Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Chair Matthew Birong]: All right, everyone. We are back. We are starting to have a conversation, as stated earlier on H508. It is a charter request from the city of Burlington, and, we're gonna speak to representatives from the city about the municipal, charter boundary amendments and a discussion about word redistricting. And so with that, I guess we'll start off with, city attorney Jessica Brown. How are you, Jessica?

[Jessica Brown, Burlington City Attorney]: Good morning. I'm fine. Thank you. Yes. I'm Jessica Brown. I'm joined by assistant city attorney Eric Ramakrishnan. I do want to note that attorney Ramakrishnan wrote kind of a short summary. We didn't have a lot of turnaround time before this morning, so it he did send it by email. But so members of the committee should be able to get that from the assistant Nick Adams, which does kind of provide a bit of a refresher on this matter as well as the city's reasoning. Attorney Ramakrishnan was more involved in drafting the actual language for this proposed charter change than I was. So I'm actually going to turn it over to him to talk a little bit about, what the reasoning what like, what the goal is for this charter change and what the reasoning was behind it.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Thank you so much. And I just got a text message from council. He'll be joining us in about five minutes. Table is yours.

[Eric Ramakrishnan, Assistant City Attorney (Burlington)]: Okay. Great. Thank you. I the email that I provided this morning through mister Adams gives a little bit more explanation, but the you know, if and I'll focus my comments on the, boundary changes rather than the, notice since that's what you've asked for, but please do read my email regarding the rationale for the notice provisions. Regarding the boundary changes, Burlington's charter is very unique in Vermont. Our charter was given to us by the legislature in 1949. And although the idea of one person, one vote today seems common sense and we take it for granted, At that time, that was not part of our law in this country. And so the original word boundaries that were written to the charter were not meant to change. They were meant to represent communities of interest. They were not meant to represent equal populations. Obviously, today that's not the law. And so, like other communities throughout the country, after every decennial census, we have to redistrict to make sure that there is fair and equal representation for our citizens. That, Because those boundaries are in our charter, that requires the charter change, which requires council authorization for a change, and then we have to go through the hearing process, and then the public has vote on it, then both houses that the legislature consider it, and then those boundary changes go to the governor's desk. That is not the case in any other city in Vermont. I provided you in that email an outline of what the other nine city charters indicate in Vermont. You have some cities where their councilors are elected at large. You have others. One, rather, where the BCA changes the boundaries every ten years, and you have others where the city council sets its own. The proposal here is simply that the voters of the city of Burlington can approve the ward and district changes after redistricting, but that they wouldn't be written into the chart anymore so that they wouldn't require legislation at the state level every time we do our duty every ten years to ensure fair and equal representation for our residents. And that's really all we're proposing here.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Okay. So just for clarity, you're saying you would put the proposed boundaries out to voter approval?

[Eric Ramakrishnan, Assistant City Attorney (Burlington)]: Would be the used to be in the state that would require that, but that would be a check and balance on the city council's power. We simply wouldn't have to amend the charter every time we do our duty every ten years.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Understood. And just, you know, reviewing the language here, because it is brief. This I mean, most of the content, obviously, is striking language. So it has one portion where it says from time to from to from time to time, but then it speaks to not more frequently than once every five years?

[Eric Ramakrishnan, Assistant City Attorney (Burlington)]: That's correct. Okay.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. I remember this being a relatively concise request as far as the words on the page. Any questions from the committee for the folks who are joining us via Zoom right now? Doctor. Evans?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Good morning. I'm not sure if you might not know the answer to this question. It might be something council might know more than you, but do you know of those other cities who have that similar structure, if they started out with needing a charter change and then changed it? Or has it just Burlington's been the only one who's who's done it this way?

[Eric Ramakrishnan, Assistant City Attorney (Burlington)]: I don't know the history of the other city's charters. I can only speak of the history of Burlington's charter. All I can say is, as I've indicated, the the the charters of the other nine cities today don't require a charter change to change the boundaries. The boundaries aren't written into the charter. They, either they don't have districts or wards or else the BCA controls that process or else the city council controls that process.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: And

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: do you know this was this charter change was voted on by the city of Burlington. Do you have the the figures of what the percentage of voters was or or anything like that or or the number of

[Eric Ramakrishnan, Assistant City Attorney (Burlington)]: I apologize. I can send that information to the committee. Unfortunately, we learned about this hearing yesterday afternoon, so our time to prepare was limited. But I'm I'd be happy to email those numbers to you.

[Jessica Brown, Burlington City Attorney]: Yeah. I did try to find, some numbers because I'm sure I had them at the ready last year when we talked about this, But I'm going to need to, I think we'll need to check-in with the clerk's office about that and provide that information to you at a later time.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Okay. No worries. Thank you.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Any other hands? There you go.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: The rest of this particular bill, are you speaking to that or just the charter changes?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: We're just speaking to this one portion about the words. Okay. Thank you.

[Eric Ramakrishnan, Assistant City Attorney (Burlington)]: I am happy to speak to the other charter change that's included in this bill, but it sounds like the request is to focus on this.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. Yeah. We were trying to focus on this thesis. My understanding that the housing committees are taking a look at broader landlord tenant provisions in bills that are being developed in both the House and the Senate side. So, I just wanted to focus on this one piece today to get a cleaner understanding of it, a cleaner refresher.

[Eric Ramakrishnan, Assistant City Attorney (Burlington)]: And I apologize. I can answer the prior question now. I was able to find that information quickly. The yes votes on the redistricting amendment were 68.82%, so effectively 69% with 6,351 votes in favor, and the no votes were 31.18% or, you know, effectively 31% for a total of 2,878 votes. There were also 593 under votes and one over vote.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. Great.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Alright. Anything else for our guests on Zoom? Nope. Then I guess I'll ask, councilman Travers to join us and speak to this from his perspective. Thank you for joining us. Now Surprised to see you in person, a delightful one. But

[Ben Travers, President, Burlington City Council]: Well, I'm afraid to say that here for a presser at noon.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Otherwise, there's no line. No. No. No. No. Only interested. Yep.

[Ben Travers, President, Burlington City Council]: Now thank you very much for having me. I appreciate also being joined by our city attorney and assistant city attorney, Ramakrishnan. My name is Ben Travers. I serve as the president of the Burlington City Council. I I don't want to completely repeat necessarily what the city attorney's office indicated here. I did try to prepare the the information on the election results, which is, as attorney Ramakrishnan just mentioned, that more than two thirds of Burlington voters voted in favor of the city with voter approval, and I I'll turn back to that in a moment, being able to to redraw its own local election boundaries. As means of a primer, Burlington at the moment is divided into eight different wards, with two wards each serving as a larger district. Our city council is made up of 12 different councilors, so one representing each of the eight different wards, and then another one representing each of our four different districts. The request to you all is twofold here. One is our being able to certainly redraw our election boundaries as necessary by population changes within the city. The other would be for Burlington to be able to decide without legislature approval whether or not it wanted to change that ward and district makeup in the future. Burlington hasn't always been a city of 12 councilors. It historically was a city of 14 councilors. Our former mayor, Mayor Weinberger, used to, I guess, brag at mayor conferences that he was actually able to decrease the size of their city council during his tenure, which I don't think is all that normal to have happened. It but it is something that has changed historically. And so the ask from Burlington is that we'd be able to make these changes without necessarily requiring the approval of the legislature and the governor. As attorney Ramakrishnan mentioned, this is is normal, among other municipalities, across the state, and we ask that Burlington be, aligned with those other municipalities. To the extent, chair Bayron, you mentioned the language in there about from from time to time, the boundaries may be changed. The the issue there was that at the moment, our redistricting of local boundaries is tied to the national census. The thought is with some good news, relatively large housing projects that are ongoing in Burlington right now, a housing project that brings, say, 400 people into another ward can significantly change the representation boundaries. And the concern is rather than waiting until the next census, which could be, you know, five, six, seven, up to ten years out. If we know that our Cambrian Rise project on North Avenue, for example, has brought 400 more people there. If we know our downtown city place project has brought hundreds more people to Ward 3 downtown. If we know that, the South End Innovation District in the South End Of Burlington could potentially bring thousands of new housing units there, it would allow the city an opportunity to, from time to time, but no more frequent than every five years, to change the boundaries when we know that our population counts have gotten out of alignment and and wanting to ensure that everyone across the city has equal representation. I'd be happy to answer any further questions that folks have, but that, in a nutshell, is the, hope of voters in the end of the city council on putting this to the ballot last time meeting day. Okay.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: No. That's a very good point. I had that conversation. I believe it was senator Robert Hooper discussed housing issues at length, commonly. And she raised that point that it is creating these sort of, will create these population surveys within the districts. So, it's totally heard and understood. Representative Hango, then Representative Nugent.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. I appreciate you circling back to Chair Birong's question because the wording of time to time is so vague. I wonder if, and I'm just gonna throw this out here for further consideration, if a certain percentage of population increase in a particular board or district could trigger the redistricting process. Just thinking.

[Ben Travers, President, Burlington City Council]: Yeah, If possible, I would defer back to our city attorney's office on this. But I do believe that historically, we have been mandated to redistrict locally when the percentage of one ward as compared to another is outside of a 10% delta. Our a wards roughly have about 4,500 people in each ward. So I mentioned a housing project of potentially up to 400 residents because a a project like that that brings 400 new folks into a ward in and of itself could bring a ward population outside of that 10% delta as compared to, another district. So I I do believe, and I don't know, and this is where I would defer to the city attorney's office in terms of where it is in our charter or our ordinance that dictates that that 10% delta threshold. But I do believe that we still would, for the most part, follow that. We we would not redistrict except for when the populate well, it could either be one of two things. Either the populations of our existing boundaries have gone outside of that 10% delta, or the city has decided that they want to change the structure of the city council instead of our being a a a 12 representative body, change the number of wards. You know, we again, we haven't always been an eight ward community. There's been seven wards in the past. There's been six wards in the past. I suppose that could change without it necessarily being outside of the 10% delta. But that would be the other circumstance where it could happen, where we wouldn't perhaps necessarily want to wait until the next census.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Doctor. Nugent?

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: So I think I have actually an extra question now because I've it sounds like from your charter, if a 10% change triggers that, you still need ability in your charter to decide to do that. How does that work? So if the 10% already is going to trigger redistricting within your charter now, Can you talk a

[Chair Matthew Birong]: little bit more?

[Eric Ramakrishnan, Assistant City Attorney (Burlington)]: I mean, 10% is just typically a guideline for use generally as a guideline of when districts don't have fair and equal representation anymore. What I did want to say though, to add on to what the council president just indicated, is that since the goal of this is to put the city of Burlington on parity with its other cities, if you look at charters for the the cities that have wards or districts, there's no limitation on when they can redraw the boundaries or what would trigger that. That's left up to them. I just quickly pulled up Albans because I was able to do that quickly since I remembered it was section five of their charter. And it just says that the council is empowered to make such changes from time to time by resolution ordinance. So we're not asking for anything different than than other cities have available to them.

[Ben Travers, President, Burlington City Council]: Yes, and attorney Robert Christian's comments that are actually just reminded me from the last time that we redrew our district boundaries that it is not specifically laid out in our charter ordinance that that 10% threshold mandates a change. Rather, it's the requirement of fair and equal representation, as attorney Ramakrishnan just mentioned, and relevant case law, providing that that 10% threshold, is is within which we could say and defend that we have fair and equal representation between our boundaries. So we we last redrew when that 10% threshold or or delta, was exceeded.

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: Just also yeah. Just curious about how the mechanics of that work and if there are guardrails or what guardrails you would be interested in expanding on Rick Hango's question. Because I can imagine sometimes there's periods of great growth. Sometimes they're slow. And so much rides on those districts in terms of city services and everything that is connected to representation. How do

[Ben Travers, President, Burlington City Council]: you make sure that you're not also changing the city council so often that it is hurting your ability to deliver services and there's regularity in when? Yeah. I think at the city council level, the question that we put forward to voters, that was the intention behind the no less than more frequent than every five years. As originally drafted, it was just from time to time. And that was the concern that some of us had is that a future city council we certainly wouldn't do it, but, a future city council could try to redraw the boundary more more frequently. And so that's why we put in that every five years. We did not want to have it every ten years in the census level because of ongoing housing projects in the community. And the fact that if, you know, a few 100 folks were brought into a new ward, that could disenfranchise the voters for some time if we had to wait until the next census. In in terms of other guardrails around it, though, I think it's important to reaffirm that, the biggest guardrail here will be our voters. Although the maps don't necessarily have to come to the legislature and governor for approval, they would still, under this charter change, have to go to local voters. Voters would still have to, approve of the the local boundaries, and my assumption would be well informed Burlington voters if it was happening too frequently or it was being done for reasons perhaps outside of simply fair and equal representation. That that would be the guardrail here, is the voters deciding whether or not they want a new map or not.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Anything else from the table? I'm sorry, was that a hand or no?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: No, was just telling you, good questions. Okay.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: No, no, no, thank you.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Same question.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: And just a council slide out, but, I think, like, as far as, like, raw function, I don't think I I feel comfortable not having do we wanna talk or chitchat a little

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: bit about this when he comes back in before we get into

[Chair Matthew Birong]: the other one? Yes. Okay. Please. Why

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: don't you want to have to deal with the legislature to make the charter changes?

[Ben Travers, President, Burlington City Council]: That's a fair question. I think the biggest concern from my perspective is Burlington having to wait. If we've made the decision that our population is such that voters are without fair and equal representation within their ward, at the moment, when, say, the last time we did this, we we brought a map to voters in March of town meeting day, but we had to wait additional cycles, additional legislative sessions for the legislature and governor ultimately to to to sign off on that map. And what that meant is if we had special elections or we had another town meeting day election in between, we still had war boundaries that were reflective of districts that in in which we had determined because of population counts, folks did not have fair and equal representation. So the the concern is really the legislative schedule, and and Burlington being able to act, I would say, more more nimbly, in order to address concerns around, when population counts have have gotten off kilter, so to speak.

[Eric Ramakrishnan, Assistant City Attorney (Burlington)]: Through the chair, may I interject?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yes, please.

[Eric Ramakrishnan, Assistant City Attorney (Burlington)]: I I just wanna be clear that from my perspective, the question should be why should Burlington be treated differently? Just to reiterate, other cities either have out loud large elections or their city councils and or in one case, their board of civil authority controls this process from time to time without the five year guardrail, without the guardrail of of requiring voter approval. And, again, the reason why our charter is different isn't because we should have been treated differently. It's that we have a very old charter from a time before the one person, one vote principle was part of our constitutional law in this country. So it's it's a vestige of the past, and for all the reasons that we're just given, it slows us down and reduces our efficiency to be able to respond to population changes and serve our voters accordingly. We're just asking to be treated like every other city in the state and I think that's an important point.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Please. Now I have another question. So, and I'm speaking for myself. I've not discussed this with anyone else, but it just occurred to me if you have, several items in this one request, would have you discussed it all being amenable to maybe lifting one out since Chearer Birong referenced maybe the the housing portion of it is going to be dealt with on a different You know, it's possibly going to be addressed in a different committee or as part of a larger conversation. Would you be comfortable with just removing this portion, the battery portion and passing it as its own charter change and leaving the rest for another time? Or are you committed to having these all considered at once?

[Ben Travers, President, Burlington City Council]: Just speaking on my own behalf, You know, I can't speak to the thinking behind representative Hooper in combining both of these charter changes into one resolution. And, Mark, I'm joined by my colleague, Broder as well from board a. So I can't speak to the reasoning behind that. I guess I would have actually expected that these questions would have been dealt with in separate resolutions. So I'm I'm personally not opposed to them being separated and and dealt with differently. I will say you know, let me say at the outset, I know that Burlington has sent what I refer to as sort of a a logjam of charter changes here to the legislature, and I really appreciate your time and consideration of all the different items Burlington has sent your way. I think one of the concerns from my perspective is because I I know and respect and understand that a number of those other changes sort of push some different buttons than perhaps just legislative district rebound ring. And one of the concerns I've had is that because those have received so much more public attention that an item like this that I think should be, from my perspective, more more nontontroversial, hasn't perhaps received the time and attention that it needs. So I really appreciate this committee, giving it that time now, and if moving it forward would be helped along by dividing the question. I'm I'm personally not opposed to that, although I would obviously like to see all of our infrastructure changes have their day here at Montpelier.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I appreciate that. Yes. This is, certainly just a a more nuts and bolts of government. Right? Yes. Electoral process and function. So I totally understand your point on that. Representative Morgan?

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: Not really a question, guess just a commentary on what I don't know what you said. I think what you might be driving at is saying why, because for instance, we control reinforcement. I think that's what you're driving at, right? Sort of analogy equal to that's not an analogy, but it's lining it with that.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes, parallel. Yeah,

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: That's food for thought in that realm. So just a commentary, because that is controlled definitively by this this body.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Anything else from the table for the representative from Burlington and council? Excellent. We'll shift over to our council for a moment, and speak to the boundary provision just as a refresher. Good to see you, council.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Oh, good morning, everyone. Tucker Anderson, Legislative Council, you have in front of you, H508, I hope. Sorry that I was late to the party.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: No worries.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Multitasked this week. Based on the chair's introduction, you want to just recap the election boundary provisions within age five zero eight. Is that correct? That is correct, sir. Well, the expedited summary is that we can go immediately to page 11 or 12. The first 10 pages are all a repeal of these specific boundaries that were set by 02/2023, act number n seven. The language that replaces this can be found on line 10 on page 11, states that the election area boundaries that were established by that act will remain in effect and changed by the city council. The city council is granted authorization to make changes from time to time to the boundaries of the election areas in order to provide equal division of population, with data produced by the US Census Bureau. Election area changes shall not be made more frequently than every five years. Changes shall be approved by the voters in annual or special meeting of the city and become effective immediately upon approval unless a later date is established by the city meeting vote. The last time that we went through h five zero eight, I noted a few things about this session, which you have already discussed robustly with representatives from the city. The conversation that I caught a bit of earlier, US census data is always gonna be the best data to use for these purposes because the courts are familiar with it. And if there was ever a challenge, to the equal division of population amongst the wards, that is what the court is going to want to review. The city may ultimately use different data points for the potential, population based on expansion of available housing, but US census data is always gonna be the most concrete data to look at when you are changing the election area boundaries. All of the functions that were outlined by the previous testimony are accurate. The city council would, undergo the process of reapportionment of the wards here or change the ward boundaries. And as soon as it is approved by the voters of an annual or special meeting of the city, it is effective. So no more charter changes here. As we discussed last time, this appears to be an appropriate delegation of legislative authority. No constitutional concerns around the general assembly delegating this down to the actual municipal corporation to divide these wards. The inherent risk for any municipality that has this authority is that if there is a challenge and the city loses, the courts ultimately can redraw boundary lines at this level.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Understood. Representative Hango.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: With respect to what they're asking for to be made similar to other cities such as St. Albans, exists in St. Albans, this way of going about redrawing boundaries?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: I was departing the room to another bill file as that testimony was coming out. But I will follow-up with the committee. I can take a look at the section that was referenced in the testimony and confirm, deny, or avoid the question of whether

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: That would be great because

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: a lot of us Park floor response counselors. Yes, a

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: lot of us don't live in cities or have a city in our district, so we're really unfamiliar with wards and city councils.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Well, it's another example of the question that always comes up with charters, which is, does this authority already exist in another charter? And recently resigned, Representative Jim Harrison did ask me six years ago to start working on the magnificent chart of all of the chartered powers that exist in Title 24 appendix. And six years in, we've don't have a lot in the chart, but we'll get there

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: reports reveal is done. We can focus on that.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: The task or after reports appeal of the nerd work. Wea Waters Evans.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Speaking of nerd work, I have a question about just the language of it on page 11. Line. It's like, okay, so it's at line eleven and twelve. It says. It shall remain in effect until changed by the city council. Which is authorized to make changes from time to time to the boundaries of the election areas. Blah, blah, blah, blah, In accordance with it does not say blah, blah, blah. In accordance with data produced by the US Census Bureau. So does that mean that we are that this would limit the city council to changing those boundaries to relying on data produced by the US Census Bureau? Or is it saying that that's the current situation? Is that the city council is authorized to make those changes based on the US Census?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: If I am remembering the opening salvo of your question, it is the former. It is that when the reapportionment process is taking place, that the division of the population among the election areas will be in accordance with data produced by the US Census Bureau. Now note that the language doesn't require the use of that data. It just has to be in accordance. Okay. That's what my question was because I wanted

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: to make sure we weren't precluding that because they were saying we want to be able to change it based on a population change. I just wanted to make sure we weren't like limiting it by accident or if it wasn't already limited.

[Eric Ramakrishnan, Assistant City Attorney (Burlington)]: And I apologize again, but through the chair, may I add something?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yes, please.

[Eric Ramakrishnan, Assistant City Attorney (Burlington)]: The point that I'd like to make is it's just US census data. It's not the official count. So, I mean, the US census every ten years does an official count where they're required to count every head. But the US Census Bureau is constantly doing, I forget the name of it, but the community something something survey, other types of survey data. They're producing all kinds of data in between ten year cycles relevant to population and population shifts. And so I I read this language as allowing the city to use that data.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Thanks. Alright.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: As the second liaison for the state of Vermont to the US Census Data Bureau, Tim Devlin is the primary liaison, just for your reference. I can confirm that there are intermediary counts that take place. They are not as granular in their data, and they also don't always include the sort of, algorithms that we use every ten years to guarantee, for example, protection of racial identity and other, classifications to ensure that a discriminatory basis is not used in. But there is data that is produced on an ongoing basis. And we just started the process of doing the data counts for the next decennial census. I'm sure you're all very psyched.

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: I always feel like somebody watching.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I think you'd be a little excited. You're all yay.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Just one note. I know that the phrase from time to time has come up a bit this morning. It is something that we typically strike in other bills. The drafting manual tells us that it is not actually a useful phrase when authority is being delegated, because just the delegation of the authority allows for the action to be taken unless there's a limitation. So the from time to time clause doesn't add any discrete authority for the city, and ultimately, they did build in a limitation, which is that it's not more frequently than once in five years.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. I caught that. It seemed a little, like, counterintuitive. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? I wanna be conscious of time on our next conversation. Wonderful. Thank you so much, and we appreciate you joining us. And I will say we're going to continue work on this portion requested five zero eight, just to let you know.

[Eric Ramakrishnan, Assistant City Attorney (Burlington)]: Very good. Thank you very much.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Okay. Shifting gears to another charter request from the City of Burlington. Thank you. I wanted to have the council come in and, walk us through again s, 01:31, and it is another approval of amendment to the charter of the city of Burlington, and this is in and around the possession of firearms.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: So thank you, counsel. The table is yours. Oh, good morning. Again, you have in front of you s one thirty one, which is the as passed by senate version, I hope, of that particular charter proposal from the city of Burlington, related to ban on firearms on premise premises licensed to serve alcoholic beverages. There's a little bit of table setting to do here with this. The first is that, my areas of expertise, municipal government, municipal charters, and alcoholic beverages, that's what I'll cover within the bill. Obviously, I'll walk you through it. If you have particular questions about the areas of law related to firearms, firearms possession, and second amendment, I would call upon my colleague and legislative counsel, Eric Fitzpatrick, to answer those questions and provide more meaningful and accurate testimony. Another bit of background to provide you here is that the as passed by senate version is different from what was initially proposed by the city and passed by the voters. Specifically, both the, senate as introduced version and what ultimately was passed out of the Senate, there were a series of changes in response to, constitutional issues around vagueness, but also, more focus and attention paid to the type of alcoholic beverage licenses that are captured here. And, those two legal concerns went hand in hand as this moved forward. As I walk through the bill, if you have questions about some of the licenses or the premises that are covered, feel free to ask them. That is one thing that I do have a decent handle on, and I believe it was the mayor of the city last year who testimony referred to me as mister liquor license. So, mister liquor license at your service.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: This is Definitely is one third. Intersection of your legislative portfolio. Yes.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: We'll start in section two, if that is alright for you. Section one contains the standard language that is included in all of the approval of charter bills, just states the date that the voters approved a charter proposals and expresses the general assembly's approval of those charter amendments. Section two within the city of Burlington charter s one thirty one adds a new section five ten related to the ban on firearms in premises licensed to serve alcoholic beverages. Subsection a contains a statement that certain statutes are superseded. I'll point out to you here is that 24 VSA sections twenty two ninety one eight and twenty two ninety five are two components of what the general assembly has colloquially called, the Sportsman's Bill of Rights. And these are preemption statutes that prevent municipal corporations from adopting ordinances, bylaws, or resolutions related to the possession or use of firearms. You do not need to have an express superseding clause in a municipal charter. And if this is good a time as any of this session to focus on the difference between special laws and general laws, I'll repeat something that I've brought up multiple times. When specific authority is granted in a charter, it is both more specific and later enacted than general laws governing the same subjects. And the way that this is constructed by the courts when they are reviewing what is the authority that has been delegated by the general assembly to a municipal corporation, they look at those specific powers and say this supersedes general prohibitions or general law that is different from or inconsistent with the power that is being conferred in the charter to the municipality. However, you've got belts and suspenders here saying that those preemption statutes do not apply. They are superseded by the express delegation of authority within s one thirty one. A lot of questions came up in the Senate around the relationship of law here. So after we've done the walk through and you've had time to ruminate, if you have questions, just let me know. I'm happy to provide testimony on the hierarchy of law and the delegation of legislative authority in this area. Okay. Subsection B contains the operative ban. Within the city of Burlington, no person may knowingly, that's the standard that is being applied here, knowingly possess a firearm as defined by the definition of firearm for purposes of title 13 in any premises licensed to serve alcoholic beverages. So I noted the standard, which is to knowingly possess. I'll direct you to check the definition 13 VSA subsection a three in section 4,016 because there are two main definitions of, firearm and weapon. This is one of them. You can refer to it. And you if have questions about that, again, Eric. Subsection c contains exceptions. Moving on to page two, line one. Subdivision one, a second class licensed premises, including premises used for a retail alcoholic beverage tasting permit.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Is that a hand or you just

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: No. It's Okay. Cool. Just checking. Messing with my contact.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: That's totally fine because Council and I both fight that and just in order to make sure. Sorry. No. We both was

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: a quick

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: No. They're checking something in my eye.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: No. Take care. I appreciate the contact adjustment. Just Constant. Better focus.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: If only we weren't so vain.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Second class licenses, I know you're all familiar with the license structure in Title VII by now, but to reorient you, those are, retail alcoholic beverage sales for off premises consumption. You can think of these as your liquor stores, gas stations, grocery stores, things like that. So an exemption granted there. Second, sidewalks or public highways that pass through an outside premises for which a licensee holds an outside consumption permit. So, this would be a first, third, fourth potentially manufacturer with other license authority. Think of your brewers that have brewery locations where they serve food and alcohol. If they have an outside consumption permit granted through the local control commissioners and DLC to serve alcoholic beverages outside of the restaurant, typically on a sidewalk or public throughway, that is accepted from this as well. So anywhere where you have sidewalks or public highways that pass through an area where alcoholic beverages are being served, that is accepted. The premises for which a licensee holds a limited event permit, special event permit, or special event serving permit. The committee is likely very familiar with these by now, but if you have questions about the breakdown between each one of these, I would be happy to go through it. The names of these permits also changed, just two years ago, but they used to be known as sampling permits, festival permits. They relate to now either special events that are being held where alcoholic beverages are served at what would colloquially be known as a festival. Sampling events are what used to be called legally festival permits, but are really like brewer events or Fentner events. Think about Waterfront Park, the Vermont Brewers Association Festival that goes on. That's for the purposes of sampling alcoholic beverages. It's covered by a separate permit. And the special event serving permit, something that you, worked on just last biennium. Retail establishments, not alcoholic beverage retail establishments, bank clothing stores that are allowed to get this permit. And finally, a dining card for which a licensee holds a promotional railroad tasting permit. So these are Mhmm. Low volume service tasting permits. Something that I flagged in the senate is that this is not the only type of license that can be granted to, railroad. First and third class licenses can also be granted for purposes of a, railroad dining car, and they would be covered. They are not granted an exception here. Alrighty. Subdivision 2, we're on Line 9. We're now getting into the exceptions that cover, certain types of possession of firearms. So first, in subdivision A, any federal, state, or local law enforcement officer acting within the scope of their official duties. Subdivision b, any member of the armed forces or the Vermont National Guard acting in the scope of that person's duties. Subdivision c, any government officer, agent, or employee that is authorized to carry a weapon acting within a scope of their duties. Subdivision D, the holder of the license for the premises, provided that person is not prohibited from possessing or carrying that weapon under any other federal, state, or local law. It's another area where there was discussion and debate, primarily because the holder of the permit in many instances for the types of alcoholic beverage licenses we're talking about is a corporation. There are short list individuals who acquire these licenses that would be covered by this exemption. But it is something that you may want to think about because it doesn't cover the director of the corporation. It covers the holder of the license, which would be a shorter list of individuals than if you were to expand it to the primary or key officers of the license holder. So to that

[Chair Matthew Birong]: LLP, insert names here, the enumerated names would not qualify for that. Is that what you're saying?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Right. Because the it's specifically for the holder of the license. So it would have to be an individual, not a incorporated person.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Thank you. I thought I was understanding that clearly. It seems I am.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Subsection d at the bottom of page two, we're on line 20, starts the penalties. The penny penalty or any violation shall be, moving on to three, first, criminal offense. Any violation of this section is considered a criminal offense, which shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than ninety days. Civil offense in subdivision two on line four. Any violation of the section may also be considered a civil ordinance violation punishable by a civil penalty of not less than $200 and not more than $500. Questions that came up in the senate around this section. In 24 b BSA section nineteen seventy one, there is the express prohibition that ordinances have to be either civil or criminal. They cannot be vote. However, take a deep breath. We're going right back to the beginning of the walk through. Special law, more specific, later enacted. That section of title 24 does not control here. You are expressly allowing the city to do both. So those provisions of the general ordinance adoption procedure will not apply here. There will be specific authority for the city in this one instance to apply both a civil and criminal penalty.

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: Based on what? What would be the basis for doing that? Is that a fair question? Yeah. So how would one determine?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Can you clarify the what? The basis for

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: What would be the basis for, you know, civil versus, criminal?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: It is not spelled out here and ultimately would be up to the discretion of the prosecuting entity, which in this case would be the Burlington City Attorney's Office. And it's another question that came up with. Okay.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: All right. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the table?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes, actually. Can you talk a little bit more about the corporation part and the the holding license, I'm just a little confused. It seems like I don't know what the original intent was, but. And I don't know if you know, maybe you don't, this might be a question for someone else, but like was I'm wondering if the intent was to have like a bartender or the owner of the saloon with his, you know, it's done in his holster. So, you know what I mean? Like, that's what I was envisioning. I

[Chair Matthew Birong]: need picture to paint.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I know it's not this, you know what I mean? But I'm trying to imagine in what circumstance that would be required. And it's just a little confusing. I don't know what my question is. I guess I'm a little confused about that and also wondering. If it is a corporation that is holding this or if the holder of the license is a corporation, then does it need to be designated, like, a specific officer of that corporation? Or is it just the name on the license? Or I'm just confused about it, I guess, and I need more explanation, please.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: I believe that I tallied three things that you're asking me Sure. Respond to. Yeah. The first, I can't speak to the legislative intent. Right. Something you might wanna ask your colleagues in the senate government operations committee about. I can point you to testimony that led to the construction of this exception, and that testimony was about, the owner of the business or facility, the premises, being allowed to carry their personal firearm on the premises. However, it's difficult to articulate that individual, and the direction was to find a way to give that individual an exception here. We talk about the owner of the premises, might be different from the license holder who's there every day inside of the actual premises. Right? Many of these licensees are renting space, so that was excluded as an option. If you're talking about the owner of the business, that also might be different from the day to day person who is there. So ultimately, where it settled was the holder of the license, which is the term of art used in Title VII. However, like I said, typically that is an LLC or another form of corporation, and there's a very small list, particularly because we're just looking at one municipality of, license holders who are natural persons, I. E. An individual who is capable of possessing a firearm.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Rob Morgan. And then I wanna Got it. Clock as I did say I would give council president Travis a few minutes of time.

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: Oh, yeah. Just real quick. So I think what you're driving at, Chea, is that you're talking was the intent to go further on what you're saying to allow them to have a firearm present on somebody that's authorized on the premises? Is that you're driving that sort of?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, sort of. I guess I was we'll have to ask maybe enough. Yeah. Like,

[Ben Travers, President, Burlington City Council]: think that's kind

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: of what's going

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: down a little bit.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Right. Because I'm just thinking it's the intent to have whoever is in the establishment and they're going to use it as like a protective firearm or, you know, mean, or in self defense or whatever it is, then it would not be useful for a person who works in a corporate office and holds this license to be able to wander in there with a firearm if they feel like it, as opposed to like, how useful that would be for the person. Like, you know what I mean? The reason why they create

[Chair Matthew Birong]: the same thing.

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: Yeah, I understood. Yep. Thank

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: you. Different conversations. Yeah.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: For the last part, the person who's sitting in the corporate office, if the corporate office is the holder of the license, it doesn't extend down at least some of this current structure of the language to the corporate officers because it is the holder of the license. And in that case, the holder of the license is not a natural person.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: It's it's is and this doesn't allow us to go.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: In law, in fact, this is, a person, a natural person who holds the license?

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: The barkeep can't have one behind the bar. Yes. Well,

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: you can if

[Chair Matthew Birong]: the barkeep's on the license. Yeah. Yeah. But if the barkeep's part of LLC or s corp, whatever, then they may not. Right. Because that is the entity that is on the license, not the individual. Right. This does not allow for the enumerated entities of the partnership. Yeah. I actually this is like crystal clear for me. Oh, no. I get it. I get it. But I think

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: she brings up a concern that

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: Where is that? I see that.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: That's just the you know, like, seven different businesses.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Greg Morgan, I'm feeling we're gonna be discussing this more, so it won't have any more opportunity.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Time awareness. If, no one has anything else for counsel, I would like to ask, house president Travers up to the table, say to give a couple of minutes to speak to this before we head over to our friends from the secretary of state's office, deputy secretary of election director. Good to see you.

[Ben Travers, President, Burlington City Council]: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this as well. Again, for the record, Ben Travers, president of the Burlington City Council. I knew we were going to be testifying on the earlier matter. Did not a 100% know we would be testifying on this one, but certainly happy to speak on it nonetheless. At the outset, let me acknowledge that I understand that in the state house that there are some second amendment absolutists. I strongly disagree with that perspective, but nonetheless acknowledge their position and understand we're unlikely to win them over on this particular issue. What I have not understood and and respectfully will voice some frustration to is, hearing from a number of folks in Montpelier, the governor included, skepticism about this measure out of concerns around its its potential effectiveness. When I walked into the building today here at the State House, I walked by a sign that said guns and weapons prohibited. I think that's a sound policy for the State House, and I'm certainly not going to come here to second guess it. My respectful ask of the legislature and the government, the governor, is to similarly not second guess Burlington voters. Unfortunately, too many folks in Burlington in recent years have been the victims of gun violence using weapons that have passed through our downtown bar scene. Folks here may be familiar with a a tragedy a couple years ago where there was actually a murder on Church Street, right outside a bar where a bar patron had, brought a gun into that establishment and then used it to, kill an individual right outside on Church Street. I strongly feel that we owe it to gun violence victims, to their loved ones, and to our community to try to address that. Can I sit here and tell you that if we had had a ban on guns and bars that it absolutely would have prevented that violence? Of of course not. But I will sit here and tell you that I think we owe it to, our community and, again, those who've been victimized by gun violence to to try. Twice now in the past decade, a little more than the past decade, Burlington voters have overwhelmingly voted in favor of this measure. Most recently in town meeting day of of 2025, There were questions on the previous matter of of how many voters supported the redistricting, and it was around 66%, if I remember correctly, maybe 68%. On this measure, over 86% of Burlington voters voted in favor of a ban on guns and bars. This is the second time again that this has been taken up. It had been taken up about twelve years ago or so. That vote was also overwhelmingly, in in favor of the ban on guns and bars, but not not to the extent it was this most recent town meeting day. And I think that's unfortunately a reflection, of ongoing gun violence in our community. From my perspective, this should not be a political issue. This is a public safety issue. States across the political spectrum have enacted bans on guns in bars from New York to Texas to, Washington state to Kentucky. I do believe personally that this is an issue that Vermont should also take on on a statewide basis. But if the state is not ready to take this step, on a statewide basis, my ask is that at least respect the will of voters in Burlington, our largest city, one of our latest, you know, downtown bar scenes in terms of late into the night, and take this common sense approach to protect our residents, our downtown workers, and our visitors to our community. So I appreciate very much, again, the committee taking this measure up. I I do recognize that Burlington has sent a number of post charter changes here to the legislature and that we're one of many municipalities, that are calling on the legislature for attention. So I I deeply appreciate the the focus and the effort on on this item, and, we hope that this committee and that the house take it up. I I suppose just one other note that I'll say here, right, is that, I do know, that we've heard from the governor, for example, that that he is not supportive of this measure. I'm I'm a realist around, what the vote count may be and the possibility for a veto on this item, even if we're to pass the house. But even if that is the reality here, my ask here would still be that that we take this item off the wall. Burlington has been waiting for for more than a decade for an answer on this question on a ban on on guns and bars. And I think it's high time that Burlington have an answer with respect to whether or not that's something they can take on in their charter. And if it's something that doesn't ultimately succeed, we'll all be disappointed. It will at least allow Burlington to open up additional opportunities to figure out how else they can address this issue rather than waiting on the legislature to take action. So, again, I thank you for taking this item on and look forward to continuing to be supportive of

[Eric Ramakrishnan, Assistant City Attorney (Burlington)]: it as it moves forward.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah, and I just want to say thank you for sitting with us on this. And I know it was unexpected. You're just coming in for the other piece. But I wanted to say I really respect that final point you just made. So, that was very much heard, I think. Thank you. Anything for the committee before we shift gears? No. Great. What's your new title, professor? Take us offline. We're gonna take a five

[Ben Travers, President, Burlington City Council]: minute

[Eric Ramakrishnan, Assistant City Attorney (Burlington)]: break

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: before

[Chair Matthew Birong]: we