 All right, so I'm going to go ahead and call to order the Board of Finance for the city of Wellington on Monday, April 15, 2024. This 501 p.m. and we are going to get started on time because we have a date upstairs at six o'clock. I want to make sure we move out on time. So the first item on the agenda is the agenda. Is there a motion to adopt the agenda? Moved by Councillor Marlowe. Is there a second? Councillor Travers and any discussion on this motion? Seeing none, all in favour, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. Okay, moving right along. Motion of agenda says unanimously. Moving on to our next item on the agenda, public forum. Welcome Councillor Cain. It's moving along since we have a date at six o'clock. Alright, next up is public forum. So is there anyone from the public wishing to speak to the Board of Finance? And we first start with folks in the room. And if you'd like to address the board, let's put your hand up. None? Okay, we'll go online then. Is there anyone online who would like to? Is there anyone online who would like to address the board? It's during public forum. No hands on the line. Okay. And people raise their hands online, right? So remind folks who are on public forum, if anyone would like to address the board. Okay. Seeing no one would like to speak. So we're going to go ahead and close public forum and move on to item number three, the consent agenda. Is there a motion on to, is there a motion on the consent agenda? Move to adopt the consent agenda to take the actions indicated. Thank you. Is there a second? Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Motion carries unanimously. Let me run along. We're moving on now to our deliberative agenda and our first item on the agenda is item 4.1. A memorandum of agreement between the Burlington Firefighters Association, the BFFA and the city of Burlington regarding retention bonuses related to article 10.5 a of the collective bargaining agreement. And I think to speak to this is our C. A. Yes, yes, I would also invite members of the union who are here if they would like to speak. And we also have our director of human resources Karen derpy. This is the last remaining item from our last round of union negotiations and after some productive and lengthy conversations between the city and the union. We are pleased to bring this proposal to you in the negotiating process. There was one last item on retention bonuses where we had agreed. And very broad strokes what the dollar value of a retention bonus program would look like and we agreed that the two parties would come together and flesh out the details. We have done that the union has brought that proposal back to union members. And they have voted on it. And we're happy to take any questions. Anything that you would like to add. Anything from you, Karen. Great. Any questions from the board. I'm curious if the retention issues could be detailed to some extent. Karen, yes. Well, I think president Blake can probably speak to these two and I can see him in the back. I can see him way, way in the back. The retention issues are known personally and professionally to the firefighters themselves. The job has changed quite a bit. There have been a union negotiations were again, I think we concluded in November. So they did run a little bit over this piece here was important to the firefighters. Given staffing, a staffing shortage given changing natures of their job given overtime. And this is something that we agreed to. If you look at, I don't know if anybody's got their BFF a contract out, but if you look at 10.5 a. The language is very just really a couple of sentences saying that will, you know, negotiate as the CAO has said in good faith. And we did come very close to the city's number that was agreed upon or talked about or put it in and we think we did a really good job agreeing to compensate these retention bonuses to keep folks around and doing this job. During that time, the CRT has been stood up. We've been doing a lot of they've done a lot of work with other programs in the city. And so we need to do the attention books appropriate resident blade. Yeah, just for raw numbers in the last 5 years, we've had 44 members leave, whether that be to retirement, leaving the fire service in general, leaving for personal reasons, disability retirement. We are a very junior department right now as well. And when we hemorrhage and lose people that are at that retirement age anywhere between, you know, 20 years of service to 25, we have a lot of history experience knowledge leaving us. And so that's something that this is trying to prevent as well. To say this is just purely a retention bonus is not 100% true. There are a lot of components that rolled into this and like director Derpy talked about. This was to get our contract across the finish line. This takes a previous retention bonus that we already had in place was bifurcated our membership. And which was a 1 size fits all, which our membership did not like and adjusted it to something that really honored years of service. And open the door for even new hires now coming in. If the system is still in place, they're eligible for it. So we got rid of a bifurcation system. We got rid of a system that was 1 size fits all. And additionally, we rolled in a component of colas that we did not capture, but was important to the membership and the dollar value. This is non pensionable money as well. And so that's something that the city really valued. And so that is a component of that. And when we're looking at total value of our contract that came into play as well. This is something that unfortunately the new administration and a new council has to get across the finish line. That was not our intention. We were hoping to have this finished with the previous administration. And unfortunately that did not happen. So, I don't truly think it's fair for a new administration to come in. And first thing that we sort of dropped in in your lap was, Hey, this has been a year and a half, but here it is. Both parties are in agreement and same thing for new counselors on the board as well. It is not perfect, but it is something that a lot of hard work went into on both sides. And we are very hopeful that we can move forward and start focusing on really important things for the city, like continuity and show where we're doing the CRT. We've got staffing things to talk about. So there's a lot of hard work that needs to continue to happen. We just need to have this resolved. So that's the hope for tonight. Are there other questions or discussion on this? I would just like to say really briefly that Kyle, I talked to you about assuming this passes the board. It's putting it on our deliberative agenda full city council tonight to really give you and your members the kudos that you deserve for a job really well done for our city. To your credit, it's on consent at your request because let's keep our heads down and get back to work and honor what we've agreed to in our collective bargaining agreements and move forward. But because it's not a deliberative, allow me to take an opportunity now to say this is well deserved and I'm looking forward to supporting it. Appreciate it. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? I can always speak to a second too, but I'll just say a quick comment and then I'll go to you, Councilor Farrell, if that's okay. So as President Blake mentioned, I was a little surprised I've been on the job for two weeks. There's many surprises, let's be honest, but there's and joys and opportunities. Let me be clear too, but I really was surprised that this hadn't been resolved by the prior administration to be honest. And for me, it's very important to honor the folks who are doing this really hard work here in the city. And to make sure we do right by collective bargaining, which when you settle a term, which says we're going to work this out to do that with the best interests and moving forward in a timely manner. And when I learned that it's been about a year and a half or so of deliberate labor by our HR director, Director Durfee, our Chief LeChance, as well as the FFA, it really felt like important to put this forward within the first couple of weeks of being on the job in my role. Largely because this is a really good faith effort to ensure we're investing in our frontline workers. And when I learned in the context that you've also done similarly, they are exactly the same for attention bonuses for DQW staff as well as police. This really felt like an equity and fairness issue more than anything. And I wanted to make sure we were not waiting any longer than we need to. My intention is certainly in the future because I'm very much on a process kind of person, much like honoring the process that you all have been hard at work and you do inherit things those new governments. But it is very much my intention to make sure to work in partnership with the city council and with our unions and any other kind of related employment issue to make sure people have a prior notice. It's not fun by any means to come into weeks into the job and try to dive in and understand the fiscal impacts. But also at the end of the day, I find my responsibility as mayor to make sure of Stuart Ford work that has good track records and we talked a lot about where the money would come from budget wise. And I feel very confident in this proposal to the council tonight. So I want to provide that wider context. With that, any further discussion or comments or are we ready for a motion. I will move to approve and recommend that the city council approve and authorize the fire chief, the fire chief to execute on behalf of the city to propose memorandum of agreement. And to recommend that the city council authorized the chief administrative officer or their desk need to affect all necessary budget amendments and transfers of funds to and from the above reference funding sources as needed to pay the proposed potential costs. Thank you councilor for also being a full motion so folks know where we are in agenda and I really appreciate that. Is there a second second by councilor came. Thank you. Any further discussion. See none. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Any opposed saying aye. Noting here. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Right along. Our next item. I'll share you joined us but she has people who think I have a lock on it. Maybe. Shake the table over here we're going to move on. I did number 4.2 this year 23 city city of Burlington tax incremental increment financing district annual reports to that see which is the Vermont economic progress council. So we will just introduce yourselves please and tell us what we have. Thank you. I'm Ashley Parker. I'm the city's capital program director. And Joe Turner the city assessor. And we are here to just introduce this item. It is the fiscal year 23. Tiff district annual reports to that see the Vermont economic progress council. This is a requirement by state statute that we provide an update on the status of both districts every year. We're a little late this year because that see recently underwent a change of leadership. And so their new leaders have been going through, you know, a transition period. And so now we're getting to that point of getting these ready for official certification. Just a bit I guess so I guess any questions that you guys might have for us on the annual reports. Questions. So point of information. But one is that I believe council carpenter will be joining us online if she's not there already. So I'm going to go back to the item 4.2 is there any, are there any further comments or questions on this tip annual report to that see. And do you need a vote on this item? I want to make sure you all have camera time too. That's really how we get back to the item 4.2. Is there any, are there any further comments or questions on this tip annual report to that see. And do you need a vote on this item or is this information. I think it's just before I think it's not fun to entertain any questions you would have associated with it. Pretty straightforward. Right. The mayor does do the final certification. Yes, just in terms of oral process. Yes. Well, thank you both very much. So Lou. Right. Item 4.3 is our next item. It's a resolution. Authorization of the refinancing of city of Burlington's 18, 18, 840, 100,000 general obligation waterfront tax. And this is with. Brian. Brian. For the record, I'm Brian pine, the director of the community and economic development office and with me tonight is our tip consultant. I'm David White. Excuse me. My name is David White, president of Whitebrook real estate advisors to the consultants of the city of Burlington. What would be, I think what I'll run through is just. At a high level, what this borrowing is about basically. It's essentially a routine refinancing of. What we call project notes as opposed to tax exempt bonds and the differences with notes. You usually. Borrow through notes for short periods because you have a number of variables unknowns that are coming that will determine what the final borrowing amount will be through a bond. And so you would would go out to the market and try and find a lender willing to provide you with with basically financing through a project note. They are shorter term in nature and they're expected to be either rolled over for another short term period or taken out with what we call permanent financing. And so the reason why we have a project note here is. Because the total value of the private improvements and those private improvements that that's where the tax increment comes from is the value of private improvements. Really has yet to be determined the project scope for at least the north portion is still evolving and developing the south portion is about, I don't know, 20% 25% complete. So we know what the south portion of the project will entail. But until the entire project is known. We don't have a way to know what the tax revenue or the increment will be that will then be used to create the model the financing model to finish can issue a bond and know that we have that revenue to be able to service that bond for the life of the bond. So, in addition, we have some grants that have come into the project, which will ultimately be able to ensure that we expand the scope of the project, but yet actually borrow a little bit perhaps less than we had intended. So it's good news for the city for the taxpayers, then there's bidding on the public improvements, which still has yet to happen. And then that bidding does determine what we need for for the financing amount when you take the grants and you apply them to the bid amount and then you have the remainder is what we end up financing. So, just to hit a couple high note highlights here the art of amended restated development agreement 2.0, which has been thus amended several times does obligate the city to do this refinancing we have. We met the deadline last year, which is a June, June 30 2023 deadline and did the borrowing through project notes last summer. And so this, this is, you know, we refer to this as interim financing, and it's really what we need to do in order to make the wisest decisions with the long term commitment, which by the time we issue a bond is going to be, I don't know, 11 or 12 year bond at that point. To be determined, but that's what we're doing this bond reaches maturity. I'm sorry, the note that we have currently for the for the project reaches maturity. I should just note the 18,840 was borrowed and literally placed in a custodial account. None of those funds have been spent and the earnings have actually exceeded the cost of borrowing. And so that's in finance terms that's arbitrage and it's positive arbitrage, not negative, which is great. We don't want to see the negative. But because it's positive, it sort of builds up a cumulative surplus, if you will, that will be there in the event that we go negative in this next note period that we're heading into after the end of May. So, David, did I miss anything there? I would just add one other thing, which is that the under the terms of the ARTA 2.0, the amended and restated development agreement with city place partners, they are actually obligated to pay any deficit or a net cost of the interest on this note. So that the city is protected, you know, a couple of ways. One is now the positive arbitrage that it's experienced so far, but then also because the developer pay any, if they're at some point we hit negative arbitrage the developers contractually obligated to pay that. So far we haven't had to build. So this really is a pretty straightforward refinancing an existing piece of debt, gives the city the time to any hopefully a year from now, be able to roll it into permanent debt. It's conceivable that there will be reasons to delay even at that point. I want to say with certainty this is the last time we've all but for now we're looking at a one year. Defense. David, thanks to see you again. Yes, I see it was well I've been meaning to say congratulations haven't had the opportunity. Any questions or discussion. Thank you. Just, I know the reasons for those who are new to the board and maybe the people you can talk a little bit about why we had to incur the project now that when we did and why we're doing these temporary measures. Sure, the legislature gave us a deadline basically and every TIF district has a deadline and by that deadline you need to have done your borrowing. Or you lose the opportunity and so rather than lose the opportunity to to finance. I mean, we're under an obligation as well through the amended restated development agreement. And that obligation is essentially we as a municipality are required to borrow the funds to finance the public improvements and the developer is required to deliver a project that generates the tax revenue to service that financing. That's basically the arrangement that we're in right now. So in order to keep our end of the bargain, we had to borrow by the end of June and last year. We lose our ability to borrow it all. Exactly. No. Voters approve this in November of 2016 and we're still operating under that approval. Further questions or discussion on this item. I will entertain. I will ask for a motion on this item. And there's a resolution. I don't think that we need to miss the council so I'd move to recommend that the city council approve the attached resolution. Thank you. All right, sorry, any further discussion before we go. Seeing none. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Any opposed. Motion carries unanimously. And Sarah carpenter before council carpenter before we go on. I just want to make sure you can hear us. Yes, I can hear you. Great. I just want to make sure we have a connection. Great. Wonderful. All right. Moving on to the last item on our delivered agenda. Thank you both very much. And a 4.4 of resolution that will be the authorization for reimbursement from public improvement bonds for the school district capital improvements for integrated arts academy from the school district. We will date slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery. Here from the brothers and sisters to join us. Welcome. Thanks for being here. Hi, thanks for having me. Welcome through. Sure. I actually this afternoon did create memo which I'll certainly can provide electronically as well. However, you folks. That's more see that, but I think this may be easier to follow along with a copy of the money here. So, this memo goes beyond the issue before the. Order finance evening. But at this suggestion of president traverse, we decided we provide a kind of broader update of where we are in the capital plan process for the school district generally. But to be clear, really part of this evening is the reimbursement resolution for our project integrated arts academy. That work is just commencing. If you've driven by the campus, you've probably seen, there's like a mobile drilling rig up there. There are a few other kind of interesting sites, but it's going to begin in earnest. Obviously, once school ends in June and. Students are off the campus and then from that point on, it'll be construction site for the following year as we do a lot of significant work, notably HVAC work on that building. So, the point of the reimbursement resolution is that we know we're not going out and borrowing the money that we're using to pay for some of those improvements immediately in the reimbursement resolution just allows us to use the proceeds of that. Eventually borrowing reimburse us for costs that we will begin incurring as we start project. So that's the point of the reimbursement resolution. This memo again goes well beyond that provides kind of an update of where we are overall. There's really two major sources of. Three major sources of bond authorization that the school districts are choosing for its capital plan. They are the standing $2 million per year annual authorization amount city has a kind of equivalent provision available to it. Then we have the $19 million motor approved authorization from 2017 for capital investments generally. And then we have the big one, the $165 million. We're only in high school and technical center bond from 2022. So those are the authorization for 2022. So those are the three big pieces. We haven't fully exercised the either of those two motor approved authorizations to date. But with this commitment to the IA project, we will have mostly exhausted on paper what we can do with that money, right? That $19 million is mostly going to be spoken for. We'll see where the actual project costs come in the end. Whether or not we've got anything else that we can we can spend that money on but that's kind of where we're headed right now. So that's at a high level. What's in here? Why don't I pause and just kind of go in whatever direction that you all want to go in with respect to questions either about specifically or more generally about. Kind of our approaches to the use of those bond proceeds. Thank you. And I also just want to remind the board that we're going to have a more full presentation on this at the, are you all at the city council meeting. So just a friend reminder that we'll have more chance to dive into more details. Very. But with that said, any questions for an eight or a discussion. Yeah. Thanks. And look forward to the presentation for full council as well. I guess. I'm wondering if you can specifically speak to, I know that when voters considered the bond seven years ago that the school district had. There were sort of various plans for which the bond money is maybe used for acknowledging that none of them were set aside for the high school, but. Yeah, there was sort of a piece for multiple buildings around the district that might be benefited by these bond monies and I guess I'm just wondering if you can speak a little bit to. If you recall looking back seven years ago, sort of how I factor into that initial plan and whether or not. They're spending more monies on that project now is in any way. They're taking away some other pieces for other buildings around the district. Yeah, good question. And I can have a more precise answer for the meeting because that that information is available. We did do so what council covers is referring to is when in the lead up to 2017, we did our analysis. We did kind of a high level estimate of what different buildings would require in terms of investment. And that's what we use to. Add up and reach a total estimated 39, 39 million dollars worth of need over a 10 year period. And the campus was among the biggest single chunks of that. So, and I'll find the exact number there. So I couldn't tell you, I thought my head whether we're like above or below that total. We may my guess is we're going to be a little above that with this project. In part because we're going beyond what was specifically envisioned and identified and assessed as necessary in that study that we did a few years ago. Because in working with our architects and our design team, one of the things we identified about the situation is. Pieces the pieces of the project that we are that are kind of costing more that we're going beyond are the pieces that. If we don't do them now, we could do them in the future, but it would require us to go through a subsequent relocation of students. So essentially said, we've got an opportunity right now where we have a place or a couple of different places. To relocate those students to in the next year, and we want to take full advantage of that. We know it's very disruptive to the school, community, students, teachers, etc. So this is really our chance to do as much of that work in the most efficient way as possible. Having said that, to your other kind of part of your question about the kind of what's the trade off, if you will. The reality is all of our buildings still have levels of need that would justify additional investment, but is clearly the one that hasn't received any investment. Over a number of years to any significant investment anyway. So I think as we assessed it, we looked at it and said. It will be kind of penny wise and pound foolish to not do everything that the kind of situation allows for us to do in terms of relocating students. And it's the school with the greatest need at this time. So I think we, the board was comfortable with the idea that we would commit the balance by and large, the balance of those funds to get us to a point there will be confident that we won't need other major work at that school in the near future. Thank you. Other questions. Thank you. There's more of a comment. I think I was on the board when we didn't we did all of these, this bonding back in 2017 and I do recall that I was pointed out as being having particular need then that was prioritized, but couldn't be executed on because it's a swing space as we were calling it places to but display students. So that's one of the primary reasons why it's been delayed. Right. Yes, that's correct. Yeah, swing space, the availability of appropriate instructional spaces is, you know, there's not a lot of just empty schools. So we're just hanging around that we can move students into so we're partnering with Sarah Holbrook for some of our youngest learners and then St. Mark's is going to be the location for our older elementary students. And as you'll see to the memo that name appears because St. Mark's is available because we are currently occupying it, but we're vacating as we move our horizon program over to Rock Point. So there's a lot of connected pieces in this in this puzzle. That's our questions. I'll have some new neighbors and Sarah. Okay, very, very surprised. Great. All right, well, I don't know if there's no further comments. Please entertain a motion. I recommend that the city council approve the attached resolution. Thank you. Councilor Travers. Is there a second? Thank you. Councilor Marble. Thank you. I looked out. I wasn't looking great as a second. Any further discussion on the court? Seeing none. All my favorite indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Thank you so much, Nate. See you upstairs soon. Thank you. So we have reached the end of our deliberative agenda and seeing no other business. Without further ado, I adjourn the board of finance at 534 p.m. Thank you all. That's what I'm talking about. Thank you, Joe, for being on there. Appreciate it. I apologize. Had 530 in my calendar. So, Okay. Special case scenario. All right.