's really simple.  I think you deserve to have a say over the policies that influence your life. So I think that's fundamental and critical and I'm really glad to see that we're hopefully moving forward on that. Thank you, Councillor Hanson. Councillor Bushard. So thank you. And just picking up with what Councillor Shannon was saying, I think in the five years, not only have attitudes changed but the faces have changed in our community. Our community I think is far more diverse now. And I think that more and more people really want to have a meaningful engagement. And I see this as a really appropriate step. And I wanna thank Councillor Roof for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councillor Bushard, Councillor Freeman. Thank you, President Wright. I will be supporting this and I'm glad to hear the initiative being brought forward. I think considering, you know, when I think about issues like this, considering the history of colonialism in this country, colonization, it always seems odd to me how we govern and sort of decide who gets to participate in our governance, just given the sort of injustices that have historically existed around governing and who has a right to this land and to make decisions over our livelihood and the stewardship that we have here. So I will absolutely be supporting this while I, when I go out and talk to people in the neighborhood, it's always, I always feel disappointed when I realize that someone can't vote and they feel like they're not even really sure if they should share their opinion with me and I feel like their opinion is so important. They absolutely have a stake. They are a stake, everyone is a stakeholder in this community who lives here. So I'm really thankful that this initiative is being brought forward again and I will be supporting it. Thank you, Councillor Freeman. Anyone else? I'll, Councillor Jang. Thank you, President. But I think around this table, maybe I'd be the only person who became citizen and not long ago, I became citizen and the only thing that I was looking forward to is to vote and I think I went beyond that. I voted and I also sat here, I am right here. I think it is important to understand that voting is sacred to me, it is sacred because you have a voice, you're part of this community and sometimes most people, they wanna hold both sides. They wanna be French people, they wanna be American. But here, I think we are talking about giving a person, when you become a citizen, this is your right. And your right is not you vote only for something and you cannot vote for the rest. You have to vote, you vote for everything.  But if you are in this community, you go to another community, it might be something else. To me, this is what I do for work. I work directly with immigrants. I work directly with refugees and to tell you the truth, most of them are citizen, but they do not vote. They do not show up to vote. I think that's where the focus need to be.  Where is the rest? What are we doing for that? I think that's the most important and critical part. That's one. And the second thing, God bless you, the second thing is there is a bill in the state of Vermont, S110, very specific and the governor, when did this pass in Montpelier, he made it clear. This is in contradiction with that bill because we should not hold different information about the community members we live with. We have one list, you all registered voter, you qualify to vote, you show up and vote. But when you come, it's going to be like an apartheid. Those who are not citizen, you vote, you go there. Those who are citizen, go this way. It's a divisive. I became citizen, voting is sacred, and let's help people pathway to citizenship. If you become citizen, let's educate them to their right to show up and vote. I am not, and the third part, what I heard is this was defeated by Wellingtonian. Times change, yes, that's true. Times do change, but I think the critical foundation of our democracy, we need to strengthen it, we need to make sure that people get involved, engage, and we move forward. The fourth part, if this resolution also is in contradiction of our way of doing democracy, people who are eligible to vote, the council refuse to give them that right. Around citizen, around local issues. And now we want to bring those, the number you're talking about, I'm pretty sure is no longer accurate. There is not over 3,000 people here who are not citizen. At least the Burlington School District is the biggest entity here. We serve over 4,000 kids and their families. Most of them, they're citizen. Pathway to citizenship, community engagement, one ballot item, one list of voters. I'm not voting for this. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jang, Councillor Pine. Mr. President, I wasn't going to speak, but now I'm motivated to speak. But I think around this table is a few of us who came here to go to the University of Vermont, just a quick, I think there's a few. When I was a student at UVM, there was a debate about whether students should actually have the right to vote. Believe it or not, this council through the Board of Registrations said, students, unless they can prove they live here, should not be voting in local elections. Took it all the way to Vermont Supreme Court, and it was a friend of mine at UVM who fought that and won the right for students to continue to vote, even if their parents were sending the tuition checks from outside of Vermont. As a result, myself and a few others, I would say, got really invested in Burlington and have stayed and have made this our home. Raised our families here and contribute to this community. I think every time you open up democracy to more people, you break down barriers, you make them part of the community, they feel more welcome, they become more engaged, we have a much stronger community. I think this is a great direction. I really appreciate Councilor Roof to bring it to our attention. Thank you, Councilor Pine. Councilor Roof. No, quickly, just to be sure that everyone is aware that this is not some new grand issue that came out of nowhere. Yes, it was brought up in 2015, but also from 1776 to about the 1920s, there were actually 40 states and federal territories that did allow now non-citizens to vote. So this is not unprecedented. This is something that has been rooted in our democracy before in its ongoing evolution of a conversation as opposed to some new conversations starting today and going forward. Thank you, Councilor Roof. Councilor Zhang again. Yes, thank you. I think it's also important that this is also a little bit different from the resolution that came here in 2015. This resolution doesn't have non-citizens to be able to participate locally in like boards and committees. But that resolution, if I understand correctly, did have it. Is that accurate? It's more of a question to the resolution sponsor. Councilor Roof, did you wanna give a quick response to that? Yeah, this resolution does not dictate what the charter change language will be. It sets forth a process to get the question into charter change. The charter change committee will come back to us with language. So I think at that time, it would be appropriate to judge the identicalness or not to one question versus the other. Yes, so I think this resolution, Mr. President, it will be important then to read the where are closes. The whereas clauses. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We're not going back and forth here. People are not getting recognized. Councilor Jang, finish up and then we're gonna, we should be ready to vote. I think people know where they stand on this. I think we're not asking the charter change committee to look anything about giving the right for non-citizens to participate in boards and committees. And I think the previous resolution did have that aspect. Then yes, this resolution did change is not the same. I'm just gonna finish this. There were two questions back then. One was about extending voting rates to non-citizen. The other was about allowing them to serve on boards and commissions. One failed to buy about 58 to 42%. The voting citizens voting. The other one failed, but by a closer margin. I think we should be ready to vote now. I think everybody pretty much knows where they are on this. All those in favor of this resolution, which is to send this extending voting rates to the Charter Change Committee, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, two no votes. That's Councilor Jang and Councilor Wright. The resolution passes and this will go to the Charter Change Committee by a vote of 10 to two. Item 5.08 is a communication with Councilor Shannon regarding a question from the Special Committee reviewing policing policies. Thank you, President Wright. I moved to authorize a special committee to review policing practices to spend up to its previously authorized budget for the purpose of securing one or more trusted and independent third parties to support its review and recommendation process if it so chooses. I'll ask for the floor back briefly after a second. Second. Second by Councilor Bushard. Councilor Shannon, you have the floor back. And by the way, that this is for item, as Councilor Mason pointed out to me, 6.08, not 5.08 as Councilor Bushard whispered in my ear. Thank you. The special committee noted in the resolution establishing the committee that there were funds available, $50,000 of funds available to hire a consultant. And there have been various ideas proposed by the committee of different consultants that might be helpful to the committee. And so just wanted to clarify if it was acceptable to the council to potentially hire more than one consultant with the same, they're not asking for a budget increase, just the ability to hire more than one consultant if desired. And I would also note that the committee hasn't reached any conclusions about who they would want to hire at this point. Thank you, Councilor Shannon. Discussion or questions? Councilor Polina. It's more of a comment, but from my recollection, I guess I just want to bring this forward. The 50,000 was for one third party to consult and to revise the use of force policy. And maybe I'm wrong about that, but if it is, then this motion is substantially different, right, because it says that we can now use the 50,000 to hire a consultant for any other topic we want to carry out, I guess, the mission, the broader mission. So I just wanted to put that out there because I'm unclear about that. Councilor Shannon. I don't think that there was a request from the committee to change the mission of the funds. And, but I wouldn't want, I don't think we want this to be interpreted that way. And so I would entertain an amendment to this to further clarify that it's for the same purpose. But actually, I think I would ask, could Attorney Black would comment on this because when this was adopted by the committee, I was not at that committee meeting. And I think she was at that committee meeting. And if there was, it wasn't reported to me, but if there was discussion about changing the mission, Attorney Black would know. City Attorney Blackwick, can you shed some light on this? The committee certainly interprets its mission as much broader than what Councilor Polino just said. There was not specific discussion about changing the mission. Councilor Shannon. I would say there have been some discussions at the committee level about things that they may want to discuss that were broader than that. But that was not the point of this question as I understood it. The point of this question was to be able to use the funds on more than one consultant rather than to either change the budget amount or change the, change the mission. Attorney. And I would also note that Councilor Freeman is on the committee and she has her hand up, she'll be, she's in the queue. No, I would say that statement by Councilor Shannon is correct also. Thank you, City Attorney. Councilor Freeman. Can point of information to Councilor Polino or to recognize, I'm curious about the line about the use of force as that being the mission of the consultant. Is that from the original resolution that drafted the committee? Is that where you're reading that from? Because I guess I don't have that in my recollection. So there is no point in information that you can call to go to another Councillor that I mean you can do a point of information generally but you can't. Is that a point of information generally? I just, I guess I don't remember that. Can you repeat what your question was? I'm wondering where the directive around the use of force for the consultant is. I don't recall that as being part of, as being part of the original resolution. Okay, and is that your, do you have other questions or is that the one thing you'd like Councilor Polino to respond to? I had that question and then I was going to clarify about the intention of the committee. Okay, so I'll get a response from Councilor Polino and then come back to you for whatever you're coming as. Perfect, thank you. Councilor Polino. Thank you. So that comment was the product of my own recollection as to the intent of where the funds would be used so I'm more concerned from, you know, it's a significant amount of money so I just want to make sure it goes to the intended purpose, that was the reason. Thank you, Councilor Polino. I think the actual resolution had a limitation. He's basing it on his memory as he said, so Councilor Freeman, it's back to you for whatever you choose to say. Sure, so I believe the resolution was a bit broader. It was a consultant to advise, yeah, and assist the committee on a, and my understanding is that the committee is looking for multiple parties because there is an interest that has been put forward as an idea of a proposal that has been put forward around creating focus groups or contracting with the consultant that would be able to allow us to get quantitative and qualitative data from the community about their experience of policing in the city and that though there was interest in doing that, they didn't want that to then make it unable for us to also contract with another consultant for another purpose, for example, reviewing the use of force policy or various other things that the committee has been tasked with doing. So it was to really just open up and make sure that we have more capacity as a committee to look at various options in terms of how to seek a consultant and their expertise. Thank you, Councilor Freeman. Councilor Roof. Oh, you'll be next time. Councilor Roof. I pulled up the signed version of the resolution that established the committee. And I'm just gonna read here. It's the resolve clause on line 76, resolve the special committee shall have a budget of up to $50,000 made available to it for the purpose of securing a trusted and independent third party to support its review in recommendation process, if it so chooses. I think that's pretty broad and open. Thank you, Councilor Roof. Councilor Busher, and then we ought to start moving towards some... Just, I was just gonna point everyone to the minutes that were attached to this and which reflected what Councilor Perry Freeman said and Councilor Roof confirmed that this was to be used for a broad number of issues, not just what was originally stated. So that's it, I'm ready to vote. Thank you, Councilor Busher. I think we are ready to vote. All those in favor of the resolution, the motion made by Councilor Shannon, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Item 6.09 was item 5.24 on consent. Who would like to move this? Councilor Paul? Councilor Busher. Councilor Paul. Councilor Paul, you win it. I didn't realize this was a lottery here. So I will... You go to the lottery with Councilor Shannon. See, this is what happens when we've been here a little bit too long. So I will, let's see, I'm trying to see here now. So I'll move the, actually it's not a resolution. It is simply a communication and there's a recommended action that is rather long, but I will move that action step. And I'll second. Okay, moved and seconded by Councilor Busher. Councilor Paul, you want the floor back? This item was removed from the consent agenda. I'm happy to speak to it, but perhaps the Councilor who removed it would prefer to do that first. Councilor Hanson removed it. So Councilor Hanson, you, we talked earlier and you said you wanted to make a relatively brief statement on this. So yeah, I don't need to keep us long, but I removed it. I'm gonna be voting no on it. I think this might raise some eyebrows, but I think it's really important that we do that. I think we have acknowledged as a body that we are in a climate emergency twice, actually. We acknowledge that twice in a row. And I think being in a climate emergency, we do need to start to question what are typically thought of as normal decisions. This is a decision about expanding the airport apron to be able to accommodate more planes overnight and essentially expand operations, allow more airlines and with the goal of increasing ridership and flights. I think when it comes to the airport and I got to speak with the director earlier today at length about this, I think the focus of our investments should be on mitigating the environmental impact of flight, which is one of the most environmentally impactful activities that is normalized in our society. It has an incredibly high greenhouse gas emission impact flying does. And so I think we have to really double down on our efforts. There is a lot of efforts underway and I'll be really digging into those with the director of aviation. But given that context, the idea of expanding and trying to drive up flights is, I think, going to make it more difficult for us to reduce emissions and tackle this problem. Thank you, Councillor Hanson. Councillor Paul. Thank you, President Wright. So I just wanted to mention two things. The first is President Wright mentioned this at the Board of Finance. Normally, when there is an item that is about the airport, we don't just get one person who comes from the airport, the entire team comes. And because of the late hour, we were told that the airport team would not be here, mostly because Councillor Hanson had made it fairly clear that there he would not have any questions. So just wanted to put that out there. The other thing is that I think it's important to understand that overnighting planes is a way of expanding air service. And if we do not increase air service, people are going to find ways to get to where they have to go when they are going very, very long distances that preclude being able to get, for example, in an electric vehicle and drive there. So two things. One is that the leadership of the airport has been a strong supporter of rail service. They have been at countless meetings and they have been an active, not only supporter, but a promoter of rail service. That's pretty unusual that you've got the leadership of the airport who is supporting another mode of transportation. They do not see rail as a competitor. The other thing also is that if there are people who are going to be flying anyway, think about the fact that when we get larger airplanes here, which we have fortunately been fairly successful in doing recently, that is say 100 people that instead of going a couple of miles to the airport are now going to be getting in some other form of transportation and are going to be traveling far distances in order to get to where they need to go by going to another airport. So I'm not really sure that that really is a way of reducing our carbon footprint by making people go further. And the last thing I did want to mention is that there is a very large informative brochure that is also available online talking about the number of ways that the Burlington International Airport has been a leader in energy efficiency and a sustainable airport. I would encourage everybody to read that. Just want to mention one thing that they have done and those are the solar panels that they've installed on the garage. Those panels were a cost of one and a half million dollars that was done in 2015. They're expected to generate a savings of three and a half million dollars over the following three decades. And that I think is a very good example of what we talked about in the resolution which is making investments not necessarily because they make short term financial sense but because they are a great investment in what we all want the outcome to be. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Powell. Councillor Freeman, you're gonna get the final word on this. Sure, thank you. Thank you. I will be also voting against this measure. I agree with a lot of what Councillor Hanson said about sort of the aviation industry as a whole and to the point of the argument that people will just fly somewhere else. Why should they? Why? We just passed the net zero energy roadmap which called on the community of Burlington to make considerable personal individual consumer choices that change our behavior and change how we live in the world because all of us want a world to live in beyond the next sort of decade. So I just don't hear that argument. I think we need to actually support and consider what reducing miles traveled, airline and flight miles traveled looks like and we should not be expanding aviation. This is normalized, but when we hear things like clean coal we think that's wrong. That's not accurate, that's incorrect. But then we hear let's expand aviation and we think, sure, yeah, let's fly. Flight shaming is becoming popular. I can't remember the Swedish word, but it's becoming popular in Sweden. There are other countries, other communities that are taking on this initiative. And I think what's important is that this 1.5 degree target, so the effort of globally reducing our emissions by half over the next 10 years gives us only a 50% chance. And we know this, a 50% chance of reaching that 1.5 target. Here's some things that will happen if we go over it's predicted. Global fisheries could decline by another 1.5 million tons. The coral reefs could decline as much as 99%. 1.7 billion people more could experience several severe heat waves at least once every five years. And the list goes on in terms of the increase in sea level rise, drought, just the amount of hardship, the sort of dystopian novel that none of us, I think truly want to see played out. So I will absolutely be voting against this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Freeman. We are ready for the vote. All those in favor of the resolution, please say aye. Any opposed? No. Three, raise your hands, please, on the nose. So it is Councilor Freeman, Councilor Hanson, and Councilor Tracy that passes by a vote of nine to three. Point of personal privilege, Councilor Wright. Point of personal privilege, Councilor Shannon. I just wanted to say for the record that I did not propose tonight that the city invest in the lottery, nor do I support that. I don't think I said that. I just said that you and I will go play the lottery if it comes down to that. Motion to adjourn. So moved. Second, by Councilor Bush, are all those in favor? Please say aye. Aye. Opposed? We are adjourned. Mercifully.