2026-09-29 - Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee

00:00I'll call to order the city council

00:02transportation energy and utilities

00:04committee meeting

00:06at 5:32

00:12agenda that's posted on civic

00:18is with us.

00:23>> This could be her if she's using her

00:25cell phone. Uh, let me um well, while

00:30we're um

00:32getting into it here, I guess what I'll

00:34do is text her. But um is there any

00:38other discussion on your agenda? Seeing

00:41none, all those in favor of our agenda

00:44as previously indicate by saying I I

00:48next we have adoption of our minutes

00:50from our August 25th meeting. Uh there

00:54motion on that.

00:58I move to adopt amendments for August.

01:04>> I was not here but I read through them.

01:06I accepted that you all know what you're

01:08doing and that majority so that it is

01:11not here. Um we can get it through. So

01:14I'll second it.

01:15>> Okay. and other discussion. Seeing none,

01:18officers going to give me I

01:20>> I

01:21>> and I will abstain if that doesn't mess

01:24up the which I don't think it does. So

01:26>> on the minutes

01:26>> on the minutes yeah

01:29>> um okay no note councelor Bergman's

01:33abstension from adoption.

01:37Uh and next we have public forum. Um is

01:39there anybody who'd like to speak at

01:42public forum? I see former councelor

01:44Busher online. Sharon, do you want to

01:46speak? Go ahead. Floor is yours.

01:50>> Um, yes. Hi. Uh, good afternoon. Um so

01:56I'm here to listen to the conversation

02:00um regarding the uh solid waste um tax

02:05and I am

02:08I read the communication and um I wanted

02:11to compliment Chapen on being um DPW

02:16does a really good job on giving like

02:18the history and bringing you to the

02:21point of what's on the table for

02:24discussion. So, I appreciated all of

02:27that. Um,

02:29and which gets us to where we are right

02:32now. Um, so things that I don't want to

02:36have forgotten

02:38are the fact that there are those of us,

02:41you know, you you cite the loss of

02:43residential and you cite some of that as

02:47being um the impetus being a larger uh

02:52housing projects going with their own

02:55system, whatever. Um but there are those

02:58of us um like me um that have chosen to

03:04go outside of this of uh contracting

03:08with a hauler um and actually as you

03:11know take your um compost and your

03:15recycling and your trash

03:18um and your yard waste whatever uh to a

03:22drop off center. And the reason for

03:25that, as has been stated before, is that

03:30not only can I do it, um although as I

03:33get older I wonder how long I can do it,

03:36but I am doing it and that's really not

03:39on the table. But it is it's I I need it

03:43to be less frequent than the routine

03:47stops, weekly stops and to orchestrate

03:51what works for you when your um trash

03:55and everything varies. Um you want to do

03:58it so it's cost effective. So it is for

04:03saving me money and not having a service

04:07that I don't need. um on a on a regular

04:11basis. Um so I'm concerned about having

04:15that taken away. I understand the

04:18concept of the tax and that when a

04:22services provide we pay for a lot of

04:25things through taxes and we don't use

04:27all of the services. I don't disagree

04:29with that. So I've been trying to figure

04:32out how can you separate out the cost of

04:38actually coming to a house like the cost

04:41of maintaining the vehicle the pickup

04:44that cost from the underlying

04:46administration of making sure that um

04:50houses don't have trash accumulating

04:53recycling all over the place. the

04:55enforcement component if people who

04:58didn't contract or didn't do it with the

05:00city didn't do it on their own and it

05:02became unsightly or or a health and

05:05safety factor. So, I'm trying to see how

05:08we can tweeze out that baseline price

05:12that everybody could pay into

05:15um but then have it be different if you

05:19actually take advantage of the service.

05:22And [snorts] I don't and and and and

05:24chapen you know um I feel that you're

05:28very clear on um the re the workload and

05:34the complexity of some of the systems to

05:36manage and and I get that but I still

05:40feel that that exercise would at least

05:44justify if you go the tax route with

05:46that as opposed to rate um it would

05:50justify that baseline tax or it could

05:54help to justify I should say and it

05:57would differentiate

05:58a compound payment versus a baseline

06:02payment. That's all I can think of as

06:05far as what to do to try to deal with

06:08the financial gap and the cost of

06:10providing a these important services and

06:14still allowing flexibility for those who

06:18have uses that are less frequent and and

06:23monetarily want to pay less if they can.

06:26So, thank you.

06:29>> Thank you, Sharon. Um, is there anybody

06:32else who would like to address the

06:34committee? Uh, if you're online, you can

06:37indicate

06:38so by using the raise hand function on

06:41Zoom if you're in the room if anybody

06:43wants to speak.

06:46Uh, seeing none, um, I'll go ahead and

06:49close public forum and move on to,

06:55uh, our deliberative agenda. And then

06:59and item 4.1 is solid solid waste

07:02generation tax. I think

07:05>> I'll start us off and go.

07:07>> Jacob has anything more to add? Chime

07:10in. Um I'll start off here. Department

07:14of Public Works is seeking the

07:16transportation energy and utilities

07:17committee feedback and support on

07:20staff's recommended direction for

07:22generating sufficient revenue in

07:24recycling budget to maintain current

07:27operations.

07:28So financially we find ourselves with a

07:31projected $165,000

07:33budget shortfall the recycling solace

07:36budget. Primary drivers of this deficit

07:39is the decline obviously in the

07:42residential units. We've been talking

07:44about that quite a bit as well as the

07:47dramatic increase in diesel fuel prices

07:50which we're projecting a $4,000 a month

07:53search charge when Cassella takes over

07:56recycling on January 1st

08:007. Um we do have a proposed short-term

08:04strategy spelled out in the memo. Uh

08:07first part of that would be to implement

08:08flow control that would require all

08:10residential properties with recycling

08:13collection the saw waste generation tax

08:16and transition to our municipally

08:19coordinated collection system or

08:21service. Uh update the self hauler

08:24calculations.

08:27You know we continue to work with CSWD

08:29on the saw waste generation tax payments

08:31for Bmpton residents who selfhaul the

08:34drop off centers. They additionally are

08:36pulling users of local facilities

08:40um for their resident status and this

08:44collected data will help to ensure that

08:46city is capturing

08:48residents for the actual waste volume

08:50that's produced.

08:52There's also more time needed to collect

08:55this data that's been just started and

08:58more follow

09:00those numbers.

09:02Third part of that would be to conduct

09:04residential audits. Perform an audit of

09:07the resident and hauler reported

09:10dwelling units to ensure every property

09:12is paying the proper amount of tax based

09:14on how many residential units are at

09:16that existing property. The goal here is

09:18to make sure that we're are getting that

09:23appropriate amount of tax. Um and based

09:25off those units, we'll cross reference

09:27it with Inspections

09:30residential database.

09:33Based off of the responses and analysis

09:36from the previous meetings,

09:38UW leadership is recommending the the

09:41following approaches moving forward. The

09:43first of which I I just outlined in the

09:45short term 1 to 12 months would be the

09:47flow control. We estimate that we could

09:50capture about around 900 more

09:53residential units back into the system

09:56uh which would increase the receipts by

09:59around 130,000.

10:01And we also have engaged with the city

10:02attorney to advise us in the toque the

10:05necessary steps to implement flow

10:07control. Based off of those

10:09conversations, city attorney's office is

10:12recommending that we go to an ordinance

10:14change to implement flow control.

10:22As as I said, I I previously went over

10:24the short term. So, I'll jump right to

10:26the medium-term of the one to four years

10:30undertake a consolidated collection

10:32study where we initiate comprehensive

10:35consolidated collection study for all

10:37three solid waste

10:40streams, organics and recycling.

10:43and then consider expanding the sol

10:45generation tax to all RDUs

10:48after this short-term

10:53uh

10:55implementation of flow control and we'll

10:58see how the budget um turns out. we are

11:02maintaining. If we aren't, maybe we look

11:04to uh implement, you know, expanding it

11:09to all residential units, whether it's a

11:11flat fee or as we just spoken

11:14instituting a tiered um tiered service

11:18based off what services you are

11:20receiving, whether it's the recycling or

11:22this other solid waste benefits. And

11:26then in the long term five to seven

11:28years there was a lot of talk around the

11:31affordability programs

11:33we would evaluate this initiative

11:35alongside the consolidated collection

11:38work group when reviewing municipal and

11:40contracted options

11:43as a joint roll out. We think it

11:46provides the most opportunity for

11:49success.

11:52Um, and was kind of a quick read through

11:55that. You have any followup?

11:59>> Thank you. You did a great job. Look

12:01forward to your input. Uh, because we've

12:04gotten guidance from the city attorney,

12:05the flow control would require an

12:07ordinance change uh for maximum clarity

12:09and strongest legal backing. uh we would

12:13welcome the toques if you are so

12:15inclined to this direction would welcome

12:18your recommendation to bring to the

12:20council you know the first reading of an

12:22ordinance uh that could go to the

12:24ordinance committee which I know a

12:25number of you also serve on. So really

12:29interested to hear your feedback. I will

12:32maybe just say that I did hear a lot of

12:34the feedback uh last time about the

12:36affordability program. We did look

12:39nationally at other examples. There were

12:41very few communities in the country that

12:43do affordability programs and most of

12:46them

12:48are overseeing all three solid waist

12:50streams and not just one and trying to

12:53build an affordability program for

12:55recycling but not affecting trash and

12:57compost. It seemed chunk uh complex. So

13:01our recommendation to look as part of

13:03the consolidated collection

13:04implementation was to match

13:06affordability with a coordinated program

13:08not what we currently have which is a

13:11bifurcated program. So

13:13>> so you're not looking for any action

13:15other than input tonight. We would

13:18welcome, if you were so supportive, a

13:20motion to ask the staff to work with

13:23city attorney to develop ordinance

13:24language to bring to the council for

13:26first reading because we just heard from

13:29the city attorney today their firmatory

13:32opinion that they would need uh that we

13:34would need in order to change

13:37>> specifically on.

13:38>> Correct.

13:39>> Um okay. Well, I'll open up to the

13:42committee for uh feedback. Councelor

13:45Bergman, if any of you all want to get

13:47any feedback or have questions on this,

13:49I want to participate as well. So, go

13:51ahead.

13:52>> So, um I am in favor of moving with the

13:56short-term flow control. I have to tell

13:59you, and I reread the the or the uh the

14:02memo from April just just now. I

14:05actually don't quite understand what

14:08flow control is. I think we should have

14:10a memo that is solely dedicated to flow

14:14control what it will do. Now the extent

14:16to which that can be dovetailed with an

14:19ordinance change that would expl you

14:21know that that would be helpful for

14:23that. I think that works really really

14:25well. But understand and then

14:28understanding how it is that you're

14:31going to get with the use of flow of

14:33control. Yeah. back 900 units and then

14:38you know knowing that these are

14:40estimates these are based on what you

14:42what may or may not lead you lead us to

14:48hitting that mark or not

14:51that that so that's what I would like

14:53because I think it would be really

14:54really helpful and just to sort of

14:58>> jump I am in favor of an ordinance

15:01change to to make that uh that work and

15:04would be prepared to make a motion to

15:07that effect at the end. So that is sort

15:10of point number one. Um number two is I

15:15think that um the self haulers and I am

15:18a self hauler as well although I you I I

15:22sometimes do recycling and um composting

15:26but I compost in my backyard and um but

15:30um my trash I deliver um and um and yet

15:37I get recycling services. So I I we we

15:41should fix that and we should fix that

15:43in a way I have tended because of the

15:46ease and sort of the inertia of having

15:49done it when we had when we didn't have

15:52one. I we tend to go to the South

15:54Burlington one. I would if we cannot

15:57collect uh some sort of a fee from South

16:01Burlington or it's gonna you know it's

16:04too easy to game I'll I'll change my um

16:07my habit so that I I pay my fair share

16:10because that's the the appropriate thing

16:12but we should have that and to the

16:13extent to which we understand in looking

16:17at the um the analysis of what to charge

16:22and how to do this as to whether it is

16:27economically and ecologically

16:30better for people to be doing it like

16:32that instead of the you know the mass

16:35way

16:37then it is clearly um better for me to

16:42jump to dump my trash because I dump and

16:45it's because of recycling and and and

16:47composting. I go to the dump every month

16:50and a half. I I don't need to go to the

16:52dump, right? And I'd be damned if I'm

16:55paying Cassella uh not pick up my trash

16:58and I'll be damned if I'm going to like

17:01waste a gazillion, you know, bits of

17:04resources to, you know, to make it worth

17:06it just out of spite. So I think that

17:09Sharon makes a a good point that we have

17:11to do that with regard and to the extent

17:14to which we can justify um lower rates.

17:18I am moving just to the last well the

17:23sort of the last piece. I think you

17:24should um separate the midterm the

17:27mediumterm

17:29um uh points. I think you need to look

17:33and accelerate the expansion of the

17:36solid waste generation tax to all the

17:39RDUs, all the residential dwelling

17:40units. Whether there's a hauler that's

17:42doing it, whether somebody else is going

17:45and dumping it at their work or their,

17:48you know,

17:50their neighbor or however, you know, the

17:52other examples that you gave. I think

17:54that needs to be accelerated. It could

17:56fit within this context, but I can

18:00believe that it will

18:04they'll be done together

18:07or done close in time. And I believe

18:10that that is the the next sort of

18:12immediate step that we need to do,

18:15right? Because we we we should be

18:17collecting. It's just as a bit of

18:19fundamental fairness that our solid

18:21waste and our our charter gives us that

18:23authority um to tax because it is a

18:27public good that needs to be done and

18:29we've got the right to to do that. And

18:32there's now that we've expanded the uses

18:34of the tax, then there are great

18:36benefits for everybody. even if your

18:38landlord is dumping it in, you know, is

18:40getting your recycling in a dumpster and

18:42then they're hauling it away once and

18:44you're not getting that sort of

18:45door-to-d dooror pickup from our city

18:47system. So, um I'd like that separated

18:50and that accelerated in terms of the

18:53time frame. You have a one to fouryear.

18:57Um I understand that that is a

19:00reasonable thing to do for the

19:02consolidated. That's a big thing

19:04particularly if you've got the

19:05affordability

19:08uh fund, you know, fit into it and um

19:14I I I I am supportive of your um belief

19:20that it is um not wise to u to silo

19:26affordability for recycling when we are

19:29looking seriously at a more

19:31comprehensive system.

19:34And as long as the the those programs um

19:39can be looked at and affordability can

19:42be looked at if we don't move to a a

19:45consolidated system which I as you know

19:48strongly support but if we don't then we

19:50have the that the affordability isn't

19:52lost because you know we haven't you

19:54know we've sort of like waited till

19:56we're doing the whole thing and then we

19:57said we're not going to do the whole

19:58thing so then we sort of like have to go

20:00back to zero the affordability. So I I

20:04that's not necessary, but I just want to

20:06flag that as that that would be a I

20:09think a very big mistake and I am done

20:13with that.

20:15>> Eric,

20:18>> um yeah, thank you. Uh

20:22I guess just yeah go going down the

20:24whole list. Um I'm in I'm in favor of an

20:28ordinance change to implement well

20:30control and would also like to

20:34see that the memo that councelor Bergman

20:36was talking about so I can educate

20:39myself and others

20:41>> on flow control. Um

20:44and then yeah, kind of like combining

20:48the point on updating the GSW self hall

20:52and the considering expanding it to all

20:55the tax all views. Uh

20:59I assume RDUs includes people

21:02tolerating.

21:03>> Yeah.

21:05>> Yes. So yeah, I I believe that um

21:11at least at the moment I do believe that

21:13all RUS should be charged the solid

21:16waste generation tax. I think especially

21:20if consolidated collection is is is

21:24coming uh like we'll we'll see with

21:28that. But I think that when it comes to

21:30these public services that uh that

21:33everybody

21:35has access to if they choose

21:38um and

21:41uh

21:43and we and we need money to fund these

21:46fund these services. Um and they even if

21:49you were not actively partaking of the

21:51service, the services existence benefits

21:53everyone in the city.

21:56Um

21:58I I think it it just I think it I think

22:00it makes sense. I um

22:05I I I yeah I think when it comes to

22:07people who are self-pauling a discussion

22:09can be had on

22:13on tiers and I'd like to get more

22:15information on the um the

22:19administratively intensive aspect of it

22:21before I would come to a conclusion on

22:23flat fee or tiered approach. But at its

22:26face, having a tier approach would make

22:28sense because you're you're already by

22:30spreading it out to everyone. You're

22:32already able to bring that number down

22:34for everyone by virtue of applying more

22:37people. Uh and then yeah, I agree that

22:41uh of tying the affordability programs

22:44to a to if we decide to go with

22:47consolidated collection that to the same

22:50point that councelor Bergman made. Um,

22:57I think I had something else, but I

22:59don't remember it. So, I'm done.

23:02>> I guess

23:04I'm reading the ordinance tax. It says

23:07that the tax is going to be on a

23:09collection or removal of solid waste,

23:11including recyclables,

23:13but excluding compostables

23:17um by persons or agencies registered

23:19with the city of Burlington. you're

23:20going to require a license to collect or

23:22haul solid waste and everybody's got to

23:24be solid be collected. I don't know why

23:26we're not collecting from those who are

23:29getting it um hauled by haulers in their

23:32dumpsters and I would like the city of

23:34Germany to be looking at that. I know

23:36our practice

23:37>> right

23:38>> and our practice

23:40can be different from what the law said.

23:44Um, I think that if that is the case,

23:48right, then we'd want to have some legal

23:52advice um to be able to see even if we

23:56didn't need to have an ordinance change

23:59for that. I know it may be that flow

24:01control will clarify a bunch of stuff

24:05but the the tax itself it seems um

24:09>> covers and I've just spun through it and

24:13I've always as your former attorney I

24:16always let you guys administer it and

24:19not try to micromanage you as your

24:20lawyers not your department head but uh

24:25now I get to

24:26>> to ask because I think that we might be

24:30able to do things under the the existing

24:34um framework um or at least not change

24:38the existing framework or think that

24:39it's not there and then it's really

24:41question of education in terms of

24:43letting people know this is what you

24:47know what we wrote [clears throat]

24:50>> and enacted a long time

24:52>> right

24:53>> so thank you thank you for sharing that

24:56love me to do that in am I think like

24:59I'm I'm supportive I think of trying to

25:03close this gap in the short term. It

25:06seems like flow control is

25:09u a good strategy and I heard some

25:12confusion which I think I also have but

25:14I think it's it's you can distill it

25:16down into

25:18this. If you get curbside recycling

25:22you pay the solid waste generation. Is

25:25that what you would is that how you pick

25:27up those 900 units?

25:28>> Correct. So they are already th those

25:31are already units we once had but then

25:34chose to go with a private contractor

25:36for various reasons whether they can get

25:39back door pickup or you know we changed

25:42ordinance so there can't be materials

25:44outside of the recycling the tires in

25:46the street and some some places we found

25:49that there was a lot of that we weren't

25:51picking up so the staff of these

25:53residents would have to go around and

25:54collect it so it was easier for them to

25:57say contract with Cassella because

25:58they'll go above and beyond. We're

26:02sticking with ordinance for the safety

26:03of the drivers and of the streets. So

26:07they were we once had them. So we would

26:10just if they're using a tower, we would

26:13want you know by implementing flow

26:14control pull them back into the system.

26:16>> Okay. So but okay. So I I get that and

26:21and I would support that with I but I'm

26:24also trying to understand we've heard

26:26about this idea of tearing the tearing

26:29the solid waste out. Like there's three

26:31waist streams, right? You have like

26:34compost, recycling, and regular

26:36everything else we'll call it. Um, and

26:39if you take compost or if you take any

26:43of those wet streams to a drop off

26:44center, they're supposed to collect

26:48uh solid waste tax on behalf of the

26:50city, right?

26:52>> CSWD based on trash uh volume. is

26:58estimating the amount of solid waste

27:00generation tax that the city has owed

27:04and we're reviewing that methodology

27:06now. So, as councelor Busher wanted to

27:10maintain the selfhaul option and still

27:13have the self haulers pay their fair

27:15share,

27:16>> right?

27:16>> That is our recommendation.

27:19I think that fundamentally this piece

27:22about having everybody pay the tax, we

27:25just need to have that conversation

27:27because if we want to do that now, that

27:30throws the CSWD calculation out the

27:32window. At that point, no one has to pay

27:35at the drop off center because they're

27:37already

27:38uh they're paying through their Well,

27:40okay. No, the the CSWD would still need

27:43to collect the tax, but that the large

27:46apartment owners would now be having to

27:49pay the tax from their their dumpster

27:52served private hauler. But the but the

27:55hauler that they're contracting with

27:57would no longer have to collect and

28:01>> come to go ahead. the private hall or or

28:04large units, think city [snorts] place,

28:08think Cambri and Rise that are dumpster

28:11served would now need to pay a fee on

28:16their trash bill from

28:20Meyers, Cassella, Gothier, whoever

28:23at $12 a unit, which for you know Cantri

28:28for a,000 units

28:31the ownership is different among those

28:34thousand units, but we're talking about

28:36a very substantial amount of money in

28:38return for a program that's providing

28:41some overall solid waste management

28:43benefit, but is not providing the

28:45recycling collection. That is the lion

28:48share of the budget.

28:50Budget's about 70% for the residential

28:53recycling program,

28:55and that's where staff originally

28:57thought the two-tiered

28:59taxation. once we get to that in the

29:01medium term makes sense because folks

29:04who don't get recycling aren't getting

29:06the same value.

29:07>> Okay. And so for the to pick up these

29:10900 units, this isn't something this is

29:13something that

29:15we would have the haulers collect on the

29:17city's behalf. This wouldn't be a new

29:19billing operation out of DP.

29:22>> Correct. we're just pulling them back

29:23into the whatever hauler is currently

29:26servicing them as long as they're a

29:28totaler would just go back into the

29:31system and they would report those

29:32numbers quarterly with with their

29:35quarterly reports I think. So, one of

29:37the things I think we're missing still

29:39is some data on this and like to your

29:42point about like the impacts to the

29:46large sort of uh u

29:51whatnot around the city. What is what

29:54does that look like? And we you know

29:56>> um I think I think I'm supportive but I

29:58think we still need data around this. So

30:01I I would like to understand who who do

30:03we know? We used to know the last

30:05consolidated collection study we did, we

30:06knew about 15% people south falling. Can

30:09we back into that knowing you know how

30:12many you know can we get that data from

30:14the haulers?

30:16I'm not trying to give you a fetch a

30:18rock exercise, Lee. I really am not. But

30:20to understand what the impacts of the

30:23changes that are kind of significant

30:26would be, I think as much

30:29>> modification as we can do, who's

30:31impacted and

30:32>> right

30:32>> and how many

30:35>> this is a tweak of what we propose to

30:37bias time to collectively have a larger

30:41conversation with more data. Okay,

30:44>> we recognize that we're collecting the

30:46tax from 10,000

30:48some odd units, there are 18,000 units

30:51in the city. So, we know of those 8,000

30:54that aren't paying the tax,

30:56[clears throat]

30:57say 15% of those are self-hauling. We're

31:00still talking 6,000 units that are

31:03getting served by dumpsters. And while I

31:06named some of the for-profit developers,

31:08a lot of the large housing projects are

31:10CHT and VHA. And them seeing a $12 a

31:15month tax per unit is going to be a very

31:19hard public policy discussion to have.

31:22So we wanted to kind of delay that

31:24conversation, give the time for you all

31:27and them to be engaged and understand

31:29the implications of that. While we

31:32manage flow control, there are units

31:35that left us that are still collecting

31:37toers and the private company that's

31:41collecting them is the same one that

31:43we're contracting with to collect. And

31:46it makes no sense for them to collect

31:4910,000 for us and then them to go out

31:53and collect a thousand for them,

31:56thousand toers. Why don't we just

31:58require all to collection to be done by

32:02our program contracted service starting

32:05July 1 so that we're not having an

32:08awkward scenario where there are toters

32:11being collected outside the city's

32:13consolidated recycling program.

32:15>> Okay. I mean, I'm I'm I think I'm

32:17supportive of like I think having this

32:20ordinance change will also um

32:24you know, incentivize additional

32:26conversation around this whole topic

32:27which would be good to have. Yes. And we

32:30we'll start to hear some from some folks

32:32probably as a result. So

32:34>> yeah. Yeah.

32:36I mean to the so the way that I framed

32:38it was that this bigger question about

32:41all our dus right is still in the quote

32:46unquote medium term but it's not seen in

32:50the same time frame as the consolidated.

32:54I I think I think that has that's a

32:56conversation

32:57>> which um needs to happen. Um it needs to

33:02happen because it really goes to the

33:04heart of the fact that this is a social

33:09good um which needs to be run under a

33:14democratic system. It's a natural

33:16monopoly and um it requires us and to um

33:23be um really straightforward on it.

33:28And what we're doing, right, speaking of

33:30like last night with tax reform, is, you

33:34know, we're really engaged in

33:37expenditures

33:39by taxation

33:42decisions, by tax decisions. So, we're

33:44deciding by tax policy, not to tax

33:48people that are getting it hauled,

33:50right? And and so because they're

33:52subject to the tax, right? But we're

33:55deciding that we're going to give them

33:57like a tax break, so to speak. Could be

34:01a good reason, right? I I'm I'm not

34:04saying no. And there may be things that

34:06we should be doing. We should have that.

34:08But that is a really a fundamental

34:10conversation that we should have um on

34:13the existing program. But I just want us

34:16to not I I I I I actually want us to

34:20crack that nut before we crack the

34:25consolidated because it will

34:28make clear of lots of other things with

34:30with regard to that. of that whole

34:33process. We get to um

34:37>> analyze based on things like

34:41the the the environmental impact of

34:43running a gazillion haulers on the on a

34:47single street on multiple days and you

34:49know the fact that competition does not

34:52work in this system. Right. There is no

34:54competition. Nobody has to. Right.

34:57Right. It's marginal. It's all based on

35:01it's not based on a competitive market

35:03system. It's natural.

35:07So, so I'd like So, I guess the the

35:10short thing is I would love it to be

35:12really close in time to the the flow

35:17control. And if you're if we can get out

35:20of here a call for an ordinance change

35:24um then we can get a ch on flow control

35:28then we can get a chance to see sort of

35:29what the timing is that and then I'd be

35:32looking to for you to to do more in

35:35terms of looking at that process. So I'm

35:38not we're sort of jumpstarting that but

35:40>> the ordinance change that we would be

35:42asking for would be to address the

35:44>> Yes. Yes. Yes. Totally. And and to the

35:47extent to which you've got getting a

35:49legal opinion about the the current um

35:54uh framework for the tax really

35:57understanding that our you know what our

36:00does our ordinance actually call for all

36:03RDUs to be um charged and it's just our

36:07been our practice.

36:08>> Yeah.

36:09>> Not to do that,

36:10>> right? Just just so we're we're we're

36:13clear.

36:13>> We're above board.

36:14>> Yeah. honest to ourselves so that we

36:17know what to do

36:18>> which I think collectively we've

36:20discussed that prior to this council and

36:22prior to the staff this practice has

36:26been going on for decades. We have

36:28collectively kind of uncovered this

36:30disconnect or alternate policy decision

36:35not to collect from all residential uh

36:38units this solid waste generation tax. I

36:41hear your point councelor Bergman. Do

36:42you want the city attorneys kind of

36:44review and make sure that there's kind

36:46of uh a clear policy justification and

36:51defense of our current practice?

36:53>> Yeah, I mean just need to know and I'll

36:55be happy to tell you that we had

36:59we were charging taxes and we were

37:00changing the tax every year by budget

37:04resolution and it was totally set by by

37:06ordinance and it took me like I like I

37:08found this this is no like I'm trying to

37:10find the time. It's like no, we we're we

37:13can't do that actually. We can't charge

37:15this. You have to change the ordinance.

37:17So, um could we also let like whoever

37:21the haulers are that affected are they

37:23could you as you propose an ordinance

37:26change bring them into the conversation

37:28them on notice?

37:29>> Yes.

37:29>> So that they would have the opportunity

37:31to engage with

37:33>> of course

37:35>> and either like maybe they have a good

37:37argument and maybe maybe it's just

37:40>> Yes.

37:42And if flow control for whatever reason

37:44is not something that the community

37:46wants uh after the discussion at council

37:49or ordinance committee then we could

37:51move to uh applying the tax to all

37:56residential dwelling units to make the

37:58budget whole. But happy to have that

38:01conversation. I appreciate the

38:03committee's initial support for us that

38:06act now on the ordinance change as a

38:08first step to plug a a more short-term

38:11financial need while the thornier policy

38:14issue of how do we extend the tax or not

38:17extend the tax to all residential

38:19dwelling units can take its time.

38:21>> I'll turn to our guests to see if you

38:23have any questions about what they're

38:25talking about or or have any input on

38:28this.

38:29>> Yeah.

38:30Not that I can think of. Thank you for

38:32asking.

38:33>> Nothing smile.

38:38>> Okay. Excellent. Um, is there more on

38:41this tonight or are we ready for a

38:43motion?

38:43>> I I'm ready. Okay. So, I would move to

38:48um recommend it well to ask the um DPW

38:52staff to um begin the drafting process

38:58with um the city attorney's office for

39:00flow control

39:02um ordinance change

39:05um and any other change that would be

39:09necessary along with getting an opinion

39:12as to the um actual ual um

39:18meaning of the current uh uh ordinance

39:23related to the generation tax and its

39:25applicability. Um and [clears throat] I

39:28think that what would be best would be

39:31for then for um you to bring that back

39:34to this committee, a draft that we could

39:39um review and send to the council for

39:41first reading. Um, so you have this

39:44other conversation, we get a chance to

39:45to see it here. Um, and then we would um

39:50uh

39:52so I I think that um unless that is

39:55going to be on in terms of the timing of

39:57the council meetings and our um agenda.

40:01If that's not going to work, then I

40:03would I'd be happy with the

40:04>> We'll have another C we'll have another

40:06T meeting in October,

40:09>> right?

40:09>> Council meeting this coming week,

40:11>> right? I'm wondering to what extent the

40:13counselors would be amendable to sharing

40:16the draft individually to two members to

40:20expedite this such that what I'm

40:22thinking council Bergman is I would like

40:25if the council ultimately supports this

40:28to have this be implemented by Jan 1 um

40:32which would give us six months of kind

40:34of fiscal repair in FY27

40:38and to get that through ordinance get it

40:41approved approved by council and then to

40:43communicate that change, which basically

40:46is going to mean that the 900 or so um

40:52to served recycling customers are going

40:56to have to coordinate with the haulers.

40:58The haulers are going to have to tell

40:59them they're going to lose service from

41:00the hauler, but then get folded into the

41:03city's program. So, there's some

41:05communication that's going to need to

41:06happen. As such, I don't want to lose

41:08too much time here. So, I would I would

41:10change my motion. Rob, now you're on the

41:14clock. Really good. um to have um the

41:17draft be shared with the two members for

41:21comments back to staff and for the um

41:26for for staff to be able

41:30for you guys because I was going to say

41:33to get it onto the agenda of the council

41:37um at our next meeting which is the

41:39October 5th and the deadline was like

41:41tomorrow today was today at noon.

41:45um

41:45>> be the next

41:46>> maybe it could be the next council

41:48meeting is on the 26th,

41:51>> right?

41:51>> So our usual meeting is the 27th.

41:54>> So that makes sense.

41:55>> So yeah, that would be fine for the the

41:5726th. So that that would uh that would

41:59line up.

42:00>> Anyone ordinance right now we just have

42:01we have tree or we have trespassing

42:04trees,

42:05>> but we could we I mean we we we

42:08had a two building walk.

42:12We've done we've done a lot. We've gone

42:14through a lot of tax.

42:16>> Yeah.

42:18>> Okay. Is that is it Did you capture

42:20that?

42:20>> I did. Y. Excellent. [clears throat]

42:22>> Is there a second?

42:23>> I'll second.

42:25>> There's a motion and a second. Is there

42:26any other discussion?

42:30>> Seeing none, all those in favor of the

42:32motion.

42:33>> By saying I I

42:36see trying to get you on for the agenda

42:37on Monday next Monday, but thank you.

42:42Yeah.

42:44Thank you.

42:45>> Thank you. That's a good medal. I

42:47appreciate you that work.

42:50>> It's that BHS education.

42:53>> There you go. I got a couple of ways got

42:55that, too. So, we're good. Yeah. Good.

42:58>> We're good.

42:58>> BHS alone, right?

43:00>> Um, okay. Well, we'll go ahead and close

43:02that item and move on to our next item.

43:06I'm going to go ahead on the spot on how

43:08to bring us up to speed on the GMT ad

43:12funding transit advocacy event that

43:14happened last week and the mayor uh in

43:17her comments to the council last night

43:20um talk somewhat about it. But if you

43:22want to keep your uh color commentary on

43:27>> Sure. Um,

43:29let me um say for the public that I have

43:32that there is a lot of um news stories

43:35that happened uh and I've sent it to the

43:37committee. So I've sent link links in an

43:39email today uh to the committee at 232

43:44and included Chapen who was there um and

43:46he can correct you know correct me or or

43:49add things and that include Vermont

43:51Public and WPTZ

43:54and Vermont Digger, the Rutland Herald

43:57came on board with an editorial

43:59um and um it it got really good coverage

44:03and uh the turnout was surprisingly

44:09good and robust. Um the mayor of Wooki

44:13and the mayor of Burlington were there.

44:16Somebody from ARP was there. U somebody

44:20from who is run by Vermont Natural

44:23Resources uh Council um who is really

44:27central to the campaign um and a number

44:30of other advocates. And there was even

44:35an interesting interaction with somebody

44:38who came on a bus and had his bicycle

44:41and uh couldn't help but um giving his

44:43give his perspective. Um and it was

44:47although it was disruptive,

44:50it was very supportive. It's kind of

44:53interesting the way that people are in

44:55the in uh being around officials,

45:01officious people. So um but it the

45:04message was that the uh the increase in

45:08fairs and the decrease in bus um lines

45:12was really difficult and if you don't

45:17want to if you want people to get out of

45:20the center of the city, you know,

45:22instead of camping on at City Hall Park,

45:25then you got to have ways that they can

45:27move around. And the bus is, you know,

45:29clearly one way. And if you know, so you

45:32can't complain about what you're causing

45:36uh that that problem. But that was

45:37really good. Um and this is a um a uh a

45:43campaign

45:44which uh

45:47has enough groups to to make it a a

45:50viable statewide campaign. And uh I sent

45:54you all um a link to the next meeting

45:57which is going to be this Thursday. Uh

46:01they're all Zoom meetings from 9 to 10

46:03and I sent uh uh everybody the the link

46:07or the the email invite to that and I

46:09would love to have uh other members of

46:12this committee be part of it. Um, let me

46:16just end by I have pushed for us to be

46:20engaged in the political process at this

46:23point in time because the people who are

46:26going to be making decisions about

46:28sustainable funding are running for

46:30election right now and it makes very

46:34much sense for me to be trying to

46:35influence them. But I have not gotten

46:39any traction on that so far. And I think

46:41that part of it is the reticence of

46:44nonprofits to be in be very political

46:48because that's what this is. Um uh I've

46:52got some ideas for how to move in that

46:55direction. um not the least of which

46:59reason is to be able to know who our

47:02friends and allies are into the session

47:05and where the where the um the blocks

47:10are going to be the the barriers are

47:12going to be. So that'll be a

47:14conversation we'll have this Thursday

47:16again um being able to be joined. Um but

47:21I I know that our participation

47:26is greatly appreciated.

47:28Um and so um

47:32we we this committee when I say we are

47:35is this committee has a has a seat at

47:37this table and is listened to um and uh

47:42that's a good so

47:46>> thank you

47:48>> um well I appreciate that you've

47:50attended that um behalf of the city

47:54committee and

47:56yes I think

47:58We should be

48:00finding out who who will commit to

48:03supporting sustainable

48:05uh funding for GMT in the upcoming

48:08legislative session. I mean one idea

48:10just top of my head is there's a number

48:12of candidate forms probably in NPA that

48:14are going to happen in the month of

48:15October. We should make sure that

48:18councelor uh

48:20state candidates for state office are

48:23are asked you know about this in those

48:26forms. So that's one idea to hold them

48:29to account the short term I guess and

48:31try to try to

48:34get people to commit to that.

48:38Um

48:40other thoughts may

48:43um well I don't have anything more on

48:46this item. Appreciate the update. Um

48:50there's nothing more on that. We can

48:52move on to the director's report.

48:59Uh let's see. Rob, do you want to just

49:01to hit the fall activities?

49:03>> Yes, absolutely. Um we have scheduled

49:06fall clean sweep, which will be the

49:08second annual clean sweep event in

49:11Burlington following our regular annual

49:14spring clean sweep. Last year we had

49:15some unfortunate timing with weather. We

49:18think it was anomalous. So, we're going

49:19to try our best again um as late as we

49:22can to get as much refu up, but not so

49:24late that it doesn't damage the highly

49:26sensitive sweeping equipment. That's

49:28going to be November 4th to the 13th.

49:31Zones and dates can be found further on

49:33our website. You'll also see this

49:35publicized in a multitude of places and

49:38happy to go over that if you have

49:39questions on how we're trying to reach

49:40people. Fall leaf pickup will be uh the

49:44following week, November 16th to the

49:4620th, where residents can leave their

49:48leaves out on their recycle in the

49:50morning in biodegradable bags, paper

49:52bags, and our crews will pick those up.

49:55Sometimes we will jump ahead. Sometimes

49:57things might get missed. We urge you and

49:59the public just to let us know if uh

50:00there's anything more we can do if we

50:02missed you or if you think we've jumped

50:04ahead too far, but we will come again.

50:06So those are the uh the big fall

50:08maintenance updates that we want people

50:10to know about.

50:12>> Thank you. Nothing further.

50:15>> No. Um okay. Councelor items. Any

50:19council items?

50:22>> No. And our next meeting is tenatively

50:24scheduled.

50:25>> I'm sorry. So I just looked at the um uh

50:29the accountability list

50:32>> for the city council and saw that there

50:34are two two items. which one

50:36>> on there I think there was the uh

50:37[snorts] Vermont Air National Guard

50:40emissions and then there is our um uh

50:45building emission reduction right.

50:47>> So those are the two those are the two

50:49that are there and I I asked you got us

50:51to clean up the ordinance committees

50:53one. So, I just think that uh that's a

50:56good reminder so we don't lose our our

50:58stuff that

51:00>> So, um are you proposing that that we

51:04>> are we waiting for uh we're waiting for

51:07um

51:10data to come back from the permitting

51:13and inspection

51:15to do further work on bureau I believe

51:18right we're still waiting for is that

51:21what

51:22>> I thought I thought That's my

51:23recollection.

51:25Um I can

51:26>> Yeah, we can I mean I I think that um

51:29what we want to do is uh just keep on

51:33it.

51:34>> And and on the guard emissions, it was

51:36part of the uh the airport's bigger um

51:41certification. We had them, we had the

51:43guard come in and tell us what they've

51:45been doing and maybe what we ought to do

51:47is have the airport back for an update

51:49on how they're uh I guess it's an

51:52accreditation, right? The level of

51:54accreditation that they're seeking in

51:57terms of the mission.

51:58>> Yeah. But and and include the guard

52:00>> right in that.

52:05I will take those

52:08report on those at our next meeting.

52:20Um so uh then the last thing we have

52:24before German is setting our next

52:26meeting which is tenatively scheduled

52:28for our normal time the fourth Tuesday

52:32of the month which is uh the 27th of

52:34October at 5:30. Everybody good? Do we

52:38have the room?

52:40time. Let's let's do that though. Let's

52:44make it uh let's make it not schedule.

52:48Okay.

52:48>> And the only one thing I'll ask because

52:50we have been getting feedback from the

52:52public on that when we have the the

52:55items on our agenda once we set our

52:57agenda which we've been really we've

52:59been good about scheduling the meetings

53:01and uh getting the agendas up like at

53:04least a week before or around a week

53:06before. we get any memoranda and meeting

53:09material along with that as quickly as

53:12possible and I understand there are

53:14circumstances where you're waiting on

53:17others to complete work so that you can

53:20add it to the meeting just it we'll make

53:23best efforts I guess.

53:24>> Yeah, the I think just to make sure

53:28we're aligned. I think getting the

53:30agenda up a week in advance is a good

53:33goal. It's often that the materials will

53:36lag based on whatever we decide is on

53:39the agenda day. Usually I aim to get

53:42materials for the Tuesday meeting no

53:45later than Friday, but try to get the

53:47preceding Thursday.

53:48>> Okay.

53:49>> And if that

53:50>> that seems reasonable

53:51>> works or doesn't work, let me know.

53:52>> That seems reasonable because that's the

53:54practice we have at council and for

53:56board of finance too. We have Thursday

53:57for meeting. So

53:59>> yeah,

54:00>> that and Friday for board of finance.

54:03>> Board of finance. Yeah.

54:04>> Um I think that's a reasonable as long

54:06as they end up going up day of

54:09>> right. No,

54:11and that works with what we've been uh

54:14managing staff. So Friday at the latest

54:17for post people absolutely should have

54:19the weekend and it's Tuesday meeting. So

54:21I think you know it's 48 hours of work

54:24hours plus the weekend

54:25>> and sometimes that's not achievable but

54:27that's just aspirational

54:29>> sort of um standard that will

54:32>> Yeah. Okay. Excellent. Okay. Then with

54:35no further business and absent

54:37objection, I will adjourn us at 6:26.

54:41Great.

54:43>> And look forward to your feedback about

54:45what worked and what we should do

54:47differently.

54:48>> Yeah. What class you we

54:52in our introduction class? So I said it

54:55was funny. It was so fascinating.

54:59>> I love your shirt.

55:03>> [laughter]

55:05>> Um, yeah. And you're lucky you picked up

55:13[music]