City Council - Charter Change Committee

Wednesday, August 14, 2024, 5:30 PM, DPW Front Conference Room at 645 Pine or REMOTE When: Aug 14, 2024 05:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Topic: Charter Change Committee Meeting Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/99674347677?pwd=JVznasVLgMGSz8TIH1XI6MZxoSVeGJ.1 Passcode: 079201 Or One tap mobile : +13126266799,,99674347677#,,,,*079201# US (Chicago) +16469313860,,99674347677#,,,,*079201# US Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 646 931 3860 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +1 309 205 3325 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 669 444 9171 US Webinar ID: 996 7434 7677 Passcode: 079201 International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/abSNOEBnpM 1. Agenda Subject 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda Meeting August 14, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, August 14, 2024, 5:30 PM, DPW Front Conference Room at 645 Pine or REMOTE Category 1. Agenda Department Type Recommended Action Page 1 of 31 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from 7/1 Subject 2.1. Adopt Draft Minutes from 7/1 Meeting August 14, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, August 14, 2024, 5:30 PM, DPW Front Conference Room at 645 Pine or REMOTE Category 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from 7/1 Department Council and Board Type Recommended Action 3. Public Forum Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments Meeting August 14, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, August 14, 2024, 5:30 PM, DPW Front Conference Room at 645 Pine or REMOTE Category 3. Public Forum Department Council and Board Type 4. Councilor Compensation Subject 4.1. Councilor Compensation Meeting August 14, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, August 14, 2024, 5:30 PM, DPW Front Conference Room at 645 Pine or REMOTE Category 4. Councilor Compensation Department Council and Board Type Recommended Action 5. Property Tax Revenue Neutrality and Income Sensitivity Subject 5.1. Property Tax Revenue Neutrality and Income Sensitivity Meeting August 14, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, August 14, 2024, 5:30 PM, DPW Front Conference Room at 645 Pine or REMOTE Category 5. Property Tax Revenue Neutrality and Income Sensitivity Department Council and Board Type Recommended Action 6. Report on Department Head Charter Change Priorities Subject 6.1. Report on Department Head Charter Change Priorities Page 2 of 31  Meeting August 14, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, August 14, 2024, 5:30 PM, DPW Front Conference Room at 645 Pine or REMOTE Category 6. Report on Department Head Charter Change Priorities Department Council and Board Type Recommended Action 7. Any Other Committee Business Subject 7.1. Any Other Committee Business Meeting August 14, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, August 14, 2024, 5:30 PM, DPW Front Conference Room at 645 Pine or REMOTE Category 7. Any Other Committee Business Department Council and Board Type Recommended Action 8. Adjournment Subject 8.1. Motion to adjourn Meeting August 14, 2024 - Charter Change Committee Meeting - Wednesday, August 14, 2024, 5:30 PM, DPW Front Conference Room at 645 Pine or REMOTE Category 8. Adjournment Department Council and Board Type Recommended Action Page 3 of 31  Charter Change Committee Monday, July 1, 2024 Bushor Conference Room in City Hall. or Remote via Zoom. DRAFT MINUTES Members Present: Councilor Bergman (Chair), Councilor Carpenter, Councilor Doherty (remote) Staff Present: Kimberlee Sturtevant (Assistant City Attorney), Hayley McClenahan (Assistant City Attorney), Jon Murad (Chief of Police), Eric Dallamura (BPD, BPOA) Public Present: Jeffrey Jarrad, Jack Keefe (Police Commission), Carolyn Hanson, Chris Haessly (Marketplace Commission), Mark Hughes, Shelby Lincoln Meeting called to order at 5:32 PM. 1. Agenda 1.01 Motion to amend/adopt agenda Motion to Adopt Agenda as is. Motion by Councilor Doherty, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Unanimous 2. Adopt Draft Minutes from 6/25 2.01 Adopt Draft Minutes from 6/25 Motion to Adopt Draft Minutes from June 25. Motion by Councilor Doherty, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Unanimous 3. Public Forum Carolyn Hanson: I was fortunate to be on the Police Commission for six months. I feel like the Commission has good processes, but reading the minutes from the last meeting I feel like the Commission has been thrown to the weeds. A lot of conversation is going into who will be going to be on the independent panel. I would urge you all to read DD-40 as it lays out a really good process. I would also encourage you to look at what the Criminal Justice Training Council does. The Council usually has the department do an internal investigation, but they have the power to hire an outside investigator to do an investigation if necessary. I think it is important to consider every option before we expand the budget to pay for more things. My boss, the Attorney General, did not want me to continue to be on the Commission and I found it very hard to find people to recruit to be on the Commission. I don’t know what the independent panel will accomplish, even while we already have a good process in the Commission currently. My two big issues that I could never raise with the Commission during my tenure was that the Page 1 of 6 Page 4 of 31 department always needs to have someone answer the phone when the public calls. The other issue is the department lobby is horrendous and not inviting. It feels like you’re going into a jail. I think those two things would go a long way to building trust with the public. Eric Dallamura: I am the treasurer of the BPOA. I don’t think it is necessary to have a panel with individuals that are handpicked by political leaders, either the Mayor or the Council. We already have an HR Department, we have State oversight. This will drag out the process and will be bad for morale. I appreciate you are moving things along to get the issue to the voters quickly. BPOA wants educated people to make the important decisions and do it quickly. It is in the interest of the BPOA to have good officers and that is good for the public as well. Jeffrey Jarrad: I am a resident of Ward One. I don’t know every detail of things that have happened in the last five years and I am working on that. But if I made a list of issues or difficulties from the last five years I would include things like officers being paid out and resigning and complaints from the public. So what would those issues have looked like if we had the proposed changes to the charter in effect at that time. Would these proposed changes have mitigated or eliminated some of the issues? That is a litmus test of the value of the changes to the charter. Mark Hughes: I would like to see some oversight of every agency in the state that is substantial and impactful. There is overlap here with Title 20 on the state side. Everybody wants to be safe and have a fair process. This department was the first to require use-of-force (UOF) data and that was back in 2018 or 2019. There was some pushback on that. Because of that change the rest of the state started requiring that data shortly after. I still think the proposed changes are not enough. I say that as a former Police Commissioner and retired army officer. I understand what oversight and responsibility looks like. I don’t see why you don’t advance this to the full Council before it gets killed before it sees the light of day. Then we can hold Councilors accountable since it is a political process, just as the Commission is political because of how the members are appointed. I do not think most of the officers that have had important complaints about them are or were “bad” police officers. I think there is a bad system which is why we need oversight. It is intrinsically designed to full afoul. Even the proposed appointment process for the independent panel creates a predictable outcome. It builds fortifications to protect the system. We should stop this and bring the changes to the Council. 4. Councilor Discussion and Review of Draft Police Oversight Changes Attorney Sturtevant shared the draft language changes in resolution format. The draft resolution is available in the agenda packet. Councilor Carpenter said that while the Committee has spent time on particulars recently, a lot of the big changes to the charter are to codify the current working processes of the Commission and the Department as they are currently only in effect by executive order from the Mayor. Councilor Bergman said that the Mayor’s Office also sent in a request late in the day and the Committee will be seeing that for the first time tonight. Page 2 of 6 Page 5 of 31 Attorney Sturtevant said the change to line 32 was to correct a typo. The change to lines 33-34 is to establish that the Commission has access to certain kinds of documents as laid out in ordinance. This change was to ensure confidentiality and to bring the charter language into line with the current working processes and allow changes in document access to be made in ordinance which is easier to adjust going forward. All councilors agreed that the change in proposed language was what they intended. Attorney Sturtevant continued that the changes to lines 58-64 were to move the experience requirements to be on the independent panel into ordinance rather than charter. Councilor Bergman clarified that the stricken language to have an appointment from the BPOA was to reflect a request from the BPOA and not language that was approved by the Committee. The language change was voted on in the June 25 meeting. Councilor Doherty reiterated Councilor Carpenter’s comment that most of the proposed changes are to codify the existing processes between the Commission and the Department that are working well. He said he has not heard the BPOA say the current system is not working. One issue that is not currently addressed is if there is a difference in opinion on discipline between the Commission and the Chief. That is the reason for the independent panel. Councilor Doherty continued that he didn’t think the Committee had voted on the inclusion of the BPOA appointment, but rather had agreed to disagree and moved on. He said he disagrees with the current draft language and would like the BPOA to have an appointee on the panel. Councilor Carpenter said that the Committee contemplated other ideas instead of the current proposed independent panel. She said that most communities in Vermont use the legislative body as the final appeal body and Burlington does not. She said she isn’t sure the City Council wants that authority, but it was discussed. She said there has to be a body that can make a decision if there is a disagreement between the Chief and the Commission. Motion to have the City Council be one of the appointing bodies for the independent panel in place of the BPOA. Motion by Councilor Bergman, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Councilors Bergman and Carpenter No: Councilor Doherty Councilor Doherty reminded everyone that there is still more procedural steps to complete before the current proposed language will be put into the charter. The proposed language must be passed out of the Committee, go through the City Council, and be approved by the voters. Attorney Sturtevant said the changes to lines 69-71 were only to clarify the current powers of the Mayor and that the changes do not confer additional powers onto the Mayor. Page 3 of 6 Page 6 of 31 Councilor Bergman said he supported the changes to ensure there is no question about the existing powers of the Mayor due to a lack of a reference. Councilors Carpenter and Doherty agreed. Attorney McClenahan said the changes to lines 88-90 were due to the optics of the Commission exercising their authority under Section 184(d) to make discipline recommendations or hire an outside investigator, while then also potentially sitting as an appellate body for an officer facing discipline under Section 190(a). She said the proposed language would allow the independent panel to be used as an appellate body if there is not a quorum of commissioners due to some commissioners feeling they have actual or apparent conflicts of interest. Councilor Carpenter said there was some concern about having the Commission be an appellate body for officers but the Committee also heard that both the BPOA and the Commission wanted to keep the Commission as the appellate body. She said she agreed with the proposed changes. Councilor Doherty also agreed and said this was a helpful change to ensure that there are no violations of any officer’s due process rights. Councilor Bergman also agreed and that the changes insulates the Commission from any appearance of a conflict. Jon Murad (Chief of Police) said there was previous arbitration wherein the arbitrator found no conflict even without this proposed change. The counsel for the Police Commission at the time had a different opinion, however. There was actually already a situation where the Commission changed their mind in an appeal of discipline after they heard more evidence and heard from the officers directly involved through the appeal process. That is to say the Commission was not tainted by the initial consultation with the Chief and can, and has, changed its opinion on appeal. Attorney Sturtevant said the changes to lines 112-115 is a codification of the current system that only exists by executive order. This language is by request of the Mayor’s Office. Jon Murad said the proposed language is taken almost verbatim from an executive order from 2020 and that he had no issue with the language being included in charter. Attorney McClenahan said the inclusion of the language that allows the process to be designated in ordinance was to allow the details like timing to be laid out in a more adjustable way through ordinance. Councilor Doherty did not see why the language needed to be included in charter at all. The Mayor can have a standing order with the Chief of Police about how the Mayor should be informed of such incidents and their disciplinary outcome. Councilor Bergman said the inclusion of the language that allows the process to be laid out in ordinance conflicts with the current statutory structure. The nature of the discipline goes beyond what is being considered here. The nature of discipline is laid out already in things like DD-40. Councilor Bergman says it does make sense for the Mayor to be informed by the Chief of UOF incidents or issues of significant public concern and having that in charter is sensible. He said he Page 4 of 6 Page 7 of 31 was supportive of the proposed changes if the language “by a process designated by ordinance” was removed. Jon Murad said DD-40 already directs the Chief to consult with the Mayor, City Attorney, and/or HR Director as necessary for disciplinary matters. That consultation is already built into the current system. Councilor Carpenter said the proposed charter language seems redundant given what is already in DD-40. She said the language “seek the Mayor’s concurrence with the Chief’s decision” does not make sense. She said the Mayor should be informed of such issues, but the rest of charter lays out the process and does not consider that the Chief will seek the Mayor’s concurrence on discipline. Councilor Bergman said the proposed language seems aspirational, but does not require the Chief and Mayor to come to an agreement on discipline. Councilor Carpenter said the language should be more general and only instruct the Chief to consult with the Mayor about these issues. Councilor Doherty said he was uncomfortable with adding this language to the charter and that it is too specific to be in the charter. Councilor Bergman said he is fine with not including the language as the consultation is included in DD-40. Motion to refer with recommendation the draft charter changes back to the City Council to be placed on the November, 2024 ballot as drafted and be warned for public hearing. Motion by Councilor Carpenter, Seconded by Councilor Bergman Motion to divide the previous motion into two questions: one to refer the draft language back to the City Council and another about recommending the language for adoption. Motion by Councilor Doherty, Seconded by Councilor Bergman Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Unanimous Motion to refer the current draft charter change language back to City Council. Motion by Councilor Doherty, Seconded by Councilor Bergman Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Unanimous Motion to recommend the current draft charter change language be placed on the November, 2024 ballot and be warned for public hearing. Motion by Councilor Bergman, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Councilors Bergman and Carpenter No: Councilor Doherty Page 5 of 6 Page 8 of 31 Councilor Doherty clarified that he believes the BPOA has been supportive of many parts of this drafting process and at present the draft language is not something he can recommend. He said he is glad to see the process move back to the City Council but is also hopeful that there will be some final changes in the City Council. 5. Any Other Committee Business Councilor Carpenter brought up the possibility of a future charter change to the redistricting process that would take the process away from the legislature. Councilor Bergman added two other potential future charter changes: councilor compensation and the public financing of elections. 6. Adjournment 6.01 Adjournment Motion to adjourn. Motion by Councilor Doherty, Seconded by Councilor Carpenter Final Resolution: Motion Passes Yes: Unanimous The meeting was adjourned at 7:18 PM. Page 6 of 6 Page 9 of 31 August 13, 2024 To: Charter Change Committee From: Dante Seguino Re: City Councilor Compensation From what I’ve found there is little consistency in the compensation that city councilors receive in small/medium sized cities and towns. That being said I only found 3 cities that paid less than $5,000 annually; Montpelier Vermont ($2,040), Bangor Maine ($2,000), & Brookline Massachusetts ($3,500). Montpelier and Bangor are each less populous than Burlington and Brookline seems to have tried to go from a modest $3,500 yearly stipend to a $30,000 salary which unsurprisingly failed. Montpelier was the only jurisdiction I found that offered the proposal on a ballot to voters. The highest compensation I could find was in Harrisburg Pennsylvania which pays council members $20,000 annually (since 2006). The largest single- year increase that I found was in Pawtucket Rhode Island where the Council received a $6,000 raise from $7,000 to $13,000. In Ithaca New York council members used the MIT Living Wage Calculator to calculate the rate which council persons are paid. Multiple members stated that the work takes at least 20 hours a week and thus the roughly $4,000 increase would put them in line with the rest of Ithaca's part time workforce. This was disputed by opponents and countered with a lower living wage figure from a local workers center. Ultimately it was agreed that compensation should be based around an 18 hour work week. The compensation increase was passed September 6th 2023. Notable however is that this may have been made possible by the shift from a traditional mayor to a city manager. The ballot measure passed with nearly 80% approval. The mayor's salary of $30,000 was reduced by more than half from $61,489 in the budget proposal increasing the compensation of council persons. The mayor's revised salary was proposed to be one third more than that of council persons. Ithaca’s alderpersons are also offered a generous stipend to offset healthcare costs which is not included in the compensation figure (covers 80% up to $22,000 in costs). The city of Cortland New York doubled its Common Council pay in their 2022 budget increasing compensation from $5,000 to $10,000 annually. The budget was approved unanimously although a proposal to increase the mayoral salary from $25,000 to $30,000 was rejected with 5 votes in opposition, 2 votes in favor and 1 absent voter. There was also a proposal to lock the councils pay at $5,000 which failed a vote with 2 in favor and 6 opposed. As in the case of Ithaca, the council stressed that the role of councilors would need to be more formalized indicating that not all councilors were equally involved in their roles on the council. The details of said formalization does not appear however in the text of the amendment so I am unclear how the duties of councilors may have been altered. Schenectady New York had an interesting battle over their 2024 budget which featured a 16% pay raise for the 7 city councilors ($14,100-$16,356 plus health coverage). The mayor had proposed this increase in the 2020 budget but the council agreed to only a 4% increase in compensation, as a concession the mayor’s compensation also did not increase for the remainder of his 4 year term (elected in 2019). He has since been reelected to a fourth term and this rate freeze has presumably expired. Although I do not foresee similar challenges in Burlington I Page 10 of 31 believe this can be avoided by amending the pay structure of counselors outside of the budget through a city ordinance. Burying such things in the budget seemed to lead to unnecessary political constranation. In Pawtucket Rhode Island the Finance Director for the city sent a letter to the council regarding realigning compensation to be in line with inflationary and the Consumer Price Index. He argued that the fact that elected officials were being compensated on par with the City Sargeant and the Sealer of Weights and Measures “could not continue”. It had been over two decades since the pay of elected officials had been updated or reviewed. The $7,000 stipend was raised to $13,000 for city councilors; the council president's compensation went from $8,000 to $14,000 ($1000 less than originally recommended). The mayor's compensation also increased from $80,000 to $130,000 ($20,000 less than the finance office recommended.) The Council compensation was agreed to be 10% of the mayor's salary. The mayor will receive a 2% raise per year for eight years with council pay being tied to this figure. This structure was to mitigate allowing council pay to again fall behind other local jurisdictions. There is a rule in place that does not allow for councilors to vote to increase their own compensation so the final vote will be held early next year, after new elections are held. In Woonsocket Rhode Island there is an increase in councilor compensation from $10,000 to $12,000 slated to take effect in the 2025-2026 calendar year. The salary changes were passed unanimously but there were concerns around inflating the budget in uncertain economic times.The mayor also got a raise from $80,000 to $120,000 in the new proposal. The council voted separately to reduce the pay of the city's Planning and Development Director after a $1M land deal scandal involving the former mayor. It appears as though most increases to city councilor compensation are presented either by the council themselves or in coordination with finance and budget departments of the city government. I was unable to find much evidence of resistance from constituents but there were instances of dissent amongst council members. Given the optics, most city and town councils present proposed raises as efforts to bring compensation in line with other comparable part-time city positions. There is an emphasis on keeping the municipality competitive with other local governments. When faced with pushback it can be helpful to codify the role of a council member to the public, allowing them to see that the job consists of a breadth of responsibilities beyond simply attending the meetings. Most Vermont cities and towns do not compensate councilors/board members but that does not track with other similar sized cities in larger states. Using the MIT Living wage calculator for Chittenden County and assuming counselors do 15 hours of work a week, an adjusted stipend would equate to $13,361.40 annually. This uses the $17.13/hr rate for a 2 income family with no children. If we reduce the workload to 10 hours a week the stipend would be $8,907.60. Adjusting the figure to Vermont state minimum wage ($13.67) and assuming counselors work only 10 hours a week, the adjusted stipend would be $7,108.40. Although still a substantial increase, my research indicates that most part time counselors work closer to 15-20 hours a week. Using the current $5,000 stipend and a 10 hour work week councilors make a wage of $9.62/hr, a figure closer to the tipped minimum wage of $6.84/hr than the actual minimum wage. Councilors of course do not collect tips. Page 11 of 31  Personally, I would recommend working with the Charter Change Committee and/or the Director of Finance to draw up various compensation proposals based on an audit of current council workloads. Some cities have created an independent select committee to do this work. I would then compare the results with Vermont minimum wage and a living wage estimate provided by the Vermont Department of Labor. I suggest that there be language in the proposal that ties compensation to that of the mayor or other elected officials. Alternatively a percentage yearly raise that follows the rate of inflation could be applied directly to counselor compensation. I believe that it is important that the proposal contain efforts to keep the compensation rate competitive moving forward. Any change would likely benefit politically by being pushed to be enacted after the current city council terms expire. An additional state level strategy would be to commission a compensation survey for city and town officials. The Vermont Legislature appears to have done this for statewide elected officials in 2004 as a tool to restructure legislative pay. I found a similar survey for city/town officials in Oregon where they have a ballot initiative (Measure 116) reinstating an elected officials compensation board. The Oregon board has gone in and out of solvency since being introduced originally in 1983 and eliminated most recently in 2017. This seems to be the most holistic approach to determining a competitive statewide pay structure but also clearly comes with costs both financial and political and may not be feasible nor prudent in a small state such as Vermont. Attached is the table I created with all of the information on compensation that I could find and verify with a source. I did find an article detailing numerous raises to officials across Westchester county New York but the article contained a dead link and I could not confirm many of the figures presented therein so I excluded that data. Here is the link to that story however. https://www.lohud.com/story/news/investigations/2016/07/11/elected-official-raises- westchester/86573894/ Page 12 of 31  Previous City State Year Population Salary Salary Source Burlington VT 2021 44,595 $5,000 N/A https://go.boarddocs.com/vt/burlingtonvt/Board.nsf/files/C2RGHU43F0BF/$file/City%20Council%20- Montpelier VT 2023 8,023 $2,040 N/A Montpelier, Vermont, Article 11, Council Member Compensation Measure (March 2023) - Ballotpedia Bangor ME 2016 31,588 $2,000 N/A City of Bangor, ME City Council Brookline MA 2020 62,698 $3,500 N/A Brookline rejects proposal to raise elected officials' compensation https://www.salemma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif12836/f/uploads/ordinance_amending_ch._2_sec_271_ Salem MA 2015 44,722 $10,000 N/A _city_council_compensation.pdf#:~:text=The%20members%20of%20the%20City,an%20additional%20 Pawtucket RI 2024 75,066 $13,000 $7,000 Pawtucket City Council approves pay raises for its members, mayor Woonsocket RI 2025 41,603 $12,000 $10,000 Woonsocket mayor and councilors to see pay increase in 2025 | News | valleybreeze.com Harrisburg PA 2006 50,183 $20,000 N/A City of Harrisburg, PA Compensation of Elected Officials06 Lancaster PA 2024 57,453 $7,200 N/A Job Classifications & Salary Schedules | City of Lancaster City of Ithaca, NY Salaries and Compensation Ithaca NY 2023 32,108 $17,091 $13,141 Common Council members approve $4K raises for 2024 - The Ithaca Voice Somers NY 2024 21,656 $15,426 $14,904 Somers Town Board Approves Preliminary Budget North Salem NY 2022 5,136 $17,563.08 N/A North Salem Town Board adopts 2022 budget Utica NY 2020 65,283 $7,000 N/A City of Utica, NY Elected Officers Schenectady NY 2024 67,047 $16,356 $14,100 Third time is the charm as Schenectady council adopts 2024 budget signed by mayor Cortland NY 2022 17,314 $10,000 $5,000 City of Cortland approves 2022 budget at Tuesday night’s common council meeting (Video) https://www.ci.apple-valley.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/18247/06-03-2024-Amend-Section-3005-M Apple Valley MN 2025 55,416 $11,064 $9,132 2026#:~:text=the%20salaries%20of%20the%20Mayor%20shall%20be%20$1%2C320%20per%20month Loveland CO 2021 77,884 $7,200 N/A https://www.reporterherald.com/2021/02/03/loveland-council-debates-pay-raises-for-members-asks Page 13 of 31 Page 14 of 31 Page 15 of 31 Page 16 of 31 Page 17 of 31 Page 18 of 31 Page 19 of 31 Page 20 of 31 Page 21 of 31 Page 22 of 31 Page 23 of 31 Page 24 of 31 Page 25 of 31 Page 26 of 31 Page 27 of 31 COMPENSATION & BENEFITS IN COLLEGE CITIES LIST: - Asheville, NC - Charlottesville, VA - Ithaca, NY - Portland, ME - San Luis Opisbo, CA - Davis, CA - Chapel Hill, NC - Cambridge, MA Asheville, NC ● Part time work ● Mayor and City Councilors are paid - avg salary $26,000 - $28,000 per year ● 8 weeks of paid leave for new child or to take care of a family member ● Medical, dental, vision insurance ● Healthcare + dependant care flexible saving account ● NC local govt retirement system employer contribution ● Paid vacation, paid sick leave, 13 paid holidays ● Sick leave sharing bank ● Life insurance ● Education assistance program ● Employee health clinic and disease management program employee use at no cost ● Full time or part time? ● Important to note: all city councilors are women + the mayor !! Charlottesville, VA ● Part time work ● Entitled to benefits based on VA state law ● https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title15.2/chapter14/section15.2-1414.3/ ● Compensation policy Page 28 of 31  ○ Policy adjustments - provides an equitable system for council members and aids pay in specific circumstances Portland, ME ● https://www.employeeconnects.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/CityOfPor tland_2024_BenefitsGuide_FINAL.pdf ● Ithaca, NY ● Avg salary: $13,141 ● After looking into their city council laws, it seems like they do not receive benefits outside their salary. ● Part time work School Board Commission Benefits: Interesting Read: 13 states bar school board members from getting paid - here's where it's allowed Page 29 of 31  ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION KIMBERLEE J. STURTEVANT, ESQ. 149 Church Street ACA, Director of Litigation Burlington, VT 05401-8489 HAYLEY I. MCCLENAHAN, ESQ. Phone: (802) 865-7121 Assistant City Attorney Fax: (802) 865-7123 ERIK RAMAKRISHNAN, ESQ. TTY: (802) 865-7142 Assistant City Attorney CITY OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CORPORATION COUNSEL MEMORANDUM To: Gene Bergman, Charter Change Committee Chairperson From: Erik Ramakrishnan, Assistant City Attorney Date: August 14, 2024 Re: Burlington Charter Section 98a: revenue neutrality versus income sensitivity Cc: Erin Jacobsen, Chief of Staff The City’s Charter sets forth various municipal property tax rates, including the general city rate (Section 99) and rates for bonded indebtedness (Sections 100 and 101), police and fire (Section 102a), streets (Section 102b), library (Section 102c), parks (Section 102e), and the housing trust fund (Section 102f). Section 98a of the Charter provides that the general city rate and the special rates for police and fire and for streets should be factored down after every general reassessment to achieve revenue neutrality. For example, following the general reassessment effective FY22, the City’s grand list increased nearly 50 percent from approximately $37.8 million to approximately $55.5 million. The general city rate was adjusted down accordingly from 27.29 cents to 19.52 cents. To account for new construction and the vagaries of TIF, this adjustment still resulted in a slight increase in revenue, but it was nothing close to the additional $4,313,629 that could have been generated from the reassessment. Revenue neutrality achieves the benefit of stabilizing property tax bills, but it also creates a structural deficit in the long-term because it fails to account for inflation. To counter this effect, the Charter allows voters to approve tax rate increases, but this is not typically effective in countering inflation. For example, in 2021, inflation in the U.S. was around 5 percent, and in 2022 it was around 8 The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, place of birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic information. The City is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities, and employment opportunities. For accessibility information or alternative formats, please contact Human Resources Department at (802) 540-2505. Page 30 of 31 G. Bergman Page 2 percent. On Town Meeting Day 2022, voters were asked to increase the general city rate by only 5.5 percent effective FY23, but this measure narrowly failed. Consequently, despite historic inflation, the general city rate has not increased since the last general reassessment. This built-in structural deficit requires the City to make cuts, defer maintenance, realign priorities, and find revenue from new sources. As the City prepares for its next general reassessment, this begs the question whether Section 98a requires reimagining. One approach may be to eliminate revenue neutrality and replace it with income sensitivity. Achieving a form of income sensitivity appears to have been the original purpose of Section 98a, which I am informed is rooted in circumstances occurring in the 1980s. Before Vermont instituted a statewide system of education funding in the 1990s, the City was free to decide when to order a general reassessment. Prior to the enactment of Section 98a, the City had not conducted a general reassessment in many years, as a consequence of which conducting one would have resulted in an unprecedented property tax increase that would force many of the City’s middle- and lower-income households out of their homes. Revenue neutrality was put forward as the solution. However, revenue neutrality had the effect of stabilizing taxes for homeowners at all income levels and for both vacation homes and commercial properties. In that sense, it was a particularly blunt instrument for helping middle- and lower-income households keep their homes. Income sensitivity as an alternative to revenue neutrality would allow revenues generated from property taxes to increase over time while still protecting vulnerable homeowners from sharp increases following a general reassessment. State education taxes provide a model for what this might look like. Statewide, a single education tax rate adjusted in each municipality according to its Common Level of Appraisal applies to nonhomestead properties. The homestead education tax rate varies by municipality based upon the municipality’s approved school budget. However, for households with incomes below a set threshold, currently around $128,000, the homestead rate cannot exceed a specified percentage of household income, any excess due over that amount being applied as a “prebate” against the subsequent year’s property taxes. Even lower income households qualify for an additional renter or homeowner tax rebate. To address the City’s structural deficit, it may be appropriate to consider whether Section 98a is still serving its purpose or whether it should be amended to superseded. Like all Charter amendments, any change would require introduction by petition or City Council action followed by a vote of City residents and approval by the General Assembly. Introduction of some form of income sensitivity would also likely require cooperation from the Vermont Department of Taxes since the City has limited resources to create a local system for determining household incomes and auditing returns. Please let me know what legal questions, comments, or concerns you or other members of the Charter Change Committee may have relating to these issues. Page 31 of 31