September 9th - City Council debrief.
Hi neighbors -
As promised in my FPF post, below is a breakdown of the four public safety resolutions introduced at last night’s city council meeting, how I voted, and why. As always please reach out to me with ideas, concerns, viewpoints, or questions ( cneubieser@burlingtonvt.gov ).
The ‘cap’ resolution
was amended to remove what I viewed as divisive language and changed language to use city staff time more efficiently. The resolution, as passed 9-3, tasks Police Chief Jon Murad, police officers and unnamed “community partners” to recommend a new cap by December 9th. Their report should also analyze benefit packages and recruitment trends, including how the department is using money allocated to attract more police officers.
I voted in favor of the amended resolution.
The gun safety resolution, which started with the broadest support, passed unanimously with amendments. The amended resolution urges Vermont lawmakers to ban firearms from city establishments that sell alcohol — a charter change Burlington voters approved in 2014 that did not get a proper hearing in the legislature, despite our current Mayor’s strong efforts as a then state representative. The resolution also lobbies for harsher penalties for both possessing stolen firearms and for discharging guns recklessly in the city. The council agreed to add a section that asks lawmakers to do more to combat gun violence among youths, which in my view will dovetail well with ongoing efforts by the Mayor's office to move forward preventative measures that deal with youth involved violence.
I voted in favor of the amended resolution.
The police station renovation resolution
was postponed until our next meeting on September 23rd. I am glad that we have the time to ensure the language in this resolution is synergistic with the existing work by CEDO and the Mayor to identify a realistic path forward to ensuring we have adequate facilities for our police and fire needs.
I helped to submit amendments which I expect will be discussed in the next few weeks to clarify, that we need a publicly-owned and modernized police and fire station. I am open to a variety of paths to get there, but I would like to see A) city staff, like CEDO, not cut out of the process of managing our public assets in favor of individuals only from the private sector and B) reasonable assurances that the council understands the need for a publicly-owned police station and fire station.
It is my long held view that responsibly managing our public assets is a critical piece of the stewardship of our city’s long term financial health and wellbeing. This was also a view that I found to have widespread support in Ward 1 when I was out knocking doors.
The kiosk resolution
was postponed to our next meeting. My understanding of this resolution is that it is aimed at creating a deterrent to criminal behavior in our downtown core - a goal that I share and find commendable. I have a number of questions about this particular approach before I can comfortably vote for it. Those questions include …
-> Are there more cost effective ways to increase visibility?
-> What is the realistic path to staffing a “kiosk”?
-> How are we defining what a “public safety kiosk” is in the context of this resolution?
-> What is the plan to pay for this?
-> How does this fit into the city’s wider strategy on public health & safety?
-> Since we only have so much capacity as a city, what is the trade off? Are there alternative strategies that achieve the same goal under way?
Finally on process:
I asked publicly at the last few council meetings and will reiterate that it is my hope moving forward that before any of us - regardless of party or political persuasion - put a consequential resolution forward we make a good faith, best effort to do the following due-diligence:
Contact and hear the perspective of all councilors and/or caucus leaders, regardless of party
Contact and hear the perspective of relevant department heads
Contact and hear the perspective of the mayor's office
Contact and hear the perspective of those serving on relevant city council committees
If a councilor skips the committee process all together, which is within our rules to do, communicate a reasonable justification as to why
Contact and hear the perspective of relevant stakeholders
This request is not meant to slow down needed action, but instead to facilitate a move away from incentivizing the divisiveness and partisanship of the last few years and toward a more productive space where we can have rational policy conversations like neighbors who live in a small city of roughly 44,000 people. It is my view that policy is only strengthened by meaningful engagement of relevant stakeholders, even if we don’t all agree.
As always please don’t hesitate to reach out - even if we land in a different place on an issue it is helpful for me to better represent the views of our Ward as a whole.
With Appreciation,
Councilor Neubieser
cneubieser@burlingtonvt.gov
PS> A reminder that if you missed it, the Mayor shared in detail what the city is doing to respond to our public safety challenges here: https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/Mayor/Press/9824-mayors-community-safety-message.
This information was originally planned to be shared at the public forum on community safety, but that forum was postponed to September 19th, because the Mayor’s family came down with COVID. There will be a regular forum on community safety every two months for the remainder of the Mayor’s three year term.
