South Burlington City Council - August 18, 2026

Good evening everybody and welcome to the South Burlington City Council meeting for August 18th, 2026. We will start our meeting seriously with the pledge of allegiance. Lori, will you lead us, please? >> Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Lori. Uh, item two, instructions on exiting this building in case of an emergency and a review of our technology options with Jesse Baker, city manager. >> Thank you. Um, so for those in the room, thank you for joining us in person. If there's an emergency during this meeting, you can go out the rear of the auditorium on the left or right side and then turn left or right to get outside. Uh, for those who are participating remotely, thank you for joining us as well. If you'd like to speak during any item on the agenda, you can use the raise hand feature and the chair will call on you or you can indicate that you would like to speak in the Q&A portion of this webinar and I'll have the chair call on you. Other than that, we are not monitoring the Q&A or chat for content. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jesse. Item three, agenda review. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of our agenda items tonight? Okay, seeing as how there are none, we'll go on to item four, which is comments and questions from the public not related to tonight's agenda. Are there any from Okay, one from the audience. Is there anybody online? And I don't see any hands up. We'll come on up to the podium and uh read the little directions on how to make the microphone work. Bright green should be the light. Okay. Yes. Here we go. And state your name, please. >> Sam Carlson. I live in South Burlington. the uh Weightley Road just off of Spear Street. And my question to the council is, what will it take for the city council to instruct the parks and recreation department to take down the seven pine trees which are blocking the view over Lake Champlain from Overlook Park? I >> think those are private trees. >> They are not. They are city-owned trees. They were planted by the city and uh they currently serve no function that I can discern besides blocking the view. Uh they're a good 15 feet taller than the house roof line which is behind those trees. One of those trees is dead. Two of them are dying. And I raised this with the parks and recck department uh several years ago. I was told the city arborist would look into the question into the issue. received an email several years ago. Well, when we renovate Overlook Park, uh these trees will come down. Well, the trees have never come down and all they do is block the view. And this is just a little pet peeve. This is not a major crucial issue, but I'd be happy to share these photos with the city council if that would be useful or if you have instructions for me of what path I should pursue. I was told by the city clerk that it was best to come to the decision makers rather than go for another round with the parks and recreation department. >> Great. I appreciate the comment and I'm sure the the several counselors share a similar opinion. I know I do and I know that there's a history there. Uh I don't know the whole history, but I know there's some small arborites that are in back of one of the walls that were supposed to prevent headlights from hitting residents. So, um, we should take a look at that, >> all right, in the future. So, but thank you for your input. Appreciate it. >> Would these photos be of interest to any city? >> I'm familiar with it, >> but give me one and I'll give it to Elizabeth who is missing tonight. Uh, counselor Fitzgerald is not here tonight. She's traveling. >> I'm going to give you both because that just shows the dying trees. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And that shows the view that you cannot see. >> These are very nice photographs, by the way. Did you print these on your own printer or >> Green Mountain camera? >> Wow. Wow. >> Shows how passionate I am about this issue. >> Thank you. >> We could do that too. Yes. All right. Thank you very much. Anything else? >> Uh that's it. I guess the my question is what path should I take from here to pursue? >> So we the council it takes two counselors to try and get something on the agenda, right? So we'll take a look at that and we'll let you know. >> Consider one. >> Yeah. or and two >> and three. >> So I and four. So you're in good shape. >> But did you want to say something? Okay. All right. >> So we'll figure out what that history is and see and see what the status is. Great. Last point. My understanding is some of that history relates back to a view protection plane uh which was established from looking over from Hoverard Park looking down over the lake and there were issues around heights of roof lines and things like that and that that house which is behind those trees that its roof line was going to violate that view protection. And just before that ordinance or whatever the city has went into effect, the builder worked over the weekend as fast as possible to put the roof line in and establish it as a pre-existing thing. So the viewshed protection. Well, those trees are again 15 ft higher than that uh roof line. So it would suggest that the city's trees are in violation of its own viewhed protection ordinance. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Any other comments from inside the audience here? Amy, come on up. And remember to identify yourself. Uh my name is Amy Allen. I live on Long Drive. Um in late summer 2023, I met with a member of city leadership about the long road we went through to get our building permit for our house. We kept a detailed timeline and it clearly showed the points things had stalled and where improvement was possible. I very optimistically said it's just basic process management. There are even off-the-shelf software solutions to help cities communicate these processes. City leadership seemed receptive, even noting that there are already ideas about streamlining some processes. In spite of what seemed like a good meeting, I never heard anything else about it. Now it's three years later and I'm seeing the same challenges continue. There is no clear process for basic things like a new park and traffic calming measures in a neighborhood as I'm watching with the East Terrace neighborhood right now. More complex requests like an overhaul of transfer development rights and bedrock removal regulations move to action being t taken quickly as there are clearly champions for them on the city council. Residents without a friend on the city council to advocate are left to muddle through. South Burlington residents deserve transparency. Knowing how to access information about how our local government works is the most basic way our city council could build trust with the community. There are many options in existing apps and software as well as cities already implementing these processes that we can learn best practices from. South Burlington does not need to reinvent the wheel for better options to communicate to residents. We do need political will from the council to make it happen. Communicating to residents about how to engage with the resources their tax dollars pay for and how to have neighborhood needs met should be a top priority for the council, especially in the current economic climate. People want to see value for their money. I urge the council to make to work to make access to city resources and processes fair and transparent for everyone. A basic investment in process management would reap rewards in community trust across the city. Thank you. >> Thank you, Amy. Ryan, did you have your hand up? No, you did not. Anybody else in the audience? Nobody online. Okay, thank you. Uh we'll move on to councelor's announcements and reports on committee assignments and the city manager's report. Uh Beth, would you like to start? >> Yes. I have very few uh very few updates. I uh I had the privilege and pleasure of um helping at the polls on Tuesday and that was uh my first time. Um it was very enjoyable. I enjoyed the people. Um I was impressed with the number of volunteers that came out to help with the election. Um, and I think that we're really fortunate that we are not um, facing some of the same challenges and risks that other states are going to face this November. At least it seems that way. Um, everything seemed very smooth and um, uh, you know, well well organized and it was it was really enjoyable experience and very gratifying. So that's the only update I have. Thanks. Thank you, Lori. >> Well, I don't have an update, but I gratefully was able to not work the polls this August because it was my wife's birthday and it was wonderful to have that day off this time and uh really appreciate and respect the work that was done in my absence. Thank you. >> But did you vote? >> I voted early. >> Okay. >> And often. I was gonna say and often, but no, just barely. >> Thank you. And happy birthday belated to your wife. Right, Andrew? >> Just going to echo Beth about working the polls. It um is kind of a rewarding experience watching how it works and that it works well and democracy in action and um we also got a great result um for the city. So that was um that was really rewarding too after all the kind of work we all we together with staff and lots of others put into um educating the public about about the bond vote. So yeah, >> thank you Andrew. Um so yeah, I worked uh the polls to district 11 at Tuttle and um it was a decent turnout for a primary. I think I think it was a little higher than average. Uh, and I'm I'm grateful that the public supported the the Bartlett Bay bond issue by margin of like four.5 to one. >> Yeah. Yeah. It was it was it was a good margin. So, I was happy with that. And I think ran things ran very smoothly. There were a lot of volunteers working at the polls. I've never seen that many people in one spot working uh before. And uh I I think I heard that uh the the traffic flow uh at total might change for the next uh election which would be good because there was a little confusion. People are used to going in the door of the school and coming out through the gymnasium. So um and it was always great to see people from my old neighborhood which was the other district and talk to them and see how things are going. Um, I also uh was uh invited along with the city manager and she'll probably give her perspective to attend uh Governor Scott's uh dinner at Beta for the New England Governor's Conference with the Eastern Canadian uh province premieres. Um the we had the opportunity to watch one of the beta planes. Well, they had three beta planes in the flyby. Two were just rear propulsion and one was the four full five propeller, you know, forward and up and down. And then uh uh Pter Caputo landed it right in front of us vertically which I've never seen before which uh was really amazing. And u then Governor Scott had a nice sitdown discussion before dinner with uh was he a joint chief of staff or former joint chiefs of staff? Yeah, member of the military. And uh then there was a wonderful dinner and I got to talk to a lot of people uh people from Newf Foundland and Labrador and um also um from Nova Scotia. And here's the small world part. So my sister has dual. She lives in Halifax. Her daughter is a professor in Aadia, right? So he goes, "Oh yeah, my daughter's getting a PhD at Aadia." I go, "Oh, does she know so and so, my niece?" Oh yeah, no, that's the uh that's the colleague of mine. That was within 30 seconds. Boom. You know, I was like, "Oh, no. The Scro is not too big." So, I was really amazed at that. Then I contacted my niece. She goes, "Yeah, I know exactly who that person is." I Yeah. Yeah. So, it was all corroborated. So, yeah, really nice dinner. And uh the they they built this like little glass house sort of inside the Beta Hanger with all the tables for all the the diners. Uh it was really wonderful. And then the people that were part of the conference got to stay and dance because there was Josh Panda was there with a band. Everybody else had to leave. We had to go home because we had a meeting the next day and then election on Tuesday, right? So that was more important at that point. So, >> but a lot of positive feedback about South Burlington and a partnership and >> Yes. Yes, that too. Yeah. But the food was really good too to get so yeah, it really nice. Um and that's uh all I have. I did uh spend a couple nights in Portsouth, New Hampshire this weekend and the weather was nice. Went to the beach a couple days. My son and my new daughter-in-law were able to meet us there and uh so that was a good good trip. That's all I have. Jesse, >> thank you. Um so couple of a few quite a few updates tonight, I would say. Um, so also just want to thank the voters who came out on town meeting day or not town meeting day on primary day in the special local election um and approved the bond vote with over 80% approval of those voted. We really appreciate that strong commitment to maintaining our infrastructure across the city, the public's health, and ensuring um water quality for Lake Champlain. um want to you'll hear much more about this in the weeks to come, but our green community festival, formerly our energy festival, um will be held on September 19th from 11 to 3 here in front of city hall. Uh we have over 20 exhibitors planned, including five of our policy committees um doing some kind of activity for the um green community festival, which is great, as well as middle school and high school students participating. Um, I want to share that this week we welcomed our new library service, our youth services librarian, Christine Walton, our new HR journalist, um, N Lee, and a new dispatcher today, Ava Dalamura. Um, we continued to recruit and advertise for our public works director and our economic development director and our deputy city attorney, but we are doing a lot of staff on boarding at the moment. Um, few quick construction updates. So, milling and paving on Dorset Street between south of Kenny Drive to Swift Street, we think we'll start on Wednesday, weather dependent. Um, and then the contractor for the bridge is going to start uh driving the steel piles for the bike ped bridge over the interstate at the end of this week and next week. So, that will be um a lot of activity on site. Um, I want to highlight a few fun upcoming events. Um the library staff and trustees will be marching and tableabling at at Burlington Pride in September on September 13th if folks are interested in joining them. There the library staff is also doing outreach and education at all the the three elementary schools back to school nights as well as the kindergarten um orientation event. Um if folks are interested, fall youth soccer and winter basketball registration is opening open. Unfort uh fortunately slash unfortunately the five fly by 5k at the airport is now full. Um we are at capacity with 500 runners um which is great. If you are looking to volunteer let us know. Um and then our park hop bruise which is a um Thursday evening uh series of events that the rec department started last year will start on September 10th at Bayest and then go following Thursdays to overlook Goose Pond and City Center Park um and Samansky Park. And then finally, because it's his last council meeting and I get to embarrass him, I want to um sincerely congratulate Chief Lock for being sworn in in as the 150th president of the International Association of Fire Chiefs last Friday. Uh the IFC represents about 12,000 fire and emergency services professionals from around the country and around the world. and as president of that organization this year, he will be the primary spokesperson and advocate for the fire and emergency services um to th to in those countries across the world wearing the South Burlington patch and we are just so very proud of him. Congratulations. And that's all. >> Thank you, Jesse. Let's move on to item six, which is the uh consent agenda. Item 6 A, consider and sign the dispersements for our financial warrants. 6B designate SPNF attorneys PC to conduct the city's tax sale process. 6C authorized the city manager to execute an agreement with William and Lee Incorporated regarding the easement acquisition for parcel 12 of the Willist Road Streetscape project 6D. approved the request to apply for Northern Border Regional Commission Catalyst Program grant funding to support phase two of the Walk Bike Bridge and authorize the submittal of a letter of support and commitment to match grant funds. 6E receive amendments number one to the grant agreement with SB3C to reflect fiscal year 2027 budgeted funds and updated priorities. And finally 6F approved minutes from June 3rd, June 17th, June 29th, July 7th, and July 20th. all of this year for city council meetings. Can I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Motion to approve. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? >> Oh, Elizabeth's not here. Okay, just kidding. >> Bad joke. Um, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Okay, so the consent agenda passes. Move on to item seven which is approval of state revolving loan program application for Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment facility refurbishment project construction phase step three loan. Martha Mashar, director of finance and Erica Tol, acting public works director. Come on down. >> Why not down guys? There she is. >> Good evening. So Erica Tol interim director of public works I will give a very brief update and then Martha if you want to provide any additional information. Uh so this uh SRF the state revolving loan fund amendment is just to increase uh the amendment uh amount based on the positive bond vote that was received. That's about it. So this gives us access to the lowinterest loan that we previously had on the um for the project and extends it for the full amount of the project and we are asking you to authorize this in advance of entering into the contract with the um the low bidder. And one other note on this is uh if you look at the amounts, you might notice this is different than the contract amount. That is because this one also incorporates the airport parkway uh solids clarifier project and queen city park pump stations project. The airport parkway project is under construction. So nothing is needed additional funds for that. And the Queen City Park pump stations were just continuing that number. So the bottom line number that's why it is different than the contract amount >> and different than the bond vote. >> Correct. The bond vote was for the difference that needed to be made up. >> Okay. >> And this financing is one of the benefits that we had by securing the vote for the bond August 11th. And had that not happened, we would have lost this funding which is critical to the project. So thank you. Do we have a motion or >> Yep. It's on your cover sheet. Would you like me to read it? >> Do you want me to make the motion? Is that >> Yeah, sure. Under the recommended action. >> Oh, recommend action. >> Recommended action. Yeah. Uh, I move to approve the submission of the loan application in the amount of $12,981,570 to the state revolving loan program for construction of the Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment facility reconstruction project and authorize the director of public works to execute and manage the loan. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? >> Was there an interest rate on that revolving loan? >> And what is it? >> There is no interest rate. Although there is an administrative fee which is 2%. >> Two >> two%. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. Um any other discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. It is unanimous. Thank you very much. And that was item seven. Going to item eight. Uh approve the construction contract for the Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment facility. Hello again, Erica Tol from director of public works. The agenda item pretty much says it all. Now that you have uh approved us submitting the loan amendment application, this means that um that will secure the funding for us to enter into a contract with uh Kabriki joint lime who has been uh holding a bid price for us after we had provided them with a notice of intent to award. Uh and following your approval, we will issue that notice of award uh and prepare be prepared to meet with them and sign the contract. Any questions? First, can I have a motion? >> I move to approve the construction contract for the plan B wastewater plant improvements following successful bond authorization vote on August 11th, 2026 and authorize the director of public works to execute and manage the contract. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. Or yay. Thank you. That's also unanimous. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Uh we're now going to go to item nine which is receive and hold a first reading of updates to South Burlington city ordinance chapter 14 environment chapter 20 miscellaneous offenses chapter 32 street sidewalks and other public spaces and chapter 36 traffic and vehicles and resend city council policy 2022-05 and 2025-03 and possibly set a public hearing for September 8th 2026 at 7 p.m. These changes address behaviors related to unmet social needs that impact both an individual's quality of life and the quality of life of the greater community. Good evening, Bill Bro, police chief and uh city attorney Colin McNeil. Good evening. So, while chief is pulling this up, I just want to note that this these are follow-up actions to the presentation the uh briefing presentation you heard on um June 1st of this year. Um as as the chief and colleagues heard down this path. >> Correct. Good evening everyone for the record. Bill Bro, police chief. Uh yes, as you recall on June 1st, I provided a presentation on uh this the city's what I believe should be the city's response to to helping individuals with unmet social needs. Uh and part of that uh was uh what we uh talked about was recommending city ordinance updates that most directly uh involve behavior uh that's a result or potentially a result of an unmet social need. So again, just to to remind everybody, an unmet social need uh is a critical noncriminal underlying issue such as homelessness, mental health, substance use disorder, or poverty that individuals face for which they are not receiving adequate social, medical, or community support. So again, what we're trying to do through through a whole uh host of manners is connect people with services. Uh we also plan on coming back to the council uh with a finalized uh uh agreement with Howard Center for Community Outreach. Uh uh we're still tweaking the name. So uh I'm calling it a uh an outreach worker right now. Um a service coordinator or outreach worker. Um that may change, but what we're looking to do is figure find ways to connect people that we have uh a lot of connections with either for criminal behavior or noncriminal behavior that is a result uh of an underlying unmet social need. Again, the whole premise being how do we get upstream uh and deal with the root causes of an individual's uh issues to help them get the right connection and services in the community. So uh we limit the um police involvement with that individual but we also improve that individual's quality of life and and if we do that enough I think we'll improve the quality of life of the general community. So again if you recall the goals uh of the program are connecting individuals experiencing social need with available resources assisting an individual while improving their quality of life and reducing uh or limiting unnecessary public safety or law enforcement contact. Uh the approach would be um that police officers, firefighters, city staff uh and members of the community would have one point of contact to to direct people to uh to help them connect. not only connect with the appropriate services but look at that individual on an individual basis and really make a determination as to what would best help this person uh find the reason the most appropriate service to connect them to and then help them uh get connected to those services help them navigate any challenges uh that might might be in the way for them to connect get connected or stay maintained to those services. Uh part of that is uh also looking to connect people whose individuals whose behavior is in violation of city a civil ordinance to receive an orance violation and allow them to be diverted out of any sort of fine or punishment uh in connecting the services. Really the the premise being that we are using city ordinances to help motivate people that may be otherwise service resistant. Uh and I will talk a little bit about the actual approach uh the progressive kind of enforcement approach that uh intend our officers to take. Again, I I showed this uh back on June 1st. Uh but what we're talking about is the bottom uh circle there, ordinance violation diversions as one way, not the not the only way. It's just one possible way that an individual could can get connected to services. We will also be taking referrals from the community uh referrals from our police officers and firefighters and other city staff as well as uh looking at high frequency uses of public safety. Why are we dealing with people over and over and over again? Can we look at them um and try to figure out what the root cause is so we can limit that quite frankly and often unnecessary repetitive contact and hopefully free up our police officers and firefighters to do other things we need them to do. And again uh and this is the service coordinator will then uh send them out to uh connection to services. Uh the services uh can vary greatly depending on the need. But the general for lack of a better term buckets of services would be substance misuse or addiction services uh mental health services or economic resources. So again the objective the objectives are and I highlighted the ones that I think the uh proposed amendments to the CD ordinances directly uh touch and that's increasing opportunities for individuals to access service with or without police involvement. Here they would be with police involvement. Their behavior as a result of an unmet social need would put them in contact with the police department and we would use this as a way to motivate them to get connected to services. uh and we would obviously hopefully encourage them to accept services without ever having to give them a ticket, but uh we can if that's if that's what it takes. Uh then you can see the outlines work within the limitations of existing services. Again, we're not looking to create new services. I think there are services there. I think we just need to do a much better job in identifying what an individual's needs are and connecting them with the appropriate services and quite frankly not taking no for an answer. So if that particular service may not be available right away. Uh most people don't have just one kind of thing going on that we can connect them with something else that may not address their primary concern but connecting them to services. And there's studies that show once you have a person connected to services any services and you can keep them engaged, you're much more likely to continue that engagement and then eventually get them connected to the the service that they truly need um when it becomes available. uh and hopefully we can also identify any gaps in services and then uh make recommendations to improve services, coordinate need of service with service providers, assist in removing obstacles. Uh I talked about that uh on at the last meeting where often uh people who are you know trying to figure out what they're going to eat, where they're going to stay, uh getting connected to mental health uh treatment is not high on their priority list. How do we help them overcome those obstacles if there's other obstacles in a way such as u needing an ID to to do something? Needing the internet to access services, helping them uh figure out ways to overcome those obstacles to get them connected to services. Uh provide the community uh and our public safety professionals with a single point of contact and identify needs on an individual basis. I I spoke a lot about this at the last meeting. I truly think we need to look at the individual and work with one and not take a one-sizefits-all kind of approach and really work with with that individual uh with the service coordinator to identify how can we help this person. Uh and again I think if we do that with enough people we we make a pretty significant difference. So uh specific actions uh that are in progress. We're still working on finalizing an agreement. I'm hoping um my my plan right now uh we're not solid on this is to bring on on September 8th when we come back for the second reading of these ordinances to also bring uh an agreement with Howard Center uh enact civil ordinances which is why we're here tonight. Uh and then once that's done and we have a agreement worked out with Howard, we'll start working on training officers and state staff. what what when an referral would be appropriate. Um and just uh other issues related to how to best uh interact with individuals who are suffering from uh mental health or substance use or other u others unmet social needs and really taking kind of a uh for lack of a better term uh trauma-informed kind of approach like understanding uh the issues that people have going on and how to best respond to that. um and kind of taking a step back from what they may be dealing with in the moment. And then we will also need to continue to work on uh developing and uh and maintaining data collection. So the specific ordinance recommendations uh there's four of them. There's five tonight. Four of them are on this agenda item. Sorry. And I should start with all of them uh include the ability all of the proposed uh ordinances in include the ability to divert any violation for the offense not only to the uh CJC the community justice center center program uh which that language has always been in there. We've added additional language or to a um I want to make sure I get this right. appropriate diversion program as determined by the city manager or the city manager's design that is designed to assist individuals in meeting unmet social needs. This program so we work that right into the language. So uh although the ordinances all come up with a fine uh depending on the the level of violation or the amount of times that the ordinance is violated, the intent is not to find anybody. It's to divert them to services. So if they connect with the service coordinator, uh hopefully they stay connected, but there's no requirement that they do stay connected. It's just getting them that first connection with the service coordinator to help them get connected. Um I truly believe then and we'll get talk about this in a few minutes that the approach needs to be offering services at every single interaction. Uh we need to prepare ourselves that people we may divert people who do not stay connected to services. That will happen. But it doesn't mean we don't try again the next time we deal with that individual as well. So uh the first one is prohibit uh the unsafe disposal of drug paraphernal that's chapter 14 specifically sections 14-85. >> It's okay. >> Um this is specifically >> stop pause for a sec. >> Do you can you >> are you okay to take questions as you go? >> Question. >> Sure. >> Yeah. I just I just want to make sure I don't forget what I wanted to ask you. Um, so the it it says here under the enforcement section, I don't know if you were planning on going through this in with a fine tooth comb in this meeting. I just wanted to make sure I understood a couple things. So, um, and I'll start by saying I think we discussed this the last time that you gave us sort of an overview. Um, that this seems to me to be a very compassionate and rational approach. Um I'm just wondering it says under section 1421 enforcement uh letter C police officers shall be authorized to act as issuing municipal offic uh officials to issue and pursue before the judicial bureau a municipal complaint etc. Um, so I just wanted to just for for the purpose of the public listening as well that our to make sure that our police officers are they have some degree of training in how to approach a situation like that. I mean, I'm trying to understand how this works in practice, right? um just to you know sort of dispel any suspicion that a police officer could do whatever they want and you know um >> no and we'll get into it and and internally the police department will have very specific policies on on and we'll talk in a few minutes about a progressive enforcement approach. Uh officers although they they have discretion they they will be required by policy to divert divert people. Okay. Um and and the policy will likely have uh language in it that unless it's specifically overridden by me personally and in those cases I'll have to understand very logically why we're doing that. Uh but that's not the intent. The intent is to I think that specific language but a police officer um and the city attorney can probably speak better to this. Um certain city ordinances are governed by certain departments or are authorized only certain people to take enforcement action. So, this one is specific to police officers. Some of them say uh other city staff, not police officers. That's the intent here. >> Building inspectors or something. >> Exactly. >> And I just want to elaborate a little bit because the judiciary bureau is a process. Uh it's overseen by a judge um who is a real judge, a superior court judge. Um so, uh it is not at the full discretion of a police officer to take this matter as as they will. um they have to present it and if the judge finds that there's evidence to pursue it, then the judge will pursue it. Um there's no right to a jury trial, but it is um a licensed and and certified judge in the state of Vermont who who oversees this. Uh also, I would like to highlight, and I think this is very important, that these are civil ordinances, right? >> There's nothing criminal. There's no criminal aspect to what we're talking about here. These are all civil ordinances that are really only enforced by a fine or the processes that the chief is talking about here. >> Okay. Thank you. Sure. Uh but to answer your original question, yes, there will be a a whole host of training offered to our staff, not just our staff, but city staff. I really think there's a certain level of uh anybody that's going to be making direct referrals to the service coordinator really should um and really we we ought to be doing this anyway. any city staff that is customerf facing. So, the clerk's office, we should be doing some basic training and mental health first aid and other things to to help uh make sure that we're not we're appropriately interacting with individuals. Certainly not making it any worse for that individual uh and then getting them connected and understanding what you're kind of what you're seeing and what the issues might be uh to make an educated referral um to the service coordinator. So um the first ordinance recommendation again is chapter 14 uh section 85 which is prohibit the unsafe disposal of drug paraphern. And this is a really a specific specifically intended to address concerns that that I heard uh that happened back last summer uh with needles found on the playground at a at an elementary school. Um, we also, the police department has also had it and we just had one last week where with an individual overdosing in a vehicle with a child in the vehicle uh and syringes there. Again, u there's other ways we can try to connect that person to services, which we will, but if we can't, an option might be to uh to explain this ordinance violation, to explain the ability to divert away from any fine, and hopefully get that person connected. Um, but it's intended to uh specifically protect children who may not otherwise understand uh how a a used syringe could be dangerous um pro protect them. So it would prohibit anybody from um discarding, possessing, keeping or storing drug paraphernaia in a manner that the person knows or reasonably should know would intentionally otherwise endanger, harm or potentially place an arm the welfare of a child by the intentional or accidental contact with the same. Also specific to any school, daycare pro, uh playgrounds or other properties where a person knows or should know children may congregate. They can't just even throw them away uh in a regular trash can. They have to find a sharps container or something specifically designated for the purpose of getting rid of a syringe. Again, we're not trying to uh ban syringes or um I understand that the the law is very specific on drug pal. They're simply trying to keep uh this the intent here is to keep people safe. Um to keep children particularly safe, but also if somebody is putting themselves in that position, this clearly a substance use issue that we probably want to offer them services for and this helps us connect that person to services. >> Can I ask another question? I'm sorry I keep interjecting. Um so in practice, how does this actually work? You know, I'm trying to envision, you know, there's somebody who, you know, uh, you know, drops a a used needle on the floor on the ground um, near a playground and, >> um, does it require that a member of the public call the police and let them know? Are there patrols? Is there >> It could I mean, like any other issue, we would need to develop probable cause to understand that that person is the person responsible for doing it. So in this case an an officer could see them do it. Um somebody may call us. We we would have to still develop enough information based on in addition to what that person may have seen. So if there's you know video surveillance or something else. Yes the the you know syringe on the ground that might be very very difficult for us to prove who did that. Uh but in the cases where somebody like the example I gave earlier, somebody overdosing in a in a vehicle with a child uh in the car, that's a pretty clear uh and other needles, use needles strewn about the vehicle. That's pretty clear that that's endangering that or potentially endangering that child. So can we use that to motivate this person to get connected to services? Right? And there's other things we can try to use there, too. But it might be one of those cases. Yeah, it's not I'm not saying this is going to resolve and we're never going to see needles on the ground any um we're just trying to like most it's like I'll use the analogy of speeding, right? People still speed because there speed limits. >> The threat of getting caught keeps most people from doing that, right? Um, and that's right if you understand if the the kind of the risk you take to continue onto a behavior, but much like speeding, we're hoping that if the officer stops you and gives you a warning, we can change that behavior. Um, sometimes it takes you getting in to a crash and your insurance rates going up. Like there's things that will eventually motivate most people to drive within the speed limit. Uh, and that's kind of the same approach with all of these ordinances. I'm not saying I'm not naive. I don't believe they're going to uh change everybody's behavior. just because the city council passed an ordinance. It's just a tool that in certain circumstances we can use uh to connect somebody to services. >> Can I ask you one more question and then I'll try to keep it I'll try not to ask anymore. I'm just trying to imagine how this plays out long term. So, um, from your experience, Jeep Bro, have have you, um, so I guess what I I guess what I want to ask is in from your experience, is there some chance that once the word is out about this ordinance or this set of ordinances among um, you know, the folks who are potentially engaging in this sort of behavior um that they'll just move it to move to Burlington and you know I'm just I'm just curious if you there's I guess I mean I guess there is a risk of that but >> right in my experience that's not the intent right the intent is absolutely to connect people services however I think the reality in my experience in New Hampshire is the reality is uh with the approach we take with offering services the people that may not be ready today might be ready tomorrow maybe three weeks from now right but we keep asking u even though we think they're at the point where they're they need services they may not be there yet. Um, the reality is this though that either people will eventually accept our offer for assistance or they will honestly get tired of us kind of offering they they don't they're going to be tired of us and I don't I hate to use the word uh hassling them but in their mind they're going to see it as why do you hassle me and offer me services? I don't want them. And that's fine. there's nothing that we can't require people to accept services >> those individuals if they get to a point where they don't want to deal with us anymore they may move on to other communities that is there's nothing I can do about that that but again I want to make it clear that's not my intent but that will there will be a certain segment of the population that that will happen with that was my uh experience in New Hampshire people and and we saw people that were very service resistant for periods of time just they they were coming to the police department saying I'm ready like I know you guys have talked to me a million times about this I am finally ready right they hit whatever their rock bottom might be uh we need to be prepared when that happens but there are other people that yeah we stopped dealing with them not because we were successful in getting them connected to services but they decided to do their behavior somewhere else >> I think if I can just add I agree with everything the chief just said just added I think we talked about this a little on June 1st >> you know that social compact we have with one another, that standard that we expect in places where we invite people to come and connect with one another and connect with neighbors and bring their kids. I think part of this as the chief is mentioning is that kind of so having an accountability tool for that social compact and folks can choose to be where they want to be regardless of what side of that social compact they're on. So, how do we how do we give our professionals the tools and the resources they need to ensure that all partners in that social compact have the resources they need? >> I have a question also, Chief. Um, >> I love this package you've put together. I think it's a really proactive and progressive way to try and support this segment of the population and hopefully get them connected with services. When there are resistant individuals who uh they're panhandling in the median and an officer has interacted with them six times or seven times or four whatever it is and it's clear that that person is not ready to change their behavior. What what do we do then? >> Well, I think to the city attorney's early point, we would there will be a point, right? I mean, we need to have the ability to actually take enforcement action, right? Uh even though that might not be the full intent, at some point we will get there, right? We will have a documented very well doumented history of all of our attempts and we will uh issue them a parents to to civil court and then we will in inform the judge of all of the efforts and attempts we made. And quite frankly, my intent when we get this rolling is to meet with the civil court judges to explain the program to say, "Hey, if we bring somebody here, it's not honestly not their first or probably even fifth offense. It we're well we we will have a well doumented uh history of all of the opportunities that we've provided this individual uh to change their behavior um explain why their behavior is dangerous to them uh and the community and then um offer them services numerous times. If we finally if we feel we're at that point then we'll ask the civil court judge to basically assist us almost give them hey now it's coming from the judge you got one last opportunity here do you want to accept the services or do you want to at some point to the city manager's point uh we need to hold people accountable >> right um I understand and I I don't want to my intent is not to criminalize in any way uh any behavior related to unso met social needs but it this be we are dealing with the individual's behavior. We're trying to get to the root cause of that behavior, but at some point we can't just because the person is so resistant, we can't just say, "Well, because you don't want to, you're okay to continue the behavior that's impacting the rest of the community." Right? That's the the piece I I also want to add and I know the city attorney wants to add one specific item to this, but I also want to add this is all designed to uh and I I worked with a social worker in New Hampshire that coined the term we want to give people a hand up, not a hand out. Nothing here is inc is designed to in in any way enable that person to stay in the situation they're in. Right. >> Right. It is and and there are clearly appropriate times to do that. Right. to provide people food, to provide people tents, to provide people warm clothing. I'm not I'm not saying that's not appropriate. The police department will doesn't won't be doing that. Our goal is to help connect you to services to help you improve the quality of life that that you live, not to continue the quality the life that you are currently living. Right? And I understand the difference of keeping people safe, keeping them alive, and there are organizations that do that. Uh, and they need to do that, but the police department won't do that. Our approach will be to connect people to services to improve their quality of life. So, we will not be giving out sleeping bags or tents or anything like that. It's to our only offer will be a connection to services. >> So, I'm sorry, while we're on this, I was going to save my questions for the end, but maybe just an opportune time to >> jump in here on this particular one. So, I have two two questions on this page. Um, Chief, you mentioned um if the person is, you know, really resistant, we have to hold them accountable, but I thought these were just civil ordinances. Is there a criminal element here? >> No, they're civil ordinances, but they >> So, what's the what's the accountability? What what is that stuff then? >> Uh the accountability is a ticket. >> A civil a civil a civil ticket with a fine potential fine if the court so issues. >> But they would be required to go to a civil court. Um and and >> okay, but that's it's a >> just like a essentially like a traffic summon, right? If if an officer gives you a traffic ticket and you don't uh you want to appeal that, you go to civil >> traffic court, uh the officer's there explaining why he he or she gave you a ticket and you're there explaining why you don't think the ticket was fair or just part of that uh would probably be uh in that case of a ticket, the officer saying, "I've stopped this person and warned them for speeding 15 times." Um, and we've had very frank discussions about the danger they're putting themselves in the community. Um, and those documented contacts and or you know, they've received 10 other tickets in five other communities, whatever the case might be. But your history uh becomes relevant, right? The same thing would happen here. Your your history with us and all of the opportunities we've given you u may become would become relevant in that situation. We're going to do everything we can and and again, we're jumping a little ahead of ourselves, but I I do want to talk uh in a minute about our progressive enforcement model, how it starts with education. Uh every at every interaction we're offering assistance. >> Yeah. So is it um is our framework here, in other words, that's kind of limited to civil tickets consistent with how these types of violations are treated across the country or do other jurisdictions move up to criminal penalties or how does that generally look across the country? >> Uh I mean I think generally across the country most of these start with civil tickets. Um we do have the authority and other municipalities across the country do have authority to enact criminal ordinances. Um, and some some municipalities across the country do make these uh criminal. Um, it depends on on the level. I I've certainly seen that some some municipalities have a certain number of civil tickets before it moves to criminal or a certain number of violations before it moves to criminal. Um, or a certain number of interactions before it moves to criminal. Uh, other municipalities just jump right into this is a criminal offense. Um, probably not on on to this level, but they certainly they certainly do. Um so um >> so may maybe that's a tool we can think about in the future if depending upon the effectiveness of the set of ordinances. >> It it certainly could be right right now we do not have any criminal ordinances in our in our city code. >> Uh it's not a route that we've elected to go down at this point. We do have >> okay >> um as you know um at this point the the state statutes are the criminal statutes where civil Burlington does have some criminal ordinances. Um, but I think for the most part they don't utilize their criminal ordinances as much as they they try to use civil ordinances when they can. So leave leave the criminal stuff to the the state prosecutor and we stick with >> I just have one technical question, Colin, for you on this particular page. And I could be completely wrong because I didn't um refresh or research this prior to the media, but I seem to recall there was a Supreme Court case or a case that said something like, you know, you can't tell someone they can't stop in a median unless it's safety related. And there was some like width, like if it was like, you know, less than six feet wide, then you had the jurisdiction because that feels unsafe. But like some am I making that up? there was like some some some constitutional um challenge to someone said look I can stand here you can't tell me I can't stand here and it came down to well is it a safety um the city regulating safety or not >> yeah I'm I'm actually I'll I'll plead ignorance on that I'm not familiar with the you're talking about but I can say that the the purpose behind our efforts here are safety related uh and the chief can elaborate on that further uh with a with a little bit of a presentation when we get there uh but it certainly motivates by safety and and uh >> and and then >> beyond safety connecting people with unmet needs, but it's safety. Safety first. >> Yeah. I'm just talking about this particular one, the the the median. I seem to recall there was something about the width of the median. If it was like >> wide enough that it wasn't a safety hazard, you couldn't regulate it. >> I I'll certainly look into that. I'm not familiar with it, but I'll I'll look into it further, but um not familiar with it right now. >> Yeah. And I would argue that it is. I mean, all of our medians are safety and they're divi they're designed to divide traffic. And I have a photo and I can show it at the end of the presentation uh from earlier in July where a vehicle uh an intersection related crash which most of our more dangerous crashes are intersection related uh intersection related crash where the vehicle went right up and over the median on Dorset right at Williston where often an elderly woman sitting on a walker paneling. If she had been there that day she would have been significantly injured or worse. >> And I can show you that photo and it was just from July. I I think it is a safety issue, but I also think we have the opportunity to why is the person out there? What unmet social need do they have and how do we help them there too? I >> I might throw the word safety in somewhere in this section 36-234. >> Okay. >> Might might just be useful to frame it with safety in mind. on on this section there's also uh line C which talks about upon uh application the city manager may authorize activities would otherwise con constitute a violation. So I think of um no kings rallies or uh politicians doing honken waves or that sort of thing. Does that mean anytime something like that is happening there needs to be a application sent to the city manager to get permission or is it something where a blanket statement can be made that a month before an election this is allowed or uh civil gatherings for protest. Mhm. >> Is every instance like that going to have to go to the city manager or is there a way to >> to make it so that there's >> flexibility? >> Uh, council, I think you're talking about a couple different instances for for instance, the the No Kings Rally would likely need some sort of parade permit that's going to be closing down streets or something like that. And that would be an instance where people would reach out and say, "Hey, can we can we take over the streets?" Um that's a little bit different than um I think what we're talking about here, but it certainly could be a blanket by the city manager. Uh an instance of this is this type of activity is allowed. What we put in here uh is essentially um to recognize that there are some instances that do take place in the medians and we do want to allow certain times where that is allowed. I think we were thinking boot drives or things like that where um where it is where we do deem it safe uh and it is authorized for a specific period of time. Um if there is going to be politics or something like that and we we know that that's going to happen and the city manager deems that to be safe then then we can discuss that. But um >> I'm just concerned that if it's discretionary and someone standing up with their political sign in the media and not getting a citation and these other people are then people are going to say well how you know how come >> right I think back to councelor Chalnick's point about safety in those cases where a permit would be issued the police department would have input into that and we could make sure that we we may put cones out to push traffic around and we may shut down a turn lane. Uh in in New Hampshire, uh we had a similar ordinance and the fire department would do a a boot drive for uh for the Jimmy fund every year. Um and they of course they wanted to be in very popular intersections, but we put out advanced warning signs, we put out cones, we we put we created a buffer, a safe buffer for them to stand. um all of the same reasons why we don't want the general public standing there, but we we were able to do that. So, uh I think any permit that is uh issued would would come at some point through the police department. It uh so we could have input on general public safety for the motorist and for the people standing there regardless of what the cause might be. So uh again prohibiting uh public use of alcoholic beverages that's both uh open consumption or open container of an alcoholic beverage. Um right now there is no ordin requirement in the city except for in this building. U what we're basically going to do is uh similarly the city manager could create uh an exemption uh through a permit process. Again, we would have uh input into that as to to ensure that uh people are doing so safely. Uh pedestrians, private pedestrians are stopping or staying in the roadway. We've discussed that already. The the next one is u prohibiting placing or erecting a structure within any public right of way, sidewalks, street, or public space within the city without a permit. Uh we've included the terms back up a second. Um, just as you move this forward, I just this is a really minor edit, but I want to make sure that this is on the table as as if you're considering moving this forward for the alcohol. Um, in chapter 20, um, we we'd like to make for if this goes forward to public reading, a change to the section numbers. Um, they're they're they're not numbered correctly. We did some edits and we when we missed we missed the numbering when it when we brought it to final. So, what we would propose and we hope you would support is that on page four of this, it has reserve sections. So the 20-60 to 20-79, we'd like that to have that reserved. Uh and then for the miscellaneous civil offenses would starting with listed as 20-75. We'd like that to instead be 20-80. Uh 20-76 would be 20-81 and 20-77 would be 20-82. So just make note of those when when we move that forward. Sorry. So um we've included uh specifically added um shelter intents to the definition of structure. I think we could have made the argument all along that structure could have been open for interpretation. We wanted to be very clear what we were what we were defining. Uh again and I know the concern might be that you know the police department will then just uh you know find people living uh camping in a tent and and evict them immediately. That is not the intent at all. Uh the intent is to work with that individual. One, give them reasonable notice uh that they're in violation of the ordinance. Um assist them in getting connected to services, helping which would include helping them find shelter. Um and then dealing with uh any cleanup that that might come of it as well as uh dealing with the property that might be left behind. Often we find tents or structures uh in the in public spaces that are no longer occupied. They had been and people move on to something else. Uh this will also give us an ability to very clearly deal with those. Um we we will and we have created large stickers that we put right on the side of the tent explaining the ordinance requiring us to to provide them a certain time frame to come and get their belongings. keeping any personal property uh for a minimum of 30 days, allowing that person to come or if we can identify them uh well get their property to them or allowing them to come claim property at the police department. Uh we're trying to this is not uh an attempt to in any way again criminalize homelessness or uh evict you know uh homeless individuals from where they're trying to find shelter. It's really designed to get them connected to services. Um, again, they need to be uh connected to services, but at some point um this is just public property. Private property owners still have the right to ask us to help move people along a lot sooner. In those cases, we will also help offer to connect people to services. Uh, but the time frames might be a little different if it's uh private property. >> So, we we currently have a camping tent tenting policy, right? Just a policy that we worked on a few years ago, >> right? and and it I think it what it had was a health and safety or or a health aspect to it. If if the site you and became unhealthy because of waste and things like that >> uh then then action could be taken and you know then you know some of the items would be stored until the person could retrieve them whatever. >> So what I'm proposing is that all falls under uh police department policy which I'd be happy to share with you. I haven't done a draft now. Um I'm really waiting to bring on the service coordinator to really understand so I can build out that policy in a more robust way. But uh we essentially adopted everything that was in the city policy um that was still relevant and and made it an internal police policy because the the city council I think the the intent was and you were here I wasn't. The intent was we don't have a polic ordinance that prohibits this but we need to deal with it the best we can. Now that the ordinance is in effect, uh the police department, which gives us the ability to now deal with it, we will then kind of manage that that policy. Uh but uh to your point, um and I apologize for not sharing it sooner. I just wanted to uh build it out a little bit in more detail. The we will still deal with uh immediate hazards was an issue that that came up there. So, if the person's camping in a place that's just flat out unsafe for them to be um you know, next to a highway or whatever the case might be, we have we have the authority to move them uh sooner than than just, you know, letting them stay there for days. Uh same with if they're camping um anywhere next to a child care facility to include schools or playgrounds. The ability to to to try to interact with that person sooner and move them along sooner. That was also um I I spacing on the term that was used like a critical uh area uh that we wanted to address uh sooner than than later. Our approach will will will all be the same. Um and that is um really this progressive enforcement model. Uh we do we don't intend to just say to somebody, hey, you're camping, you got to go. We will warn them. We will uh notify them that they have u time to clean up. I understand we want to take a compassionate approach here. Everybody everything the person all of their possessions are are right there, right? It's no you wouldn't no none of us would want to be told you you have to move immediately. Um, we want to give them time and treat them with dignity and let them pack up their belongings. Um, we also want to help connect them to services. Um, and we we're trying to to kind of merge those two things and get them connected to services and move them in as timely a manner as we can. Um, so those there's there isn't a big overlap. Um, but you know that might depend on what we have for open shelter space. uh we will take a a very human approach to this. We're not going to say it's freezing out, there's no shelter space, and we're going to now take you out of your tent and remove you from your warm sleeping bag and all that stuff. We'll we'll take a compassionate approach, but it doesn't mean we're just going to let you stay there for good, right? We're going to try to get you connected to services sooner than later. If it's really cold and you're really in in in, you know, endangered endangering yourself by being out there, we uh we may take other steps. In New Hampshire, we brought people back to the police department and let them sit in the lobby until we can find a shelter space for them. Uh it depends on, you know, the time of year, where they're at. There's a lot of different things in play, but the goal is not to just move somebody immediately from their from their tent. Uh but I do believe that it's a lot easier to deal with one tent um than it is to deal with an entire encampment. Right. If we don't deal with the one tent situations, they become encampments of you know 30 tents. Uh and that's not a position we want to be in either. >> Chief, just to um maybe follow up on that. So, in my mind, kind of the one of the key differences between the ordinance that we're considering and the policy is this flatout rule in the policy that says in the event there's no shelter, city personnel will not notice campsites for removal. Do do you intend to to change that? Is that intended to be a change? >> We will notice them for removal. In other words, we're going to tell people you're you can't be in violation of the polic of the city ordinance. However, when we actually remove them, we'll be dependent upon connecting them to services. Now, if the person uh if we're able to connect them to services and they refuse services, well, then we're not just going to let them stay there either. Uh but the the intent is to not is to remove them when there's appropriate services available to remove them. But I think the the difference being uh we we will notify them as soon as we determine and locate them and locate the tent like hey you can't be here how do we get you connected services just because we may not be able to connect in the services doesn't it doesn't do us any good to not start that relationship building with our service coordinator to try to get them connected to something. Uh in my experience in New Hampshire, even when we were unable to connect people to services, we were often if you just sit down and talk to them, give them something to eat, give them, you know, something warm to drink, uh often we were able to work through the issue and maybe find a distant relative they could spend a night or two with until we could get them into a shelter space. Uh my hope is that our service coordinator has good relationships or over time builds good relationships with different shelters in this region but outside of the area as well that we can connect people to >> and they'll be building relationships with the individuals that they're interacting with. >> Right. >> So the first time it may be very preuncter but over time >> understanding and this is not a problem that's going to go away overnight. It's a it's a big systemic issue that we're trying to redirect the ship on and it's taking a long time to get to where it is. So, it's not going to shift quickly. >> And again, I don't I don't see us we're not solving the larger problem, right? We're trying to work with individuals who and understand why they're why they're there and how do we help the them meet whatever unmet social need they have to get connected to services. Obviously, you know, if children are involved or other things, we're required to notify DCYF and all and by by law we're required to do certain things, but we're we're those cases we we're not dealing with very often. Fortunately, what we're dealing with is one individual or two individuals in a campsite. Uh and again, you know, we very well might see um people either hopefully get connected to services. That's the intent. um we may deal with them at different locations um and then they're finally ready to get connected or they may get sick and tired of us offering them services and notifying them that they're camping in violation of the ordinance and they may go camp somewhere else in another jurisdiction. That may happen. But all of this revolves around a progressive enforcement model. At every interaction, the off the offer to connect services will be made. If the individual accepts the offer, no further enforcement action will be taken. So at any point the ball is really in the individual's court. At any point they can accept services and that ends the any sort of enforcement action that might be taken. Uh our first approach would be to educate the individual that the behavior is in violation of the ordinance verbally and then that would be the first time. The second time would be to verbally warn them and document it each every time. Issue the person a written warning. Um which there may not be much of a difference to that individual on a verbal warning or a written warning. It's just in our system, it's the progression, right? We I can give you a verbal warning for speeding or I can give you a written warning for speeding. To you, it doesn't matter. You're not getting a ticket. But for us, it's a different level of enforcement and then eventually summons the individual. But we might be all the way up to a written warning. If that person says, "I'm ready." Then they don't get the written warning, right? Uh we may be all the way up to the issue summons the individual, but if they're not ready to accept services, we don't do this. We did a very very similar model in in the department I came from in New Hampshire and very very rarely did we have to actually take any sort of enforcement action. Our people got really really good at building relationships with individuals uh with uh offering that assistance and just kind of just it's a grind but they they will get to do it. Um and you know all of our police officers and firefighters are here to help people. That's why we all said that at some point in an interview. some of us longer than others. Um me 30 years ago I said you know I wanted to do this to help people and this is what I mean. So we all we all want to nobody's looking to to criminalize any behavior. We're looking to connect connect people to the services uh and at any point uh they can accept services and um it kind of it ends right there. So >> as you're developing this program have you been in contact with uh other jurisdictions surrounding us? um to share the concept and see if it's something that that you know you talk about shifting to another jurisdiction but if we create a a a regional comprehensive approach um that might mitigate some of that and I don't know if if Burlington or Essex or Williston etc whether you've been in contact with them around this this program >> I have had some conversations um Burlington's ing up the situation table, right? Which is what I I I see this as kind of the reverse of that, the inside out version of that where a bunch of service providers literally sit around a table and they bring they talk about individual cases, right? And they figure out who can help. I have done that in and my my experience with those are they start out strong but once people change once those organizations change you kind of lose some of the momentum like specifically you know the representative from different organizations changes over time uh I've also seen where unfortunately a lot of those organizations are competing for the same grant uh money the limited dollars that are out there so it becomes a kind of potentially contentious um not intentionally but that and people organizations aren't as engaged over time. I'm not saying that's going to happen. I hope it works out well. Uh what I'm trying to do is the reverse of that. Instead of bringing all of the providers to one service providers to a table, let's let's help let's have a trained social worker who can look at that individual and then essentially reach out to the direct agency uh involved different agencies. It may be several organizations work with one individual. Uh but it'll all be kind of coordinated by one point person. >> I I also want to make the connection back to our community outreach team which is a regional partnership and a regional service program. Um so this effort with that effort work handin glove. They're not they're not >> overlapping efforts. They're supporting efforts and we have talked with the managers in in those communities that partner with us on community outreach. We are the highest user of community outreach by by 10% >> at least >> at least um and we have shared with them that we are going in this that we are proposing to go in this direction >> um and buy additional capacity from the Howard Center but it's not in it's not pulling out of that regional partnership. It's it's it's >> injunction >> in conjunction and piloting could this is this going to work? We believe it's going to work because the chief has lived experience of it working. Um but we have talked to them about if we can prove the concept it may become just an extension of our existing community outreach team. >> Right. And I think the the big distinction for me is community the community outreach team as it stands now they're really dealing with people in acute crisis. Right? They're they're really they're mission is to help people navigate through a crisis, right? I want to connect people kind of between the crisis so another crisis doesn't come up. So I think there will be a lot of overlap in a ven diagram. There'll be a lot of overlap uh between and I I envision the outreach workers the community outreach team that we currently use from Howard working with uh it'll be the same individuals right so um I think and that and that's one of the reasons why we want to partner with Howard because I think they already bring a ton of information to the table. They already have relationships built with a lot of these individuals. they have records that we don't have access to, nor do we need or want access to. Um, so I think it it kind of makes sense, but there are other and I do I agree with you. I think once we can get this up and running, I think we need to not get too far ahead of ourselves and and work on it here and refine it here. But I think you're absolutely right. It is something that is probably well um would work regionally really well um because we people don't stop at borders, right? dealing with the same individuals. Um, so there are other chiefs um outside of Burlington that are very interested and I have talked to them about what we're trying to do and um but I think you know and probably rightfully so they're saying we'll prove it success, work through the bugs and then get back to us >> one step at a time. >> Yeah. Uh this picture real quickly just highlights what we were talking about the traffic uh you know intersection related. This is on Dorser at Williston uh vehicle intersection related crash and the vehicle went right up and unrested the median. So uh it there is a legit safety concern. I understand people's first amendment rights to to to panhandle and ask for money. I'm not you can ask anybody you want for money. I'm okay with that. I just want you to do it in a location that's not endangering yourself or others. Um, and um, I think this picture clearly highlights that. And as a bonus, if we can help you meet the unmet social need that causes you to be out there paying, I think that's a win for everybody. >> So, um, councelor, um, I apologize. I think I'm a little slow. I certainly did do research on this before before when, um, when we talked about these ordinance just to make sure we weren't violating people's first amendment rights. Um and uh my my goal and I think the goal here was just well clearly it's a safety. So that's where my mind was. >> Yeah. You know, of course. Yeah. >> But but there are certainly are cases around around the country that talk about certain restrictions being um unlawful if they are applicable only to but they're not safety related. >> Exactly. >> So here So when we're sitting here, I I I come up some some language that I propose that we add to this based on your recommendation. Um, and so right now the the the ordinance does read, "Unless required by a traffic control device applicable to pedestrians, no pedestrians shall stop or stand upon any portion of the roadway." Um, I would suggest you have >> Can you say where you're reading from so they can follow along on that? >> Yep. So this is section 36-234. >> Uh, it is in chapter 36, page two. Um, and it's in subsection B. Okay. >> And you would add what? >> So I would I would suggest unless required by a traffic control device applicable to pedestrians for comma for the safety of individuals and the traveling public, no pedestrian shall stop or stand upon any portion of the roadway. That >> makes sense to me. Thank you. Yeah. >> So I propose that we add that if you move this forward. Yep. Any other comments? Otherwise, we're going to ask for a motion to set a public hearing. My my only comment is that um I think these are these ordinances are needed to uh curtail certain behaviors or or to make evident the fact that there are behaviors among some individuals that are are not good in in our city, right? And that have negative consequences, especially for children. And it's unfortunate that we have to pass an ordinance against these but it highlights the fact that and and see these are not criminalize these don't criminalize but they they in turn recivilize is that's the term I would use right these types of behaviors to make them evident so that the police can take action in this way to try and and seek help for people and give them services. So, I I I think this is a good a good first step. And there are other municipalities and cities around the country that are going they've been they've leaned very far to the to the liberal side and relaxing laws and now they've rolled back because they've discovered that by doing that it just has promoted behaviors around the city that that are not good. They're not and and it degrades the quality of life for everybody else as well the people that are engaged in it. Right. So, this is this is the right swing of the pendulum for now for this purpose. I >> I think so. So, I'd entertain a motion to public hearing. >> Just just um a tangential question. I know we're going to get to ebikes and item 10. I have a couple of questions there too, but um I was just curious, there were some changes um with respect to domestic animals, the pets and leashes. And I don't know if those were substantive or just moving things around. As I read it, it it read to me like, okay, if you're on a shared use path, your dog needs to be on a leash. If you're not on the path, you're just in a park. >> We're not there yet. We're still >> No, it wasn't. This was in all this. I thought it was >> So, what what we what we've done is we made some changes to the same chapter. >> Yeah, same chapter. >> And so, we're going to talk about it in a minute would be the the proposed e-mobility devices that is located in e-mobility. Essentially, we took one ordinance that was parks ordinance and moved it uh to this chapter. Um and so we didn't amend this at all. It was an existing ordinance that was already in place. Um and so we we didn't make change the the leash and the pets. That's an existing ordinance. >> None of that changed. You're just moving stuff around. >> Exactly. >> That's what I want to know. >> Okay. And I just as we're getting ready to do a motion, I just want to say it's really important for us to highlight that these ordinances are in conjunction with the development of the service coordinator position, right? >> And are for the intention of helping actually transition rather than criminalize or or be punitive to folks who who are in a state of of distress. And I think the approach is I'm I'm thrilled with what you've presented us. So I'll move uh can I can I interject one thing? So you have a motion in front of you. Um I would just have you add some language that says um as proposed to be amendment at the meeting tonight. >> Okay. >> Um just so it it clears up that the the amendments that we've talked about here are included in the the draft that moves forward. Okay. So, I move to move a public hearing on September 8th, 2026, and approve changes to the South Burlington City Ordinances, chapter 14, chapter 20, chapter 32, chapter 36, and resin city council policy 20225 and city policy 202503 in uh accordance with the additions and changes that we've made here tonight. >> I'll second that. We have a motion and a second. Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> It's unanimous. Thank you very much. Uh we will go on to item 10, which is receive and hold the first reading of updates to South Brilliant City ordinance, chapter 22, parks and recreation, and chapter 36, traffic and vehicles, and possibly set a public hearing for again September 8th, 2026 at 7 p.m. These changes address electric mobility devices as recommended by the bike and ped committee. again, Bill Bro, chief of police and Colin McNeil, city, attorney. Good evening again. >> Good evening again. So, yes, so the the as you are all well aware, um this issue uh has been at the forefront of the the bike and and ped committee. They made recommendations uh on an ordinance. the city attorney and I and uh the acting director of public works looked at that and uh looked at it from, you know, legality and enforcability uh in in recommending the the additions that you see uh starting in article six or section 36-400. Um this also part of this as the city attorney just alluded to um section 22 um is now we we removed it from 22 uh and put it a lot of it with the additional language about specific to prohibited uh uh e devices. We also added the language from section 22 just to streamline it so it was all in one spot. So that's why we're talking about horses and other things. Um that was not part of my my recommendation. It's just that carryover from 22. >> Uh so just a couple of things. When we when we moved this over, there was an existing ordinance as we just talked about that dealt with traveling on recreation paths that we've moved over to to incorporate to be a little bit broader to be shared use paths and sidewalks to have this be applicable. Uh but we made some very minor changes to that based on what was recommended by our bike and ped committee and we incorporated those changes to deal with uh ebikes. And so now certain ebikes are allowed as defined by statute and certain e mobility devices are are prohibited as recommended by our bike and ped committee that is uh been transferred uh into the section. Um, one thing that we did change uh from and moving this the sections over from chapter 22 to chapter 36 is you will see in uh section 36-41 it says horses prohibited that used to say skateboards and horses are prohibited. Um we felt that it was more appropriate and feel that that shared these paths can be used by people on skateboards. So, we eliminated that prohibition uh for the ordinance that's under your consideration tonight. >> I have a couple of quick questions in this section. Um the first one is um on page 133643. And prior to this, it says that uh you know, you need to stay right when you're on the trail, etc. But section 403 says pedestrians have the rightway on the recreation path. And while I totally understand that and I think it makes sense, what I'm experiencing on the trails very often are pedestrians who are walking two or three a breast, oblivious of what's going on around them, um or walking with headphones on, unable to hear people coming behind them. Um, if this was just a recreation path, I would understand that that behavior may be okay, but this is supposed to be a transportation corridor. We're trying to improve the opportunity for people to get around on bicycles and if they come up behind a pedestrian or a group of pedestrians who are paying no attention, blocking the road. Um, is there a way to incorporate some language in here that speaks the responsibility or code of conduct for pedestrians as well because it's dangerous for them and it's dangerous for the rider. Um, and I just wanted to to bring that forward and find out if there's if you've thought about this or if there's some way to address it so that pedestrians stay alert and they they respect the respect goes both ways. >> I I think what I would suggest is at this point we just took the existing ordinance and moved it over. Um, and we did that because there was two ordinances that were somewhat conflicting based on the recommendations of the bike ped committee. Uh, and our immediate need to address e-mobility devices and ebikes. Um, so what we're trying to do is have an ordinance that's at least consistent with it ordinances that are consistent with themselves. Um, so we've incorporated the changes that have been recommended by the by the bike committee, bike and ped committee and that uh we've we've kind of vetted through public works and through the through the police department as as needed immediately. Um, I think that what we can do as we move this forward is we u move forward as it's written now, but continue to look at changes that can be made to the ordinance that that exists now. Um, is this the language we really want for our transportation paths or is it not? uh and analyze that moving into the future. >> Great. I was just highlighting something that I think is going to become a bigger and bigger issue as we move forward. >> Yeah. And and I think if you you know that's section 3643, but then right under section 36404 also says that all users shall stay to the right side of the path except when passing. >> So the argument can be made that that includes >> pedestrians. Right. Yeah. I think to me it's when there's that direct conflict point the pedestrian kind of like when two cars come to an intersection at the same time the person to the right has the rightway kind of that's how I interpret pedestrians have the right away if there's a direct conflict point the pedestrian has the right away however that doesn't mean they can just walk wherever they want to walk right they still have to stay to the right uh except when when trying to pass so >> and it also said be in single file when necessary for safety >> I just Oop, sorry. Did you want to answer that first because I'm about to go off on a tangent. I um I don't know when the appropriate time to comment on this particular directly related issue is, but the anytime that we pass an ordinance, the question of enforcement comes up, right? And there are greater and greater calls from the public for enforcement of these ordinances on our paths. And I just wanted to I don't know if this is the appropriate time to ask the question, but just you know um I'm wondering what the what your vision is for that because we've we've just today I got another email about emotos on the paths and I've had that experience myself. Um, and you know, I' I've seen kids racing around my neighborhood on emotion and first thing I think is, "Oh my goodness, one of these kids is going to crack their skull open and, you know, end up on my on my viewbox at work." Um, but I'm just wondering what your, you know, what your plan is for that. >> Chief, before you answer, can I just amplify that because I had the same question, but just a few more details to the question. So, one, I see there is a section here 36 dish for other relief. I'd love to know what that encompasses. Um, and two, I'd love to understand what the enforcement is today for something very similar. Like, let's say a kid is driving a car illegally, >> right, >> on the street. Like, what what can we do? Is that criminal? Can we hold the parents accountable? Can we confiscate the car? >> So, this is specific to what's allowed on the wreck use path, right? This doesn't change the the kids driving around on the streets on on uh and we've already taken enforcement action for underageed individuals who are not do not have a license driving emotives that are required to be registered insured all the same things as a motorcycle or any other moving vehicle. We have taken action against them and their parents for allowing them to do that. >> What what actions like what just give you don't have to say specifically but what what what what remedies do we have? the actions could be uh allowing an improper person to operate a vehicle. So if um if you get in the car and you let your 10-year-old drive the car, even if you're with them, you can't do that, right? That's allowing improper person to operate. U so we we've particularly if we've already dealt with the individual, turn the bike over and the and the kid back over to their parent, made their parent very well aware, educated them on the dangers of this, why it's not legal, uh and then we deal with them a second time. We have uh we've already done that a few times now. uh taken enforcement action against the parents for allowing that to happen. Uh we will continue to do that. That doesn't change that. We're just specifically identifying where these are allowed or not because it's possible that somebody who has a license who wants to go get this thing registered and insured and does all the proper things to make it legal still can't operate it just like you can't drive a car on the on the on the path. Um overall enforcability. Um we do we we recently last week there was a press release about uh we we've created or started uh having officers patrol and bicycle that will continue. Um we also have officers on foot. Uh we will continue to make uh areas where we know uh we have a lot of concerns particularly where there's uh conflict points u on the along the trail where or or times of day where we know these kids are out there. We will make it it uh we will take enforcement action on the trail. Uh but like I was saying earlier, the first thing is to is to identify what the rule is, right? So people understand what the rule is just like speed limits. This is not going to solve the problem. I want to be completely clear. We will still have because you pass an ordinance uh doesn't mean we're not going to have these issues. It just gives us the ability to take enforcement action. Uh but it also sets what the rule is just like a speed limit does, right? Most people will drive the speed limit because they know what the speed limit is. Uh and that's kind of the hope here. Uh but we will take enforcement just like when we deal with people uh who are speeding. We will take enforcement when we see it when it's appropriate. People can certainly call us uh if they have continually problems with individuals uh and we will take that. We we one of the cases I was talking about where we cited a parent. Uh the second time uh a neighbor knew that we had contacted them. neighbor took video of them. Uh he confronted them and it was on on video of them clearly underage individuals on their on their emotos uh on the public street. Um so we b use that video as evidence and we took enforcement action. We will do that. Um again like any other like I was talking about earlier, we need to build a case, right? It it's not just because you call us and say I saw this. That might not be enough proof for us to to to uh to make a case. Um, but again, it's this ordinance is specific to uh the rules of the road. The state statutes already cover that. We're we're talking about the the shared use bike path here >> at the ribbon cutting for the city hall park, right? Mhm. >> There was an individual riding an emoto on the paths and there were four officers walking to the paths and and there was a little discussion about that and then that person walked their emoto out of the park and so no ticket was written which was a good opportunity for you know the citizen to listen to the police and say here's the rule and uh you need to walk that. So that was one good outcome. Right. So, I'm sorry, Chief. Just so I I I thank you for the clarification that um outside shared use paths, we rely on state statutes and feel like we have appropriate remedies >> for the shared use path and specifically for someone that's riding in violation of our ordinances. >> What remedies do we have other than penalties? Can we confiscate the bike? Can like what can we do? >> So, yeah. Um it depends on what they're doing. Um, if for this civil ordinance only, no, we wouldn't confiscate the bike. If it's a if it's an adult, if it's a juvenile, we we might not confiscate the bike, but there's nothing stopping us from requiring the parent to come get the kid and the bike in the ticket. Um, so part of this will be educating parents as well. Uh, and this is just one part of the approach that we're going to continue to take. The rest of it is working with the schools. uh at the end of last year we we had officers in the schools meeting with students specifically in letting them know the issues with emotos. We will continue to do that. One of my plans is on the you know first day of school uh in several days thereafter we'll have officers checking the bike racks for these things and dealing with them. Uh we're not going to let the kid get on it and drive back from school if they're off. We'll we'll deal with it uh right there in the moment. will work with the school to identify the kids and uh and and work with their parents to make sure that they understand the law. I mean again like most things enforcement is not our priority. I mean it's not what >> but but sometimes you need to do it >> but sometimes you need to do it right but education and changing the behavior is what we want to do >> and I'm sorry just one just point of clarification if say a child is riding an emoto on the shared use path that enforcement would come under state statute not under this >> yes because they're still an unregistered right they had to get on to the shared use path it's just like if they were driving a a car >> and I will just elaborate on what the chief said you know because we get our author authority from the state. The state has given us certain authority to enforce civil ordinances and generally that is collecting fines going to judicial bureau through that process. Um the other relief section that you did reference that um that is through statute as well gives us the authority to pursue injunctive relief. Um whether that would injunctive relief >> and what what would that mean what would that mean in this context? It's it's really limited in this context, I imagine, unless you can establish that there is some activity that you'd like the court to stop um and be able to justify going to that civil process of getting an injunction to stop this activity. Uh it might be very limit applicability here. Uh but basically this is this is the same language that is in all of our ordinances. So we wanted to incorporate in here and have that those rights available if if we need it. >> Yeah. Just want to add that I'm really grateful that we are addressing this now. Um I have seen in Red Rocks Park and other places kids on emotos being arrogant and aggressive and basically flipping people off. >> Um we heard what happened in Burlington on the bike path just this last weekend and I think that getting ahead of this before it continues to escalate is going to be really important. So, I'm I'm grateful that this is in front of us tonight. >> And I'll add another perspective to that because I I'm very So, I'm I'm I'm I agree with Lori. I'm extremely grateful that um you're stepping up enforcement. We we have we're going to have an ordinance. Um my concern is that we are going to have an accident and one of these young people who's acting like a teenager and riding around and you know feeling immortal is going to end up very badly hurt or or unfortunately maybe dead. Um so I I see very bad stuff at work every day and I'm really concerned that this is what the outcome is going to be if we don't get on top of it. So, I'm glad that um I'm glad that this is uh underway. So, thank you. >> Having been a young kid there, but for the grace of God, it could have been me. And um uh I I hear the people on on Facebook saying, "Oh, kids will be kids, etc." Well, thank you. That's all I can say. So I have a couple just a couple of technical questions on this if it's appropriate at this point. Um uh we use the term electric bicycle but I I don't see it defined here. Is that just incorporated by reference to state statute? >> Yeah. >> Or did I miss a definition? >> No. The the definition se section of this ordinance is pretty limited. But what it does it it incorporates the definition set forth in title 23 section 4 and 19 section 2301 >> which defines electric bicycles all those bicycles. >> Okay that's fine. So right below that in B52 it talks about e scooters hovered boards other e-mobility devices with an electric motor or less than two 750 watts. I think you meant of >> we we certainly did there was a type there's a typo there. I was going to raise that before we made the motion. Um, councelor Fitzgerald also raised that and emailed to me earlier. Um, and she had a suggestion of either making that of less than 750 watts or no greater than 750 watts. And I >> whatever the law is, >> whatever you whatever you would prefer >> whatever the law is. Is it I mean, is it 750 okay or is it less than 750 on for bikes? >> It's less than less than. >> That's okay. >> So less than Okay. Um, >> less than or equal. No. Okay. Then um in B1 we to accept um city maintenance and enforcement vehicles. And Bob Brid made the comment I think he's right. We should probably also have an exception for people working on behalf of the city, you know, fixing the paths or construction whatever subcontractors in in B1. And I think that's all I have. Yeah. Maintenance. >> So that one >> I I I just want to make sure I get the language that you're that you're suggesting. Um, >> so, uh, in B1, there's an exception for authorized city maintenance and enforcement vehicles. I'd probably add something like or um, >> organizations working on behalf of the city, >> you know, >> we just reverse. What if we just said maintenance or enforcement of vehicles as authorized by the city? >> That's fine. Yeah, as authorized by the city is fine. That would cover anything anybody we >> that I think that does it. Yeah. >> Okay. So, if no other comments, do we want to have a motion to uh hold first reading? >> Um, hold on. Erica's also saying 36400A has a typo. Erica, can you >> I know >> that's what the public hearing is for, but there's nobody online that's asking for, so I can ask. >> It just says share use instead of shared use. >> What is this? >> Share. Shared. >> Yeah, it was a purely a letter missing. >> So it says shared So shear share use instead of shar >> clean it up and we can clean it up. >> Oh, does it cut and paste? Yeah. So there's a motion that has no D. >> Okay. So before the motion, is there any any public feedback on this tonight in the house? There's nobody online with their hand up. So, um, I move to a second reading and public hearing to South Burlington City Ordinance Chapter 22 and chapter 36 on September 8th, 2026 with the revisions and changes discussed tonight. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. It is unanimous. Thank you. And we'll move on to item 11, which is receive an update on the emergency operations center modernization and possibly approve a request for the use of up to $48,500 from ARPA inspired reserve funds for this purpose. >> Deputy Fire Chief Chris Corbin >> and Police Chief Bill Bro. >> I'm gonna let Deputy Chief Corbin do most of the speaking on this one. >> Is it chief? >> Not yet. August 31st. >> Oh, 31st. Okay. It's come >> and thank you Col. >> Thank you. >> Pre chief. >> Yeah. Thanks, Colin. >> Good evening. For the record, Chris Corbin, deputy fire chief. Uh the police chief and I are coming here on behalf of uh public safety and other staff uh this evening requesting authorization to use up to 40 $48,500 of ARPA inspired reserve fund balance to establish the information the infrastructure technology furniture and equipment necessary for a modern and modular emergency operations center. Uh this is the first phase of a larger emergency preparedness initiative as was identified in the FY27 policy priorities and strategies. Tonight's request is specifically for the physical um and technological upfit of the EOCC. It doesn't fund the entire project. Um there this is a three uh part phase of a plan. The EOCC is the first step to better prepare for any event that may happen tomorrow. the remaining phases uh require more time and are focused on preparing staff especially the staff that are not accustomed to managing emergencies. Uh so just a little history behind this. So South Burlington previously maintained a formal EOC in the Department of Public Works. Uh that facility was staged and prepared for uh activation but was rarely used throughout the years. DPW staff need more space and the space was conver that was the EOC was converted to office space and the city didn't really reestablish a replacement for the EOC. The events of March 11th demonstrated the need to restore the capac the capability uh and the subsequent afteraction process identified three related needs. Reestablishment of the modern EOC, develop a comprehensive emergency operations plan and train and exercise city staff to operate within those plans. Uh this request addresses the first of those needs. Uh we uh some of the uh city hall staff as well as police and fire staff kind of sat down and determined that the Miller room at 19 Gregory Drive in the police department was the best location for our primary EOC. Uh considering hazard exposure, continuity operations, communications, resiliency, security infrastructure, workspace, and the ability to activate quickly. We did identify city hall and the fire station number one on Dorsa Street as our alternate locations. Uh with the city's existing infrastructure and this plan for this new equipment, we'd be very uh we'd have the capability of having a virtual or physical EOC in any of those three locations depending on the circumstances of the incident. Uh it is important to note the Miller room won't lose its normal function of meeting for public and police as well as training for the police. Uh and for that that reason of not losing space and also for a more modular uh and buildup tear down system, we're looking at not having a dedicated space but instead using the modular uh capability. So, we're talking about $48,500 tonight. Um, this is for IT, electrical, security, infrastructure, AV and computer equipment. Uh, some security and privacy, as well as some furnishings and storage at 19 Gregory Drive for the equipment. Uh we did speak with both uh city manager Baker as well as the finance team and uh the recommendation is using one-time reserve allocation for the one uh for this investment rather than uh using operating budget. Annual maintenance and subscription costs are minimal and any future replacement can easily be uh planned out through operational budgeting or the capital investment plan. And then uh follow if uh this request is approved, the unassigned ARPA inspired reserve fund balance will remain at approximately $1.772 million. Uh just to kind of give you an idea of what else is going on in this. Uh so in FY27, the staff has the plans to establish the EOC and develop a draft emergency operations plan. And then in FY28, uh the work is expected to progress into employee training. and then fullscale exercise of the emergency operations plan and the emergency operations center. While we're looking at full implementation of, you know, somewhere probably around $100,000 by the end of FY28 and we're all done. Tonight's request is just for the fit up of the $48,500. >> So, I have a quick question and I want to preface it by saying that um I think this is terrific. Um I mean I think that uh uh I think that this will be versatile in a way that our current situation is not as we saw on March 11th. Um we couldn't have done better in my opinion on March. You all couldn't have done better but I think that um I think that this this uh a very um worthwhile initiative for us to support. Um I'm just wondering if you have I mean you have very specific numbers here for these different items. Have you priced out specific, you know, electrical electrical and security infrastructure, for example, AV equipment, etc. >> Round it up to the nearest dollar. Round it up. Yes, ma'am. >> So, you already know exactly what you want to purchase and and these are the numbers. >> Yeah. The IT director has worked with us as well as facilities and we've gotten quotes for everything. So, we know that number is hard and fast. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> You need a a motion to authorize the use of the funds. Is it to authorize you or author? >> So, it's >> it's right there. Um, >> you got language. >> I move to approve the use of not to exceed 48,500 from the oper balance of purchase of necessary infrastructure and equipment to fit up a modular and modern emergency operation center. >> Second. >> We have a motion in the second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> I. Sounds like a good idea. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks, Corbin. >> Uh, moving on to item 12, which is discuss and possibly approve a naming policy for public assets. >> Um, so we brought this to you, this has come to a couple of times um over the last couple of months. Um, uh, sorry, I'm on the wrong document. Brought this one to you last at your August 3rd meeting. You provide some feedback to us. Um I re I um updated the draft of the policy with that feedback ran it by councelor Fitzgerald and Chelene neck who um had helped craft it. Um and I think we are all in agreement with the draft as presented. What you did not make a final policy decision on at your last meeting was the language on employees. So in your cover memo, I've given you three different options of that language. Um a do nothing option. um an option for naming um something after a city employee if the effort done was outside of the employment um or a third option of um wholly in part from person's contribution. So you have that language before you in your cover sheet. So you can either approve as drafted or add one of those items into the policy and possibly approve tonight. Let me just uh amplify that a little bit because so I I wrote those those two. So just to um share my thoughts on on them. So um do nothing is future councils have discretion to name after employees or not. Um >> still an employee or not employee. Is that is that in there that they cannot be an employee? >> If we do nothing there's nothing about employees now. So it would be in the full discretion of future council to do what they want. Um, one option is to limit it and say to basically constrain future councils to only name after um employees for contributions made apart from their work as an employee. So for contribution made as a constituent so that a future council would not be able to name after employee for their work as an employee. The third option is to say, sure, you can name after someone for stuff outside of employment, but you can also name for a formal employee who's done really exceptional things to to weigh in. I I kind of like that third one. And the reason I do is because I don't think we should be hamstring a future council to say you can never name something after a foreign employee because I can envision say an exceptional city manager. And >> for the record, I will go on record right now saying please do not ever name something after me. He need >> I wasn't talking about you, Jesse. Seriously, >> I wasn't talking. >> I'm just saying that in I, you know, you never know what comes down the road. 5, 10, 20 years down the road. >> Nicholas says, "City manager. You can name something after him." >> You know, to to to say that a city council can never name after a former employee feels to me like it's just too constrained. >> So, Andrew, the do nothing step >> just leaves us silent on this >> and It might happen in the future, it might not, but we're not giving direct guidance. Um, I would probably lean towards that because I have no idea in the future what city government employees are going to be doing, what precedents are set, etc. And there may be a circumstance that I just totally can't imagine tonight where it made total sense to name something after somebody who was an employee who did something that >> Yeah. But so what about number two? I I guess my perspective would be to provide some guidance because there's been a lot of discussion around this and to leave it completely open or like in my mind there's a middle ground there like provide some framework some rubric um but not be really prescriptive and and prohibitive is is kind of where I would come out. I guess >> I agree with that. Um because I think it it's been a little bit divisive. Um, so I think it's better that we have some position on it and we be, you know, we allow for some flexibility in the future and it, you know, naming you could name a chair after someone, you know, like are we going to set a policy that doesn't allow you to name >> the chair naming policy it says in here that that's separate from this. >> Okay. Well, the point stands that anyway I I agree with Andrew. I think I think we can, you know, I'm fine with that. Anyway, >> I don't want So, there's a lot of verbiage here, okay, for two and three. I just want to say nothing can be named in the city for an employee who's still an employee of the city. That's all I want because that's what happened last time and I don't want a repeat of that. That's all I mean, if years later, like let's say years later, you know, an employee, they retire and they they did a lot of great things for the city and we want to honor them, we should be able to honor them. Yeah. Right. And I don't have a problem with that, but not while they're still employed by the city. That's all I care about. And I don't need the, you know, the criteria about what they did or whe they did beyond outside the, you know, their normal job. It's just because that would be the judgment of the council at a future date, right? And and they're going to take that into account, of course, if somebody's proposing that name. >> That's why I was leaving it without naming. I mean, if if some employee someday in the future does something that's so heroic that they save a whole school of children or some other thing happens and it's like they're still working for us, but we need to rec recognize them. So, I'm okay with just saying foreign employee. I guess the reason why that some of these other words are there is because you may have a current employee who's doing great stuff in the city having nothing to do with the employment. Yeah. And you may want to name something for them for that. So that that's why there's some additional words here because it's a little nuanced. >> True. True. But I still don't but I don't want them named while they're employee of the city. That just >> even if they're doing great stuff, >> it doesn't know they can't >> even if they give a million dollars to name something. >> That's great. They can give a million dollars, but they're going to have to >> really do a million dollars, they're probably going to want to retire. >> I I don't agree with that. I I think if they're a constituent, a citizen, but they have to be employed, they're doing great stuff as a constituent, they deserve >> Yeah. There's there's a situation in Washington where somebody's employed and they're naming stuff after that that employee >> over and over and over again. And that's the kind of thing I want to avoid if possible, even though that's here. >> Well, that's that would be the balance, right? That or check is that you can't be an employee and be named for something. This is why I suggesting the do nothing because I think leaving it unspoken leaves openness. It It doesn't address Tim's issue. But it also Anyway, I'm not sure that that we're not just opening a can of worms by trying to wordsmith something that we can't even imagine in the future. >> Just a simple statement that you can't name something in the city after a current employee. That's all you have to say. I don't know that I agree with that because there may be a point in time when an employee does something that's so exceptional that they are worth being named >> and then there could be a time afterward that then you name them >> and there are other ways of recognizing people besides naming things after them. Yeah. >> So I mean in other words I agree with that. You know, I I don't feel strongly about the point that you're making, Tim, but I I think um I I think I could go with that because there are other ways of recognizing people while they're still employed without making an indelible plaque that Well, no plaque is truly indelible, but anyway, you see where I'm going. Um >> make a motion. >> Yeah. >> Well, I would make a motion that we adopt uh number two. I second that. >> Um, and we add the language. >> Do you want a friendly amendment that adds Tim's language? >> Well, it says it can't has to be a full employee. >> Naming a public asset after city employees except naming shall be permissible for any employee in respect to contributions to the city made wholly apart from the person. >> This is an employee or former employer. If you mean it's like it's double negative and I just can't understand it. So it's like if it's just simplify KS it right just >> but it's your motion. Go ahead. >> I move that we include include the language to say that um only only if they're former employees that you know let's see how how would we say >> you can you can propose an option four. I think what Beth is motioning is to insert the language number two on the cover sheet in what that says in section five alternative one. Is that what you're recommending? >> Number two. Yes. Yes. >> And I second worded. >> Wait, are you sorry? I'm I'm sorry. I I screwed up this this section. Are you Are you saying the second bullet point? Did the one do nothing to section alternative one or you saying alternative two? I named >> alternative one. I'm sorry. Yes. I I'm sorry that was confusing. >> Naming public assets after city employees >> except naming shall >> who are no longer employed by the city, except naming shall be permissible for any employee, etc., etc. Does that does that cover it, Tim? >> I I mean I'm I'm I'm sympathetic with the viewpoint. I don't feel that strongly about it. Um just trying to get it across the finish line. Yeah. Do you do you have any more comments, Andrew? >> So, that's your motion now. >> That's my motion. >> I second that. >> Okay. >> So, we got a motion in a second. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> I. Unanimous. All right. >> Okay. Hold on. I >> Yeah. Really? What? >> I'm not convinced I've gotten this right. And I do not want to bring it back to you >> where it says an employee, right? >> No. viol getting rid of the vile employee. >> Can I can I read it to you and see if I >> Sure. >> So in section five that's titled exclusions from the asset naming policy or andor criteria. New bullet naming public assets after city employees. So this is an exclusion. You're excluded from naming public assets after city employees, who are no longer who are employed by the city. Is that what you're trying to say? >> Yes. who are currently >> who are currently employed. >> Why don't you just add the word former? We would just make it just have to add one more word to this thing. >> So it it >> can turn. >> If it just says naming public employees except naming public any former employee blah blah blah >> and former employees who if it just add the word former I think it it takes care of it. Yeah, >> but you're excluding. So these this bullet is who you're excluding. So you're excluding former employees. >> No, no, no. Just add the word former to the motion and that takes care of it. >> So that makes it a double negative because these are things that are excluded. >> That's what I'm saying. Can you can you read me what you want to have it say? >> Yeah. The the addition in section five should be naming public assets after city employees which means that's prohibited except naming shall be permissible for any former employee in respect of contributions to the city made wholly part and any former employee who while employee providing sexual service and that that that will do it. So we just have to add one word >> well it's already in second place. >> It's already in second place. Yeah. Got it. Really hope I've got it. >> Do you want to modify the motion at all? >> Oh, wait, wait. Hold on. I asked him to go get it off the printer. >> Oh, >> if you're done. >> Yeah, >> I think we're done. >> Yeah, we're done. Okay. Okay. >> Do we need to rem remake that motion? Okay. I think we're good. >> We're good enough. >> I think we've That's okay. We're good. All right. >> All right. >> Thank you for your patience. >> Thanks. >> Item 13, review the significant agenda topics below for the council's September 8th meeting. Well, we know two things that are going to happen on September 8th. >> Yes. So, in addition to your um two public hearings um right now on the September 8th agenda, which by the way is the Tuesday after Labor Day um is review development review board or interview development review board candidates. >> How many do you have? >> I can check. I don't know that off the top of my head. I can check before we leave tonight. >> Sorry, I have at least one. >> I don't know that off the top of my head. I can check before we leave tonight. Uh receive an update on the building and thermal implementation plan of the climate action plan and consider what actions you want to take in parallel. This was following up on your discussion from the policies and strategies retreat. Um hear a presentation from the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity um around their interest in potentially opening a shelter. Um discuss and possibly approve the FY28 budget schedule and then discuss and possibly approve um a process to develop a 2027 legislative agenda. This is also on the policies and strategies. So Nicholas and I have been doing some thinking about how the council could have that conversation by yourselves and then potentially with the delegation to get to um that agenda additionally with what you've talked about before. So just the process, not necessarily start the conversation. >> Sounds great. >> That's what I've got. >> I'm sorry I will not be here for that meeting as I mentioned. Sorry, Tim. >> Nor will I >> Oh, two of us are going to be missing. Huh? I'm sorry. I'm going to miss all these items. Um, especially the thermal implementation plan. >> You two won't be here. >> We will both definitely not be here. >> If I'm here, something went horribly wrong. >> We're going to That table's going to be way out in the hallway. No, >> we won't have a job when we get back. >> Are there are there things you want to consider moving around or >> No, I don't want to hold anything up. Um, I can I can we can watch the meeting. Watch the meeting after the fact. >> Good. Thank you. So, uh, we're now we're on to >> looking forward to hearing the, uh, CBOE presentation. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Looking forward to both, actually. >> Other business. You have any other business at all? >> Other business? >> No. Okay. No other business. Can have a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. All >> those in favor say I. I. We're thank you very much everybody tonight.