Demographic profiling is a tool used by marketers so that they may be as efficient as possible with advertising products or services and identifying any possible gaps in their marketing strategy. Demographic profiling can even be referred to as a euphemism for corporates buying Hudson, J2002. By targeting certain groups who are more likely to be interested in what is being sold, a company can efficiently expend advertising resources so that they may garner the maximum number of sales are not D and Fitzgerald and 1996. This is a more direct tactic than simply advertising on the basis that anyone is a potential consumer of a product. While this may be true, it does not capitalize on the increased returns that more specific marketing will bring. Juffick, AL 2015. Traditional demographic profiling has been centered around gathering information on large groups of people in order to identify common trends. GFK 2016. Trends such as, but not limited to, changes in total population and changes in the composition of the population over a period of time. These trends could promote change in services to a certain portion of the population, in people such as, children, elderly, and the working age population. They can be identified through surveys, in store purchase information, census data, and so on are not D and Fitzgerald and 1996. New ways are also in the works of collecting and using information for demographic profiling. Approaches such as target sampling, quota sampling, and even door-to-door screening. An effective means of compiling the comprehensive demographic profile is the panacea of marketing efforts. To know a person's name, ethnicity, gender, address, what they buy, where they buy how they pay, etc., is a powerful insight into how to best sell them the product GFK. 2016. The development of this profiling is the goal of many businesses around the world, to are pouring huge amounts of money into researching it. The recent discovery that has drastically changed the way we construct demographic profiles, is metadata needle, S 2013. This is the digital footprint left behind of everyone who uses online services. The more extensive the user's usage, the more extensive the information available on them and their interests. Companies such as Google and Facebook make enormous profits through the generation and processing of metadata, which can then be used by companies wishing to streamline their advertising to those best suited to seeing it targeted advertising. This is what controls the ads on a user's newsfeed, or websites they visit needle, S 2013 and means that for example, an avid mountain biker, is more likely to come across ads aiming towards that interest. For another example, for young girls who often visit online shopping stores, when on a social media account such as Facebook, the pop-up ads are more likely to concern recent stores they've visited or stores similar to. Metadata includes information such as the amount of time spent on a website, what websites a user frequently visits, where slash what they click and how many times, what they've purchased, whom they have talked to, and what they have purchased. It is so pervasive that most of what people do online contributes to the information being helped about them by businesses, and will directly affect what is advertised and shown to them when using an online browser and what mediums this is done through GFK. 2016. The gathering of metadata has proven to be a controversial topic, with large numbers of people around the world expressing discomfort at the idea of their personal information is being used to generate a virtual profile of themselves for businesses to take advantage of needle S 2013. This leads to businesses needing to progress with caution in this field, and not go too far with how they use this information. To avoid future legislation being enacted that would seek to limit the collection of metadata, companies must act ethically and have people's privacy in mind then they target people for advertising needle S 2013. An example of how this could become an issue is presented by Vasanathan, Jay, and Voss, Kate, and Ewing, T, and Wood, O, 2013 who proposed the idea of a virtual reality shopping program. Within this program, the shopper is greeted by a virtual attendant who knows them by name and suggests an array of suitable clothing options based on their past purchases. The shopper is delighted by the seamless nature of this shopping experience, until it come time to make a purchase. When buying the items the shopper has picked out, they opt to use their credit card. They are then asked by the virtual attendee if they are sure they would like to use that option, as their credit history suggests that cash would be a wiser option and that they wouldn't want to default on their payments as they have in the past. This highlights the need for discretion in the extent to which information is gathered, and how it is applied Vasanathan, Jay, and Voss, Kate, and Ewing, T, and Wood, O, 2013.


Everybody Matt here for latent sports cards are up in two boxes of 2022 Panini select football hobby. These are for Sam. Hey, good luck Sam This is sweet level rookie silver Damian Pierce Moss rookie phenomenon in silver Chris Olavae Chris Olavae fields Vaughan Miller red 199 Jersey Auto Marshall Falk Tim Let's see a big hit J Brown to Marvin Lale rookie silver Tri-color son of a night rookie Cooper cup silver Desmond Ritter Vonte Williams silver and Damian Pierce Field level rookie tie-dyed 25 Nick Chubb Sweet level Mac Jones silver. That is Rokwan Smith gold to 10 sweet level nice gold Davante Adams David and joku Here at Wilson rookie insert and to 49 Rookie jumbo Jersey auto John Mechie Chase Claypool Lewis sign Rookie purple Malik Willis rookie silver Trayvon Burks rookie neon icons darnold Vod sauce Gardner and 75 rookie jumbo Jersey white Kyle Hamilton J Brown. All right box number two coming up. That is Aaron Jones field level white 35 Mac Jones K York rookie silver Patrick Bomes neon icons Kyle Duggar silver This is tricolor Tom Brady Rookie auto silver to 199 Calvin Austin. It's Christian Watson. Can you pick it rookie phenomenon? Lockett and Tom Brady curvy Joseph blue Kyle Duggar Devin Lloyd rookie silver Axton Hill Kenny pick it neon icon silver rookie Hey, Jay Dillon tricolor Calvin Austin Deontay Johnson Mark Chase. This is Rookie auto blue V. List Jones, Jr. Let's go Chanel Tyler Smith rookie blue The rookie silver David Bell Drake London rookie phenomenon silver Jay Moseley. Come on. Let's see something crazy low number here Joe Burrow mod sauce Gardner and to 75 that is sparks Jersey white Nick Chubb Kyler Murray silver Desmond Ritter jail hurts Rashad Bateman and Tyree All right, Sam that'll do it for your boxes. Appreciate it. We'll get these right out to you


whatever game has been done I hope that I can help do that so let me just say three things so I'm pretty happy with the comments that I submitted today and there was a lot of input from Jack McCullough and Pauli although the housing task force didn't have an opportunity to talk about it so those are really my those are my comments what I was trying to say about the process was it is that it looked to me as if neither the council nor the committee had a real opportunity to step back and ask the big question you know should we have this ordinance and I thought that was I suspected that that might have been lacking in the committee process because it's appropriately dominated by the fire safety conversations that the chief and the building inspector brought to it and I really appreciated the memo that Rosie put together it contained a lot of good information and good thought you know generally I think that the best way to do this and I think other states have done it this way I can't tell you how many is that the state one way or another passes a law that expressly enables municipalities or counties to do this I suspect that it's it may be accompanied by general fund revenue or bonds or however things are funded in other states because you know this is one of those unfunded mandates that all of us once in a while have had a problem with and I think that's that's not a you know that's a problem and I think it's a problem particularly in the housing area particularly because we want to the city I think can and should be more welcoming to to builders and the city can be very proud of the track record that we've done over the last 20 years supporting all these very important projects you know I think we have you know the great track record with the housing trust fund I think it's important to from time to time and now is a good time assess the effectiveness of how trust fund monies have been used and I think the housing task forces you know intend to do that let me see if there's you know I pretty much covered the bases in my in my written comments see if there's anything I'd like to add the final point is I think you know I sense and this is appropriate I sense two things one the council is usually quite differential to its professionals including its fire prevention professionals and I have no comment on our fire prevention professionals and I actually have no comment on the effectiveness of this ordinance or mended or is on improving fire protection it will you know whatever you do it's going to get better if only in one or two or three houses so I was encouraging well I didn't do this well yesterday maybe I did a little better today encouraging you all to have that conversation you know which is stepping back the other thing that I sense is that it's local officials and I know you guys better than anybody else I don't know you personally but I know your predecessors and those around forever too so he's a familiar face but there is a reluctance to repeal things you know it's as if there has to be you know some huge cataclysmic event instead of what you might consider is to say this wasn't a good idea if it was a good idea it isn't working out real well and you know I had mixed feelings I was really appreciative of Rosie describing the variance process that's not something to be proud of you know in some places people would be fired for that disregard of the law I don't think people are harmed that's the good thing and so in addition to the other issues that have been mentioned I think there's a time we just say we tried this you know when it was Mary Hooper and the former fire chief I wasn't directly involved those people are very committed to fire safety Mary was the former commissioner of the department of labor and industry and I think she was instrumental in getting the state code to cover multifamily buildings I'm not sure of that I don't know that but I know she was very committed to it and she would have been very committed to this ordinance she was and the council adopted it I just think it didn't work out as planned and it's unfair it does provide additional fire safety in the small number of units that are newly constructed but I'm not sure that's the right place to have mandates but the only other point I would make is that and compare it to how the state and the municipalities have handled affordable housing you know in the 80s there was a tremendous leap forward on affordable housing it's been a huge problem with the one part of it was the creation of the housing and conservation board at the same time the legislature created a dedicated fund in the second year of its existence appropriated an additional 20 million in addition to the dedicated fund and has since 1988 appropriated between 10 and 20 million annually and then last year there was a $35 million state housing bond so that's a situation where the legislature said we want affordable housing we want it delivered by a non-profit delivery system and here's how we're going to help you and you see the accomplishments and that's not a feature of this ordinance and I think it's maybe it's time to start over it isn't a stellar track record and that is no reflection on our fire protection professionals I don't know why the varying stuff was so screwed up I don't know whether it was like jury nullification John probably knows what that is kind of a jury really wants to reach a right result and they don't care what the law is and they just vote to the right result and the lawyers and the judges are scratching their heads I don't think there was any conscious effort but it kind of feels like that ordinance isn't working out real well if there was that much activity around variances so I apologize again I made some significant errors yesterday and I'll live with that and hope we can move on thank you for your comments Jim appreciate it one minor factual matter Chuck Capers was the mayor of the three when it was passed oh he was it's not a story yes Hi, Gene Troyer I'm not a Montpelier resident but am a Montpelier taxpayer and have been for 35 years I have probably caused more of these sprinkler systems to be installed in single family houses than anyone else in town I'm a local building contractor have been for 35 years and I almost don't know where to start I think that the idea that houses constructed since 1982 are somehow more fire burn faster than houses built in 1850 is misguided there are some issues with houses that have been built with plate trusses which can in a fire come off and cause collapse and I understand the fire department's reticence in the integrity of those buildings in a fire but to have a ordinance that requires a sprinkler in a single family house I think is ridiculous I have put 15,000 gallon underground storage tanks to support sprinkler systems I have put 1500 in house storage tanks to support sprinkler systems in single family residences the cost is not you guys just you don't understand the cost involved that you're putting on middle class residents that you want to draw into town if you want single family house development I live in East Montpelier I'm on the select board in East Montpelier I've been involved in town government for 30 plus years I can build a house on County Road in Montpelier I can go on the other side of the road in East Montpelier and build the same house for almost $30,000 less if you're going to go and amend the ordinance and exempt 1200 square foot houses, small houses if you're going to exempt manufactured homes what are you doing you're making social choices through building ordinances and I don't think that's quite right I question as the ordinance stands what happens with manufactured homes in town now I mean I'm proud of what I've done in Montpelier and I've built a significant number of the single family houses that have happened in this town since 1982 that I know about this meeting on two and a half hours I noticed from a friend of mine that I didn't know at all about the committee and had the chance to talk to the committee I think is a miscommunication on the part of the government of the town and how people are notified of the way this happens I think it's ridiculous that I can own a single family house and I own a couple of them in town that have sprinkler systems in them and I can own a multi-family house built in 1843 or 7 or whatever it is and not have a sprinkler system in it I mean you're putting the public safety issue best afterwards that I can go into a restaurant on Main Street and be in a building without a sprinkler system but I have to have one in a single family house you're putting the cart before the horse and that's just the way I feel I'm proud I'm going to ask you to wrap up if you could we've got a number of other people we need to hear from appreciate your comments I don't want to feel free to finish up I just ask you to wrap up your comments if you could I understand you don't want to hear about the people that actually build houses in your town no I do want to hear from you and we have and I appreciate that it's almost 9 o'clock and we have a lot to go through and more people we need to hear from so just don't have an unlimited amount of time that's my only point my point is if you're about public safety look at public buildings you're looking at single family houses which is a small part of the equation if you're looking at promoting development in town drawing middle class people to town look at what you're doing in cost to building single family houses thanks for your comments Mr. Mayor I just have a quick follow up question for this gentleman as a veteran right here as a veteran builder and contractor curious for your professional opinion does having a sprinkler ordinance for single and two family homes in Montpelier in any way change your interest or willingness to develop here in the city of Montpelier my interest in developing in the city of Montpelier is it so hard to do your property values are like gold it's like having a house in St. Petersburg or Providence Provincetown I mean it's a niche market the values are really high and they will stay that way as long as you discourage development so if I'm hearing you correctly this sort of restrictive ordinance actually helps to increase our property values absolutely from your perspective from my perspective if it costs $20,000 more to build the house in Montpelier than it does in East Montpelier or Berlin it increases your property values that's just my perspective thank you okay I look out I just do a little cursory research it doesn't appear like Burlington and I know that we're not Burlington not saying that we are Burlington but Burlington has been tackling the affordable housing issue for as long as we have but I think they've been somewhat more successful I also just took a glance to see it looks like the Massachusetts legislature enacted a lot I want to say in the 90s and the mass supreme court took up an issue about it looks like the mass law targeted plus unit buildings so I think that I've heard a lot about single family and duplex and I'm not sure what the answer is whether it's repealing in its entirety which I hear some compelling arguments for or whether it's to create a solution to these particularly articulated scenarios where a building is designated as commercial retail and then transitions to a dining establishment or something along those lines but other places don't have ordinances like this and seem to address public safety they also seem to affordable housing seems to also dovetail into all of this in a way that does not cost an extra 20,000 plus dollars on a single family or a two-unit building and I agree that that does price out a lot of folks and I've heard from folks who have maybe rehabbed places or who have built new construction where that was a huge expense and that really kind of determined how many units they would build or what they would or wouldn't do and I think as a council it's incumbent upon us to get this right Just a quick follow-up on that I'm pretty sure that most affordable housing that's built in would already be sprinkled because of the number of units and so it's going to trigger the state ordinance anyway so that's one thing just one thing I want to make sure that people understand is that the way that this is written under the variance section there is a provision that things that will be considered in granting variances includes cost burden so if that is if it's going to cost something like $10,000 or more I'm not sure that we can say for sure that that will be granted but it'll be granted a waiver but that is certainly one of the things that the variance committee can weigh so as you know as people are worried about construction I mean this is a very different thing than what we're dealing with now so just want to make sure that everyone is aware of that I would like to respond to that it costs more than $10,000 to sprinkle a single family house so I have multiple friends who have done this it's cost them about $10,000 they've gotten bids for more and that's fine but that's what we're saying is that if that the cost is a factor and that that's built into this ordinance why don't you just make it for multifamily properties and exempt single family houses that have more than a specific setback from their neighbor so the setbacks are part of this as well if you're six feet away I can understand the fire hazard but if you're on a .4 acre lot with a 20 foot setback why does this become an issue when we all know it costs more than $10,000 to sprinkle a single family house so I would encourage you to okay so I'm going to jump in here so we're going to end the argument we can, you made your presentation we appreciate that but this isn't a form for having an argument back and forth okay Tim thank you I'm Tim Heaney I live on Main Street and I work on Main Street I've brought up some thoughts and tried to get my mind around this today too and share Gene's frustration over the years of trying to work with this ordinance and create housing so I'm not going to read all this to you but forgive me if I read a bit and I'm going to try to do bullets just to give you my thoughts I think Rosie's remarks were really good and thank you it helped me get an understanding of what the committee's been doing I'm just concerned that the recommendations don't improve the functionality of the ordinance that we have today and they do not strategically encourage housing growth but we've recently adopted zoning and master plan the ordinance we have has proven to be ineffective its focus is on requiring fire suppression sprinkler systems for new structures including single family homes and as it's been said tonight I think single family homes are probably a very small part of our housing stock and probably the safest group of homes within the housing stock we have with hard wired smoke and carbon oxide systems new wiring, new heating systems new building code most of the homes we have in Montpelier there was no building code when they were built so I think it really is the wrong focus if you've heard over and over tonight I think probably the focus really needs to be if you want to create a safer living environment for people in Montpelier and you want to improve our older housing stock you've got to create a way to have this sprinkler ordinance focus on existing multifamily housing fire within the last two weeks on the street with an 8-unit house I think that property could have benefited if there had been a sprinkler system there Bob Cowins I'm sure can tell me more if that would have kicked in or not there I would love a sprinkler system in every building there has to be you have to draw the line somewhere and I agree I'd like to see the line focus more on the older multifamilies and trying to find a way to create a code that's not punitive it's the old care and stick thing like the code we have the incentive to find a way to help people install these systems and all these wonderful old buildings that we have there are a lot of neat ways we can do it you could even be as simple as helping to offset some of the hook up fees with city water lines anyway I think the committee's recommendation is flawed in essence because it's just trying to modify a flawed basic policy I'd love to see the council take up the planning commission's recommendation and repeal the ordinance and have the committee take a fresh look at what can we do to make housing safer and more clear hopefully that recommendation will include ways to create incentives to put sprinkler systems in our multifamily houses thank you Tim Gene if we're ready I would like to make a motion let me just first see if there is anybody else who would like to make a comment before we do if you don't mind Gene good evening I'm Phil Dodd I primarily got interested in this from the point of view of a downsizing group I've been involved with some of you may be aware of that we're looking for opportunities for people to move out of their larger homes as they get older and move into smaller ones so this will impact that desire when I first learned about this I was surprised to learn we're the only city in Vermont that has a sprinkler ordinance applying to single family homes most of us live in town without sprinklers you know there is a balance here and I you guys have to figure out where that is but one thing I think thought about was we could make cars a lot safer we could require $10,000 more in safety equipment or heavier cars probably had a bigger impact on cutting down deaths but as a society we decided not to do that and we live with the situation we have so there's that cost and benefit you really have to weigh here the thing I went to the last sprinkler ordinance meeting and I had heard that the earlier draft before the one you ended up with excluded it was an exemption for all single-story single-family homes which was appealing to me because that's what a lot of downsizers would like to have and I think it makes some sense because you can get out the window you can get out the door if you require enough doors and windows but then it got pulled back to only houses less than 1200 square feet the exemption does not apply if there's an attached garage or it doesn't apply if there's a basement so it's really become a very limited exemption and I think potentially I'd like to see at least to go back to the single-story exemption and maybe require a certain number of doors one door for every 600 square feet something like that but these costs are real and it's already building costs are already very high so this is a real factor for people to consider I'm sorry I got here a little late I guess you may have already heard from the Planning Commission about what they were saying I do think their views should be given some weight I happen to have read the statute powers and duties of the Planning Commission any Planning Commission created under this chapter this is from Vermont Statutes may prepare and present to the legislative body recommended building plumbing fire electrical housing and related codes so they do have a role to play here and so they're here and getting a chance to say something someone told me some figures recently that I can't verify but they said in the last 20 years 1200 single-family homes have been built in the U30 towns surrounding us and 100 in Montpelier I'm actually surprised it's that many as 100 single-family homes but there is an issue here and I think if we want to have more single-family homes in Montpelier there should be some further loosening of this restriction we made a lot of changes in the zoning recently with the idea that this would increase housing in Montpelier as I look this I really think this sprinkler ordinance is a bigger barrier to single-family homes being built in Montpelier than the zoning ever was so it's an important issue and I'm sure you'll give it a serious consideration thank you Jesse my name is Jesse Remick I'm a District 2 resident here in Montpelier since 2004 I agree with a lot of what I've heard tonight safety being an important factor as well I work at an architecture firm so I have the pleasure of dealing with codes quite a bit and I do not pretend to know any and all of them but I do spend a fair amount of time in them I'm just getting caught up on this issue and I feel it's a very important one but in looking at one of the items that the committee was considering the three options one of them keeping the ordinance but exempt one in two family homes one of the main reasons it seemed that that was not taken was perhaps a statement which I would like to have the answer to is the savings that the fire department is seeing by the sprinkler ordinance and I think it really needs to be singled out whether that includes only the single family ordinance or the entire ordinance together as a city because I'm not sure that by sprinkling single family homes we'd see that savings and I feel that that is a compelling argument to not consider that I'm not sure that that's the right argument and regarding the IRC without having it with me because I never say I know anything about codes without going back and checking I'm not sure that the IRC does require a sprinkler system not the 2003 version but they do require other provisions to be made for safety yes you have interconnected smoke detectors and egress means of egress be it a door or a large enough sized window so we're saying we need to have a sprinkler system and we need to do these other factors as well so it feels like it's a belt and suspenders type system that we're requiring of single family homes and I'm just not sure that it's the right approach but I respect everyone's opinion thank you Jesse any other comments? yeah briefly I've been very rather than a belt and suspenders I think of it as a seat belt I just said one quick response to Mr. and it's coming about the future buildings this won't be long the theory didn't discriminate between which type of building whether it was residential or commercial it was the theory at the time was if the city continues to develop we won't have to expand the size of the fire department because any new building will be sprinkled so if for example we were successful beyond our wildest dreams with housing 1000 new units if they were all not sprinkled realistically some of them would be but if in theory they weren't we would probably have to add firefighters to cover those new that new supply so that was the theory that it didn't single out one type of building for another Barbara yet there's no one else I just to address a couple of things that were said Ashley mentioned affordable housing and I started to think about Habitat for Humanity houses which are single family houses and anything that was built under that would require sprinklers and the other thing too is just to direct the council to the research that I attached to my comments when I started looking at this two years ago and I went online this is what popped up and this was some extensive research done by several groups regarding the relative safety of smoke detectors and sprinklers and what they said pretty consistently was that in many cases fires that could still be deadly were too small or too to activate the sprinklers so the first line of defense has to be the detectors and the alarms and so people get out of the building now I understand that the sprinklers are much better for saving the property and certainly better for protecting the firefighters and I do appreciate that factor that you're going to go into a building you'd much rather have a building that's more structurally sound but in terms of protecting the occupants it seems like it's not always the case and I guess yeah I think I guess I would just leave it at that I think that again I would urge us to not write code language on our own and that we need to be using the experts that know how to write code language if we choose to rewrite this with this. Thank you Barbara. Can I respond to some of the comments? Sure. First to Barbara's I said it earlier sprinklers reduce deaths in single family homes by 80% smoke alarms and CO alarms reduce deaths in single family homes by 50% that's the statistics you can review it through the NFPA sprinklers reduce deaths by 80% on housing barriers myself Mike Miller, Chris Lumber we're meeting all the time with builders people coming to us talking to us about projects we're not hearing that the reason I'm not building in Montpelier is because of sprinkle systems we're not hearing that probably six months ago we met with a builder who's considering a fairly substantial project in Montpelier and we talked to him about sprinklers and he said I'm not worried about sprinklers I'm worried about the neighbors this is a gentleman who's interested in doing a very substantial project in Montpelier so we're not hearing that we're not hearing people aren't coming to us and saying people are coming to us and saying I can't find a place to build in Montpelier I have ideas there was a project presented on Sibley Avenue that was prevented that wasn't prevented by sprinkler systems we all know what prevented that so we're not hearing that so we're not hearing that that it's being prevented public billings was brought up we should be paying attention to public billings we are paying attention to public billings we are paying attention to our restaurants it's on our radar it's one of the things that the changers want to address is those areas so we are looking at that and then I just want to quickly there's been a couple comments about the variance committee and council member Cercotte was a member of the variance committee the variance committee worked really hard and they tried to do the right thing it was sometimes outside of the ordinance but it was a group of people volunteers who were trying really hard to do the right thing and I don't think we should be criticizing the efforts of the variance committee any other comments yes or no I agree with that sentiment perfectly about the variance committee I think with keeping the requirement for single family homes and thus increasing the avenues to go through and provide a variance is really putting the variance board in a tough spot because it's a gray area and it's because I feel the requirement isn't necessarily the best one and so we're constantly providing ways to help improve the requirement that isn't maybe right okay jean did you have a motion you wanted to make yes given all the questions and concerns from the folks here and from the council and even granted that the committee did so much work I moved to repeal the current city sprinkler ordinance and replace it with the state fire code until further review is there a second second is there a discussion ma'am still have lots of things to say so I just want people to know that I checked in with a couple of friends of mine who are intending to build some infill in Montpelier and ran this by them to see if they thought it would work for them and they thought it would so that was encouraging I am also really glad that cost provision is a part of the considerations for variances that is built into this there was a question that was brought up like is this actually better than the current ordinance and I would say it is definitively better because it is much clearer as to how one is going to how one could go about getting a variance and it's clear that one could get a variance which was not clear from the current wording also you know as we sort of ran through the kinds of buildings that this would affect one of the things that came up was a potential for cottage clusters and that's the kind of single family home that would potentially that would be in balance here are we going to require that they be sprinkled or not and under this iteration of the proposed amendment they would be and if we just repeal it they would not be and frankly I have come to a place where if someone is going to be planning a whole set of units for development that's something that I would want to have sprinkled and so you know just trying to think if there is any other iterations but that was certainly one of them Barbara you brought up whether or not we should be writing this language in the first place and I would argue that the same logic also applies to the zoning should we be coming up with language if nobody else does it and we've actually had this reviewed by a lawyer not necessarily in depth but briefly and he was comfortable with it and that is comfort enough for me in terms of the legal standing of this can I address that sure well I sorry your first point being that this this may have been reviewed by a lawyer but a lawyer is not a building professional and building professionals that I have spoken with and also other people that have to administer have serious questions about whether or not it could be administered easily and our, I'm sorry from that standpoint and I'm sorry what was your first point I had many points yeah many points all right but I think oh the cottage cluster but recognize that cottage clusters could be individual homeowners so that individual homeowner with a small cottage of 1400 square feet which they're allowed in cottage cluster then adding in the additional cost of the sprinkler even when they're not then when they're far enough away from their neighbor that probably just isn't necessary to me that seems burdensome so just okay so I would open this up but that's not if you need to make another comment but then let's move on I guess I would just also raise that you brought you also brought up the the rental inspections and that I would just say as an advocate for rental inspections that is something that we have put on the back burner and that's a conversation that we've had with the housing task force and it's a totally totally separate thing Ashley. So I'm just curious the proposal from the committee would send a large number of things to the variance committee I mean this could potentially be a huge number of things I mean city staff that committee we participated in it. Yes so that's going to cost that's going to take city resources I mean if we're talking and again I'm not showing my hand one way or the other on this but I'm asking from a practical perspective I mean what sort of resources is that going to require the city to put forward to address the number of variances that are going to come in if there is again it's assuming inundation of applications but depending on the size of a potential project that could happen and so I suppose that's one that's one question and I guess my other question is I forgot it so I'll stop talking I just wanted to say one thing on that I think that the variance committee is already receiving a lot of variance requests they're just outside of what's allowed in the ordinance and that makes me extremely uncomfortable and is one of the reasons that I raised this you know originally so I don't dispute that there would be an increase but I think there is already you know there have been quite a number since 2013 at least could you re-read the motion interested in the word gene used a word and it wasn't suspend and one of the comments that other people have made is suspend and then work on she said repeal to repeal the current city's brink of ordinance and replace it with the state fire code until further review and I just I don't think we need to replace it with the state fire code because that would already exist so I might if you were willing to amend that that would be more proper I just need to repeal the current city's brink of ordinance until further review does that state your intent that is the intent as long as the state fire code okay so with that objective I just say if we're good now obviously we still have to have a second reading but if you think about repeal just make sure that we're talking about everything whether it's one or two sections of the ordinance the single and one and two family pieces if that's what you're really interested in then we got to talk about that obviously it's your policy decision the ordinance also talks about commercial buildings, restaurants so if you throw the whole thing out make sure that's a thoughtful decision secondly I would urge the council this was an act with a lot of input from professionals fire professionals, fire safety professionals you've heard opinions from a lot of people I know the planning commission offered their opinion I'm not aware that they did full testimony with people at different points of view so you know I think I'd urge us to be deliberate and thoughtful about making and make sure you've had an opportunity here from a lot of different points of view with more facts before you make a rash decision this is a question for John Odom what is the procedure by which one could move to table something given that there's a motion on the floor once there's a motion on the floor it takes precedence we'll have a vote that's the way to deal with the resolution there can be a motion to amend the motion and the motion can be withdrawn but the motion takes prime let me just ask a question for Bob because I think this is a discussion how does the state fire code deal with family buildings and downtown over three units three units or more would be required to be strengthened except that buildings under no buildings with a direct protected access I think dedicate access to each unit our example so if you have kind of a lower single or a lower multi-family building and every unit has a door to the outside or a protected hallway to the outside then you're not required commercial buildings as far as required to be sprinkled under the state building code the state controls commercial buildings no my question is what is the new have to be sprinkled but the change of use it also includes a change of use provision where the state would not a perfect example would be because I talk about it all the time the Bohemian Bakery under the state that they would not have required that can I just say one more thing yes sir I would encourage people but between now and the next time you get together to please take a look at the federal tax reform because in the federal tax reform the division of fire safety Mike Narosha assured me he would get something out within the next week there was heavy lobbying done before that from the international association of fire chiefs international association of firefighters the NFPA and in the federal tax reform there is provision for sprinklers in single family homes 100% right off of those until the year 2022 and then at year 2023 80% and then incrementally comes down so if you want I think I sent it to some folks I can send it to the entire council and Mike Narosha from the division of fire safety assured me today that the state would speak to that within the next week because that is in the federal tax reform can I just make a correction to I actually was mistaken you can move to postpone a motion within the discussion of the motion that's typically done either to another date certain or if someone wants to table something they can motion to postpone indefinitely so that's my mistake I would move then I'm sorry to interrupt but I would move then that we table this until our next meeting I did not read this as we are going to vote definitively one way or the other tonight I had thought that this would be an opportunity for council to discuss, hear from people and then sort of make a decision and I have heard a lot of feedback about this but I would like an opportunity to do some research of my own and that's not to undercut anything that anyone has shared with us I think at this point it makes sense to table it and take it up at our next meeting I just want to say that this is the first reading of the ordinance we don't have to do anything tonight other than conclude the first reading if we want to conclude the first reading and then we need to have a second reading which was on the agenda for the next time I do think that there is we need to act with some deliberate speed here simply because this does really impact how folks are going to conduct their building projects this summer and whether or not they need to get permits whether they need to design a system etc so I'm happy to not vote or decide anything tonight but I would like to conclude the first reading so that when folks go back and think about what they want to do we can have more discussion next time and then come to a conclusion one way or the other I want to make it really clear for folks who are building this summer what we want them to do at the next meeting it seems to me that these are not mutually exclusive things I mean if we vote in favor of postponing this particular motion that could be taken up later and we could finish first reading tonight so any motions to the secretary is there any further discussion on favor please say aye aye okay so this matter will be postponed so you're concluding someone wants to move to conclude first reading then does that require a vote on the first reading it might be just procedurally where the pending on a table motion you might want to just for the record be clear that you're closing first reading or you could declare it I'm not sure that is I guess the question is what the council adjusted I just wanted to get clarity on the date specific I know you said next meeting so I just wanted to have a date associated with that February 14th okay so our plan is to take it up at our next meeting on the fourth second reading second reading is there any objection to that plan I don't think we need to I would move that we conclude the first reading second all in favor please say aye okay so we will move on thanks everybody for your input on this next slide I think it's going to be very quick is the farmers market it's a request for the farmers market to go to the to move to the high street oh you guys are here sorry you had to sit through just the nature of the beast and I do hope I'm right that this will be quick I don't think we're going to have a lot of controversy over this one we have to sprinkle all the booze no we exempted tents you heard should we change that I just have still I just have still just one okay welcome introduce yourselves absolutely so my name is Karen Wiseman I'm the president of the board of the capital city farmers market and I've got here with me Ashton Ashton Carol manager of the farmers market and one of our long time I'm the vice president and a 42 year veteran of farmers markets we're happy to have you here we appreciate your time and we really will be quick I'm speaking tonight on behalf of our 68 member vendors that our our business is voted at our annual meeting to make this proposal to the city our proposal tonight is to move the capital city farmers market onto state street between Elm and main streets for the entirety of our 2018 outdoor season which is made October 26 weekends as we've even heard tonight there's a lot of upcoming construction all over our city and we're pretty sure that we'll likely be adversely impacted in some way having a lot of construction all around us secondly we've always been on the lookout for a new permanent home that can reflect city and the community and the farmers market and so we're hoping that this will be the next step in that evolution of finding that right home for us our proposal right now is based on a set of successful trial markets that we did in September and October of 2017 we teamed up with Malkil you're alive the sustainable malkil you're coalition and the city and we really think it was a great success it had the look in the field and it just it looked great right in downtown we have metrics associated with the look in the field though we did a set of customer feedback surveys we typically get over an average of about 2000 customers every Saturday at the market and during the first market we were able to survey 335 customers interestingly 60% of those customers were from Montpelier 20% were from surrounding towns and 20% were visiting our city when we asked them if they thought that the location and look in the field was better 70% that back yes absolutely 15% were neutral and 15% said no they didn't really like the change sales for us we had the highest grossing market that 5 years of the market additionally we saw 20 to 30% increase in gross sales as compared to our whole average of 2017 markets as well as a history of the last 4 years of our market so really financially it made a big impact we have support from the Montpelier downtown business association Montpelier alive and the sustainable Montpelier coalition as we all can imagine there's not 100% support there's not 100% support from the downtown businesses our own members or our customers but what we've done is we've tried to take everybody's feedback and incorporated into the details of our proposal what we're actually proposing is a one year trial so that this gives us clarity for the year we're in one place but it gives all parties involved an opportunity to reassass and make sure it still really is the right kind of fit we will be obviously making adjustments as we go along to adjust any issues that come up we're asking the city to provide a port-a-potty for us during the duration of the markets that was one clear feedback that we got from our customers that there really were no facilities other than having to walk all the way to city hall and or unfortunately we tended to overwhelm the downtown businesses facilities which we heard from as well one idea that we have to put on the table is to work with Montpelier alive and create like a quintessential Vermont outhouse experience and put the port-a-potty inside attached to the info booth that Montpelier alive has and we could lock that and leave it during the week because it is it is a financial investment to have to move those things in and out every week we propose to maintain the lease that we currently have with this facility for the lot that we have it's adjacent and it just keeps our contractual relationship there we are requesting that no non-farmers market members be allowed to have done during the market hours our members pay a fee for Ashton's wonderful management services and advertising and things like that and secondly that we do feel with the proposed layout that it could affect customer flow affect our layouts and things like that and we are already squeezed pretty tight in this layout for some clarification so when you ask for folks not to be able to then do you mean for example restaurants along the street having a director of seating or are you talking about folks particularly having a food cart or something yeah it would be not the downtown business but we would definitely look at this as an opportunity for them to participate and just create a much bigger destination and so it would be specifically there are certain vendors apparently to get a permit to then on state street yeah the street vendors to set up the temporary stands on the weekend or during the week and the food carts do we have a sense of how many folks would be affected by that there were two or three depending on the weekend setting up during our trial run I don't know who has permits currently for them on the street and are you talking could those vendors still outside the boundaries of the farmers market say on main street yeah I think we think that's fair it's just kind of right not in your market but that's how we work right now they're kind of adjacent to the market but we did find that it made working with their space it sort of interfered with our layouts so you have an exclusivity just within those boundaries from state to now that's correct main down so we're asking also for some help in finding a spot that we can put picnic tables and have a place where people can sit and be a little bit leisurely and a place to store our trailer and picnic tables with the construction that's going to happen we think that there's going to be an issue that we currently keep our stuff we have ideas potentially the courthouse and things like that that might want some city council help to forge those potentials we're proposing a different layout that we use we're proposing a circular layout so that the center of the road is going to be open and free we think that's a better access for emergency vehicles it's better access for our vendors and we think it's going to provide better flow for customers as well there's a view of that layout on the back of the handout there's way more detail on the handout but this is the important part and we're going to be assigning spaces to ensure that we don't put like for like businesses together so that we can be respectful of the downtown businesses as well the duration we're asking for is 6 a.m. to 2 30 p.m. for the street to be shut down and looking forward past this year we hope that we can continue to get some help in trying to find a good suitable permanent or maybe even down the road a little bit between Taylor and in front of the state house but let's work on this first step see how it goes and we'll go for that so that is our proposal we really appreciate your time there Rosie normally when we have a street closure we do the street closure permit application and we hear from various affected city departments do we have some opinions from them on this I think I believe they've all met but I I mean if they've already signed off on it then that's I think so we did pull our department heads to find out if anybody had any objections to this and generally across the board there was broad support for this Tom the department of public works has some concern as they always do when we close state street they're not crazy about closing a through way that was the one objection we got the police were fine, the fire department is fine and they're here too if you want to hear from them Sue do you know why Tom objects at closing the thoroughfare specifically well he's always worried because we do get state funds and federal funds for for our big roads it's more of a roads for roads yeah okay Donna and then very minor just a logistical question though but in terms of the barricades and the cone packages just want to clear what is the expectation of public works Montpelier PD staff how is that one detail going to work that's a good question I know during the trial we were under the impression that we really weren't allowed to analyze stuff I was saying because it's just going to be a challenge since we're institutionalizing something every weekend I can't always guarantee especially if there's two officers on that's going to happen so I just want to have that part I'm not saying that's a deal breaker I just want to make sure that we're clear eye to some of those elements that the city do close the city has supported that function both public works and the police department usually the police department we don't call them public works generally on a one-time deal unless it's a big event or something so I want to put that out there as we did with the pilot project this past year the farmers market has agreed to sit down with all the department heads that want to be there at the city and we bring out a big map to detail and go over it and work out the details until everybody's comfortable and we're going to do that again great well I guess I just want to make sure that we know that that's happened I mean I assume it it sounds like it'll be fine but I'm not clear what we're approving tonight if that hasn't happened well we can make it conditional upon that happening their approval conditioning conditional upon that happening so if it doesn't then I thought you said they've seen this no I'm sorry they haven't seen this they haven't seen the details but we bounce the idea off of them and the reason that they're here before you tonight and not waiting a little bit is that they also have to start their planning and they have some board meetings coming up and they didn't want to go through a lot of hoops if in fact the council was disenglined to allow them to do this so I have a question about whether you've considered using the Hinewatt and State Street seems like there's enough demand to support both spaces that's a good question we try to stay in the smallest area possible if we move to State Street then we take up the parking that's on State Street and so to have adjacent parking is definitely one of the important things that we've heard as feedback from our customers as well as the downtown businesses if we take the State Street parking then it can and the Haney parking then there's really not a lot of parking for the direct downtown businesses I honestly though never had trouble finding parking I mean people might have to walk you know a hundred yards anyway I just ask you to think about it I think there's demand and I think it would make even a more vibrant atmosphere downtown I think people would really like it and I just question with I mean I think parking is a strong feedback from businesses they lose it in the parking lot now but they have the on streets it's important to the businesses I hear in my district for sure overall I would just like to express strong support for getting more people out in the streets downtown you've got some data to back up the sales figures and the results on that I also would encourage merchants to keep an open mind that this is a win-win not a competitive situation that the more customers we can get in the streets likely they're also going to see those sales figures reflected in their gross sales as well I do have a couple of points just to go through don't need to respond to them just thoughts wanted to put out as your kind of sounds like on the path to developing a solution that's going to work for everybody making sure that you're planning to work with merchants and it sounds like you are with rest rooms and not competing putting a competing product I think would go a long way I did get some feedback during the trial run from some elderly folks in town about accessibility for disabilities so while it is active in public streets escape any reasonable accommodation that can be made to make those stands as accessible as they were previously I'm sure would be greatly appreciated clarified the vendors on State Street do you have a sense of how many parking spaces would be given over to vending between 6 and 2 I don't have a direct number available but there is a net gain with the parking that we would gain in the Haney lot the current market lot just because of the way the parking is oriented sure part of the concern is probably going to be proximity to the businesses that are right there on State Street so as you're managing that parking asset may be some dedicated parking for those businesses or encouraging your vendors not to consume the stuff that's closer to those businesses or a variety of ways that you might really make accommodation for those businesses so they don't feel sore about losing those spaces directly in front of their businesses we can't allow cars in there at all there can't be dedicated parking when the streets close in the Haney lot the Haney lot is going to be just open they're not going to control the Haney lot during that time at least it's going to be transferred to State Street I would just ask you to think it's a longer term consideration but not to let parking drive all this discussion this sort of reminds me of a yogi bear comment about the popular restaurant people don't go there anymore because it's too crowded and I think that's a situation we'd face if you expand to the farmers market I mean I think you can think of I know a couple of cities that close their entire Dantan I think Des Moines, Iowa closes an enormous successful farmers market and there's not any parking in Dantan but it's packed with people thousands and thousands of people every weekend that's the whole idea of it so I think the notion that people aren't going to come because there's not going to be parking I think the result would be just the opposite I think we'd have more people in Dantan because there would be more going on I agree that there will be more people there trying to make the point that there may be some merchants who have concerns about that shift in parking usage and so the more you can be proactive and accommodate those concerns it probably would help in the relationships and the ongoing support from downtown merchants but lastly I did have one logistical point and I don't know if obviously it was around the traffic signal at state and main and if there is some limited capacity for police support I'm sure DPW will be looking at whatever signage or traffic control things we can do to help keep people from backing up and trying to turn and now the police have to get involved so just that we're thinking proactively about what we can do there Dantan I appreciate your thinking about the parking because I did hear about it from merchants and likewise I heard they really don't like this format they like the one that you used in your trial which is the vendors, the farm remarker vendors being inside so that the back of your farm market isn't in front of the store because this way people were circulating between the stores the sidewalks and then they had a walk space and then your vendors and it was like a pod in the middle is there a reason you went and put yourself back against the sidewalks there were probably there are a couple different reasons that we were looking at that one was just better emergency vehicle access having a wider lane down the center which also meant for a quicker setup and breakdown because we could have two vehicles go down the center and have vendors set up on either side instead of having only a single lane of traffic which was an issue and then one of the major complaints that we got from customers was access for people with disabilities I think that trying to have the vendors in the center and have people kind of walk between the curb and the remaining area of the street next to the vendor was an issue for a lot of customers I think you'll find a different response from the merchants downtown we did bring this layout to the merchants association this past meeting because we didn't want them to not realize that we were changing I know how many don't go there thank you Peter it's a fair point Bob did you want to come over there to discuss this setup with the straight emergency vehicle down the first week and I think it was the second week there was a couple of jobs because of the build outs and the sidewalk so emergency vehicles would have to come down and make a couple of sharp turns and it would have been very difficult this is what we would encourage and would ask for is this setup thank you Bob so I so I so I got an email from Cindra who was coping with pet and she is not able to be here so she wanted me to read a statement from her so she says first I want to apologize for not delivering this short message in person recently been under the weather the downtown merchant who owns the town's pet shop on states my shop stands 100% behind the farmers market sharing our street with us on Saturdays this coming summer and beyond the other downtown business owners I know strongly support the move as well I'm speaking on their behalf the proposed move brings the market far greater visibility which should translate into far greater vitality on Saturdays in Montpelier the downtown's most important commerce day more people downtown is a good is good for the farmers market good for those of us with businesses on Maine as well as state and good for those of us living in Montpelier as my three dogs, my husband and I do I'm sorry I can't be there as planned to present alongside the farmers market people who will soon be my new neighbors as well as friends along with meeting with the city and other departments I've been going to the downtown business association meetings to discuss some of the potential issues that businesses do have excuse me, not every business goes to those I'm going to be meeting with Sarah the head of the downtown business association next week ahead of our selection process for the upcoming year just so I can talk some specifics with her and find out if there are any specific businesses that want to meet in person and just talk about any issues from the trial run and what we're looking at doing for this year okay, thank you can I have a motion? what's the wording here the motion approving the move of the farmers market to state street for the 2018 season contingent upon condition it on the meeting with the contingent upon a meeting with all of the heads of departments affected heads of departments is there a second? second I guess that does that I mean I think I know the answer but this means that we are granting the permits to close down state street for every Saturday just to make sure that that gets on the record that's what is happening that's what that's authorized any further discussion? all in favor please see aye thank you all very much look forward to another great season of the farmers market okay our last sub sub item tonight is the dog ordinance someone needs to be last right? I'm waiting for your patience I'm waiting like a dog alright so I don't know who's presenting this is from the who's been kind of shepherding this and Sue could you I'm the chair of the committee so Dennis before we take well I don't know who's presenting this proposal I wanted to make a request first I'm very pleased to have this document but it's like a totally new ordinance if not just amendments and it changed everything and there are a lot of people I only got this on Sunday so there are a lot of people who have talked to me about it and said they'd like a chance to participate in this because it all is so new and there wasn't the ability to see what you know what from the previous thing although it was the previous amendments the first reading September 27 they couldn't see what was out of it was deleted and this is really completely new so I would like to propose that we make this we make this like a first reading tonight of this new ordinance and have a second reading or have a third reading I was hoping you were going to ask to delay the whole thing 10 to 10 delay the whole thing I suggest that well I certainly not going to get any argue from me I guess I actually am actually going to agree with that I know there are a lot of people in our community who care a lot about this and you know they're dog owners they're non dog owners and it's late which I'm fine going but I also want this to be a super inclusive process because I know there's been a lot of work that has been done and I don't want to exclude anyone from participating in this so I'm wondering if we made a commitment to put this as our first substantive agenda item at our next meeting that's good I think those should be one and two and I'm going to ask selfishly that they be one and two because I'm having major surgery earlier in that week so I'm hoping to make it but I probably won't be able to stay for the entire meeting but I think that these are two issues that our community is clearly invested in and I would really like to okay well if you are you all okay with that you've sat through this whole meeting but if you're okay with it I'd certainly support that yeah okay okay is there any objection on the council to putting this off for the next meeting okay well thank you Dennis thank you all for your patience and we'll make an effort to look forward to full discussion and I just want to make clear that the commitment is to put those two agenda items as the first substantive sure but this is entirely different from the first document whatever I'll think it matters so will it be a first reading 30 that's a big tag that we've done that I mean I'm certainly we'll have at this assurance that we give this all you know plenty of opportunity for you to if you don't feel like you've had the opportunity to discuss it or to consider it well you can continue that that would be great I'm hoping that you can continue that I might suggest you could plan on second reading with a plan to continue second reading if necessary we could do continuation of the second reading alright thank you all okay so I believe that concludes our regular business tonight next item would be council reports Donna I wanted to go back to an email I sent out and I think I sent it to the whole council short-term bicycle parking policy it's about bike racks that the Montpellier Transportation Infrastructure Committee has on their budget that you've approved we have money for bike racks and sometimes we will have private owners reach out to us and we may work with them to get a bike rack sometimes we have a place that people ask for us to put it on city property we did this or this policy if we didn't we've been doing it but we didn't have it written down so we wrote down the policy we made the application and who made an application already has us doing some modifications so that make sure it can be a person can ask for it doesn't have to be just a business so if you have any feedback for this or if you feel when we get it finally draft that you have to approve it we'd like to know now otherwise we're going to do some editing use it and keep modifying it until it works right so what's your pleasure so this is city funds this is the the bicycle rack that we have money in the m-tech I don't think it would be a bad idea for the city to approve it I really appreciate you've done it and I think that's great and I didn't have any problem with it I emailed Corey and told him I'm fine with it yeah thank you are you all set? do you already want us back? do you all want to see it? okay, Jean? you can just email it to me I emailed it to you a couple weeks ago I did, I thought you were saying and I looked at it, I thought you were saying you'd make more changes we'd make changes as we get feedback and use it no I did look at it and I thought it was great okay thank you I want to acknowledge the police department in light of incredibly complicated and difficult situation everything that they've done this week and also the city manager for a really relevant, timely and thoughtful social media posts that he made in regards to this incident I also want to acknowledge there have been some refreshments made to our city web page and greatly appreciated it looks like some new photos and hopefully we're using whatever analytics we're getting back in order to continue to refine and develop that important tool so echoing Justin regarding the incident this week and I especially wanted to encourage all city staff to take advantage of the EAP the employee assistance program even if you weren't directly involved, if you were sitting in your office if you were driving a truck and not there, it doesn't mean that you weren't impacted and I speak from personal experience that these things can hit you emotionally in weird ways if you don't deal with them and so I just really want to say there's no shame, you don't need to feel like you had to be directly involved in order to take advantage of that service that's a benefit for you like your health insurance, like your sick leave your vacation days and we expect you to use it when you need it so please take advantage of that likewise I just want to thank the police department for their response to the incident last week and just all the support from the community I know that all the teachers at the high school are very grateful and the students as well so yeah, thank you and on a slightly lighter note I mean I know I sort of recused myself from the portion of the discussion about the school bond but I just want to express that I'm very excited about the infrastructure bond for the school because it involves fixing the roof which is currently not functioning in my classroom and it has been leaking for the last week, it's very exciting I have lots of pictures I would just like to thank everyone who came out tonight to talk about pretty important issues that our city is dealing with it's really renewed my faith in our community and I'm really I feel really grateful to serve with folks who are so thoughtful and mindful and to be part of a community who's really invested in everything that the city council is taking up Ashley it does feel like our community has gone through a lot recently in particular of course the incident at the high school was traumatic but it also brought out I think a lot of positives in our community not the support for the police officers support for the high school and the students but also the family and even the young man who was involved in his family so I think it really spoke well of our community in rallying behind everybody it's affected in understanding just what a tragedy it was so I appreciate and echo what other people have said about the police department and also of course just the heart goes out to the family and of course a lot of us knew them and I think it's a great opportunity for our community for decades I just need to note that starting tomorrow I can be accepting candidate petitions in the office the deadline to get those in is the end of the day February 4th February 4th is a Sunday I don't feel like I have authority under charter to do what we do with state deadlines and make it for the next Monday so I encourage folks to get that in the box if it comes in over the weekend and I will check that also just make a note to folks in general and any candidates that I am doing the online voter guide again it's at Montpeliervoterguide.org where you can navigate to it through the city website and it just is going to create a forum to discuss any of the ballot articles on there and for candidates on the ballot to give a little introduction to themselves I don't have a lot of support to the police and the EMTs have to respond and to the school they're a great ally and the community too, people with very supportive comments on a less exciting note just remind you all that you should have been emailed a document written to my multirator assessment so I hope you all fill it out it doesn't take very long to do it and get that in that will be helpful and in theory we're discussing our own review of that I'm going to not right now but this was me doing that on the 14th too so to get those forms out it's all right alright I think that's it that objection at 10 o'clock we'll be adjourned


Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Jim, Reverend Clergy, you're the officials of our party, our national committee, women, the others who are here on the platform, and I want to say my thank you to the Apache bells for that wonderful performance. I'm just sorry that with the geography, more of you couldn't have a clear view of them. It's great to be, incidentally, somebody, you know, everyone wants someone to ask you why you campaign. Well, I just thought as I came walking down here between those two lines of those lovely young ladies, why not? But it's great to be back in these parts where the Texas spirit is every bit as big as your wide open open sky. Now, if you think I'm just a visitor saying that for possible political profit, let me point out, I could have said our wide open sky because it was just about 25 years ago that I was commissioned an honorary citizen of the Lone Star State. So you have to believe me when I say Texas is number one in hospitality and a lot of other things also. You probably know that story about the young fella that once asked a stranger if he was in Texas and the kid's father kind of took him in hand and he said, son, I want you always to remember one thing. If a man comes from Texas, he'll tell you without being asked. And if he doesn't come from Texas, there's no need to embarrass him. But I want to say a few words about your Texas stars that we need to help us finish the job that we began less than two years ago. In 1980, we pledged to work for policies that would strengthen the values crucial to a strong, successful country. You know what they are because here in Texas, words like self-reliance, personal initiative, opportunity, and yes, as Jim said, love a family and neighborhood and patriotism and belief in God describe everyday facts of life. There's a man here whose philosophy and voting record reflect a lifelong commitment to those bedrock values that made America great. He loves this state. He has put together a strong campaign. He has closed a big gap in a hurry. I believe in him. And with your all out support, Jim Collins can and will be the next elected senator from the state of Texas. And I I have to say this. Jim's opponent talks like a Texan, but when he's back in Washington, he doesn't vote like one. Wouldn't it be great if John Tower, who does such a fine job for Texas, could work with a colleague, his fellow senator who reinforces his vote instead of with someone who cancels it out. We're hoping too that you'll go all out for your excellent house candidates. We need them in Washington. And let me say a few words about your leader who's out campaigning and couldn't be here. Well, he's going to have a debate. And he told me that some place in the debate he was going to find a place to say, there you go again. He's his leadership, his competence. This is what he's all about. In this state, it isn't good enough to say that Texas has one of the toughest, most effective governors in the country. You have to say Texas will elect the best governor. And that means making sure Bill Clements stays right there where he is doing his great job. I almost nominated you for governor just then. Now, and this goes not only to these congressional candidates who are here and your incumbents and sending them back. Also, your state constitutional officers, Alan Clark, as you're running for treasurer. You and I know what it means to be in the minority party. Our candidates need Republican and Democratic votes. I'm confident we'll continue to attract that broad support. The plain truth is rank and file Democrats by the millions in this country. Don't share the bigger and bigger government is best philosophy of the Democratic leadership in Washington, the kind of leadership that Jim Collins was talking about. Millions of grassroots Democrats have something the leaders of their party wouldn't recognize if it was sitting on their nose. And that is plain common sense. You know, when you mention common sense in Washington, you cause a kind of a traumatic shock. These rank and file Democrats I'm talking about and that we must count on for help and support because we have so much in common with them. They know you can't drink yourself sober. You can't spend yourself rich and you can't pump the prime without priming the pump. You know something I said that backwards? I didn't say that right at all. You can't prime the pump without pumping the prime is the way it should have been said the first time. That's a tongue twister. The problems of overspending, big taxing and runaway bureaucracy that drained America's strength didn't just begin 20 months ago. You and I know these problems have been building for at least 20 years. In the four years before we took office, those who are now our biggest critics had total power. The White House and both houses of Congress. They had the whole enchilada. And it was then that the problems became acute and nearly brought America down. When Gerald Ford left office in January 1977, inflation was 4.8%. The prime interest rate was under 7%. You could get a home mortgage for 9% and consumers could afford auto loans. But then America took a giant step backward, spending and taxing like there was no tomorrow. Opening the flood gates of printing press money. It increased in the last six months of 1980 faster than it has ever increased in our history. Those in power managed to create a crisis unlike America had seen and had ever seen before. When we took office in 1981, we faced double digit inflation, high unemployment, 21.5% prime interest rate, nearly a trillion dollar debt and the highest peacetime tax burden we had ever known. Now, lest I be accused of exaggerating or even being partisan, let me quote a Democratic senator of Massachusetts. In May of 1980, Teddy Kennedy warned that under Jimmy Carter, America was sliding into the worst recession since the Great Depression. Of course, he was a candidate himself then when he said that and he didn't add that for years he has continued to be one of the biggest spenders in the United States Senate. The bottom line in 1980 was an unacceptable decline in the wealth of the working families and senior citizens of America. The very people that are critics claim they care so much about. Government was growing like Toadstools after a rainstorm, spinning out of control like a washing machine that's out of cycle.  Washington has a habit of doing that. Federal spending increased by 17% in 1980 alone. Not many Texas blue collar workers, working mothers or pensioners saw their earnings, pensions or savings grow by night by 17% in 1980. It's up to us to make one thing plain in this election. There is no morality in those big taxing, big spending policies, which brought so much misery to so many people. Inflation is the greatest enemy of all the people. And of our hopes for jobs and growth, it's the root of the problems that we're trying to solve today. How did it all come about? Well, the answer to that takes us back to the Great Depression. When government assumed a role that was entirely new to it, government launched programs which were frankly experimental. And many of them did serve a purpose because they ease the misery of people for whom there was no other answer to their problem. But it was actually not those programs, but World War II that ended the Depression. When the war was over, the government went right back to its old habits and continued to administer the medicine it had applied before the war. But the patient then was no longer in need of that medicine. Many of us had believed in those prewar remedies. And indeed, as I say, some had served as well. But in more normal times, we came to see that many of these programs were distorting the balance between the different levels of government and working against the economy. But the leadership of the Democratic Party remained addicted to a policy of government intervention. And we're paying dearly for those past mistakes. For one thing, as I said, there is the trillion dollar debt. The government this year must spend $110 billion just to cover the interest on that debt. We wouldn't be worrying about a deficit if we hadn't wallowed in red ink for 21 of the last 22 years. And we wonder why it's been so hard to bring interest rates down. Now far too many people are out of work. And I share their ache and frustration. Every American should be aware of the economic chaos which created today's needless results. So we won't repeat our past mistakes. It's excruciating to me that there is not a quicker, easier cure for this terrible economic illness. But it was a long time coming. And it is worldwide. Indeed, we have been in the longest sustained period of worldwide inflation in the history of man. Many other countries went down the same garden path of spend, tax, and borrow. The further they went, the worse off they are today. Our administration is determined to cure the disease, not just treat the symptoms with make work quick fixes. And I I pledge to you today that I will not be satisfied until every American who wants a job can find a job. From our first moment in office, we've been working around the clock to make America well again. And we're opposed by those who have never given up their belief that government's economic fine tuning and tinkering is superior to the free marketplace and the abilities of a free people to run their own lives. Well, let me tell you something. Despite their resistance, we are beginning to succeed. We've pulled America back from the edge of disaster. Yes, I'd hope that we'd be further along by now, but make no mistake, we're better off than we were 20 months ago. The problems that were destroying America in 1980 are being confronted today and they're paving the way for recovery. Our first emergency priority was to beat down double digit inflation. Until people are convinced that inflation will come down and stay down, they'll demand higher rates of interest so the dollars they lend won't lose value. Expectation of double digit inflation caused interest rates to zoom, as I said, to 21.5%. High interest rates made it impossible for families to get home mortgages for consumers to carry out loans for firms to modernize machines to keep product prices competitive. Double digit inflation and high interest rates cripple the economy's ability to provide the jobs our people must have, even as they squeeze the earnings and buying power, forcing more families to seek a second income in the job market. Our program has been in the books now for just one year and 11 days. The inflation rate that hit a peak of 18% in January of 1980 has been beaten down to 5.1% for the first eight months of this year. Experts said it couldn't be done, but for those experts I got news we're going to do even better. The prime rate has dropped 40% from 21.5 down to 13 and on Friday, the Mellon Bank announced it was going further that tomorrow it'll be 12 and three quarters. And that isn't the last word. All right, we've got a doctor here, a young lady that I think that, all right, they tell me it's going to be all right. The Federal Reserve, as you know, has dropped the prime or dropped the discount rate from 10 to 9.5 just a few days ago. Progress against inflation and the first real tax cut for everyone in nearly 20 years have produced more savings, higher real earnings and more purchasing power. Families paychecks are buying more. We hear so much in Washington about fairness and compassion. Well, we're providing compassion that never existed under the policies of the past. A family of four today on a fixed income of about $20,000 is about $1,500 better off than if inflation and taxes had stayed at the 1980 rate. But take it below that to the family with a poverty level income. They are $500 better off than they were at the previous rate of inflation alone because they don't pay taxes. Some decisions were not easy. It was going against the wind of the times to curb runaway spending. Likewise, when we went to bat for taxpayers when others before us had refused, we revived an old idea that the earnings of the people of Texas belong to them, not to government handymen in Washington, D.C. And here's what that tax commitment means to you and your family. As of when the third installment comes July next year, it will have been a 25 percent tax rate cut. We are then indexing the tax brackets to end the bracket creep when you get a cost of living pay raise doesn't improve you any, except it pushes you into a higher tax bracket, a reduction in the marriage penalty, an increase in the child care credit for working mothers, new incentives for retirement savings, raising the estate tax exemption to $600,000 for farmers and family businesses, and of even greater help, there will no longer be any estate tax for a surviving spouse. It's not right that widows and orphans must lose a business or a farm. The generations of love and toil it created just in order to pay the government a tax because of death and now they won't. Of course, according to our opponents, there's no compassion in this. Well, our program, I think, is beginning to work. It's bringing down inflation, it's bringing down interest rates, it's increasing purchasing power and it's promoting new savings. It's doing the things that must be done to clear away wreckage dumped in our laps by today's Monday morning quarterbacks. Yes, we will have recovery from recession, but we will not have another counterfeit recovery like before that sent inflation and interest rates right back through the roof. Unlike those before us, we're going to get the job done and for once we're going to get it done right. You've heard the charge that our program has failed and that we must change course. I have one question. Has anyone heard a single proposal by our critics who say that as to what they would do instead? Not one. They constantly criticize what we're doing, but they've offered no real alternative. Well, if what we're doing is wrong, how do they explain the tremendous surge of investment in our equity and bond markets in the last few weeks? From small investors to those who manage billions of dollars, including workers pension funds, the world knows that America is on her way back and I'm pleased to announce a little news item right here. This just happened at the closing bell of the stock market on Wall Street a few minutes ago. The stock market was over the magic one thousand. Now, so some of my friends in the press, if they get a later figure, won't jump on me. Let me point out, the bell had rung, the market was closed, but the tape, there was so much trading, the tape was four and a half minutes behind. Now, in those four and a half minutes, if somebody sells some stocks or the price comes down, well, I take a profit, but it did pass the thousand mark at the bell. Investors have watched inflation fall and interest rates drop for months. Their commitment to put cold, hard cash on the line signals a strong vote of confidence in America's future. People are beginning to understand that we mean business in this battle against inflation, and they're absolutely right. Markets will go up and they'll go down, but the recent trend has been dramatically higher. That's important because the stock market has traditionally been a leading indicator of what's coming down the road. Unfortunately, unemployment is not, it's one of the last indicators to turn around. Until it does, we'll provide assistance with extended unemployment benefits. Last week, I signed an export bill that can create several hundred thousand jobs, and this week I will sign legislation for a program to train up to a million unemployed people or more per year for permanent, real, private sector jobs. I think it's tragic that the House leadership recessed a campaign leaving so much unfinished business behind, as Jim Collins told you, enterprise zones. We've been trying to get for almost two years to create jobs in the inner cities. Tuition tax credits, regulatory reform, programs to crack down on crime and make our streets safe again. Let me ask you, don't you think that rather than simply campaign and complain about deficits, it's about time they proved they were willing to make the decisions that would bring down deficits? When, as Jim told you, they voted to down the constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget, they voted against the will of you, the people, and the financial security of every family in America. And I just told a few people before coming out here today that immediately after that voting down of the balanced budget amendment, which all the polls show that the people about 80 percent of you wanted that amendment, he appeared on national television, Jim Wright appeared on national television and smilingly announced that and then said, well, if the president wants a balanced budget, why doesn't he present one? Well, Jim Wright has been one of the prime leaders in increasing the budgets, the two budgets that I have been able to send to the Congress since I've been there. He has made them bigger with added spending than the budgets that I requested. So I think there's a little hypocrisy in Mr. Wright's statement about the balanced budget amendment. People don't want delay and demagoguery. They want action to reduce the burden of that terrible trillion dollar debt on their children and grandchildren. And it's up to us to provide it.  And the kind of country they're going to live in. You know, I have to say, of course, there's some things that are current today and sweeping the country that I haven't had time to get familiar with Pac-Man, for example. I don't know about him, but somebody just I asked about it and somebody told me that it was a round thing that gobbled up money. I thought that was Tip O'Neill. But I want to make a request. If you believe, as I do, that too many people in Washington are out of step. If you believe that we need reforms like the balanced budget amendment, then please send us a Congress that will pass these programs so we can make this great country of ours number one once again. If the Liberals do have an alternative, it's the same one they've always had. And maybe that's why they're not mentioning it. They mean to raise your taxes and give government a blank check to spend more money. And we've been down that road now for more than 20 years. We're on a new road now. Unless we have the courage to stay on course and lick inflation for good, we'll never have lasting recovery. Our problems will grow worse than before, and that's the sad, sorry history of past decades, lost nerve and squandered opportunities. Well, I intend to stay the course. I need your support. I want you to promise me that you'll mobilize an army across this state to get out the vote for a great Republican victory on November 2nd. And let us remember that we Republicans have a rendezvous in this city in 1984. Let us remember that we have a mission to renew all the dreams and opportunities that our nation was placed on this Earth to provide. And let us remember the best way to make those dreams come true is to elect Jim Collins to the Senate, your fine candidates to the House, George Straker as Lieutenant Governor, Alan Clark as treasurer, and to send Bill Clements back to your capital as Governor of this great state. Now, thank you very much and God bless you. Down here in Texas, we've always been proud of anyone that rides out, looks out in the saddle. And this man, our president, he really rides a horse and he rides one well. And we want him to take back a hat from Texas where we would