 Good evening everybody. Welcome to the South Brilliant City Council meeting for October 17th. I am sitting in as the chair tonight as Megan Emery is home and Helen really the normal chair is out of the country. So we'll begin with agenda item number one which is Pledge of Allegiance. Matt, would you please lead us please? So we have instructions for exiting the building Jesse? Yes so for those in the room can go out either door at the back of the room and to the right or left exit for those who are participating remotely. If you'd like to speak on any agenda item please either write to me that you would like to speak and we will call on you or turn your camera on and we will call on you. We are not monitoring the chat for content. Thank you. Item number three agenda review are there any additions or deletions or changes in order of the agenda items tonight? Yes I would like to recommend to the council that given that we are missing two members and the urgency of several different agenda items that we go through agenda items one through ten which takes us through the normal course of business the public hearing additional action and then the conversation with the school on school impact fees but then table items 11 to 14 for either for future for future agendas. I do too do we need a motion for that? Yes I would move that we table agenda items 11 through 14. And I'll second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. And I don't think they're any opposed because there's nobody else here. Thank you. Great. Item number four comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda tonight. Is there anybody in the public that would like to make a comment? I'm hearing crickets. Actually I'm not even hearing crickets. I hear nothing. Okay we'll move on to number five which is counselors announcements and reports on committee assignments and the city managers report. Matt do you have anything? No GMTA beats tomorrow morning. What is? The Green Mountain Transit Authority meets tomorrow morning. Right okay I saw some emails on that too right okay and are they going to elect a new chair or? There is a new chair. His name is Austin Davis from Wanooski. Oh okay replacing Bonnie. I'm going to screw up her last name. What is your something with the dough? Austin Davis is the new chair. Okay. Megan do you have anything to report? Yeah I attended the charter review committee last Wednesday and there was Christine Lott and Bill and help me Jesse the name of the city manager of Montpelier the last name Fraser. Fraser thank you who gave really good information comparing the city manager system and the so-called weak mayor system to our system which has city counselors serving at large and I thought it was it was a really informative discussion and they also asked us in receipt of the planning commission's report that they are not in favor of increasing the number of commissioners on the planning commission that we discussed that and that is an agenda item that was just tabled and so I just wanted to to draw your attention to that the the thought was you know that diversity might be something that the city council would want to consider or at least have the charter review committee consider and so I I will reserve comments till that future date when we discuss that. Thank you I attended three meetings last week the economic development committee met on Tuesday but unfortunately they didn't have a quorum so it was the very loose discussion for about an hour. Also the energy committee met on the next night Wednesday and they had a button-up event at Bibin's Ace Hardware on Saturday and there were donuts just so you know there there were donuts and I missed it very sad saw some pictures on their Facebook group and it looked like they got some interested people to pick up some information. I also attended the the third of the pedestrian bridge design meetings on Thursday night and there is a final design selected of course it's an ongoing process and there are a lot of things that are changing as that process moves on so although there is a final you know look to it I mean the little things could change as as design elements you know become modified but I was pleased with the design and I thought it looked a little bit like you know a reed boat that was on the Nile because it had a very long thin reddish color to it and the Eddie was very happy to hear that it looked like that and finally I did make a visit with two other BCA members to a building off of Kimball Avenue for a a tax appeal and we have written that up and we're meeting on Thursday about that and that's all I have. Great a few updates from me just on the bridge or reminder the council that that final design will come to you on November 7th for your for your sign off. A couple of updates from me thanks to Andrew and the our internal equity committee's work we have been selected to be part of the state ideal cohort. Ideal is a cohort sponsored by the racial equity advisory panel of the state and stands for inclusion diversity equity action and leadership. This is a cohort of municipalities who are looking to do equity work across the state to bring us together to provide learning opportunities technical assistance shared best practices. Susan and Davis is the one who's kind of leading that up so thanks to Andrew and the equity committee for getting us into that program. I also want to give the council and the community some quick updates on city center development. Paul and his team are in the final stages of approving and considering an amended permit for 112 Garden Street that's the building that will be developed on Garden Street right near healthy living. So they came back with a permit amendment permit amendment to that to add a child care facility to that building. So pending approval it will be 120 new homes including a child care facility and a coffee shop in that building. So that's a great next addition to our TIF district. They hope to be closing in early November and starting construction soon after that so we will likely see that breaking ground this winter. And then Paul public works public safety our office is spending a great deal of time with Snyder Braverman thinking about the subdivision and permits for the middle block between us and Garden Street and how that will be subdivided will be four to five new buildings that's the investment that UVM is making in our TIF district. They are having a very ambitious goal of getting that submitted in November to be permitted over the winter and starting construction over the winter and early April or early spring with the following buildings to immediately come. So we're going to see a lot of construction in city center very quickly. One of the community to know that youth basketball registration is in high gear folks can register for that online. We have a ton of great programs going they also want me to remind you of the upcoming Halloween events so October 28th is the the Halloween decoration winner will be announced and community pumpkin carving at the senior center here at City Hall and then the 29th is the Halloween glow walk at Goose Park from six to eight. A couple of public works updates the contractor for the fence changes at the dog park up at Wheeler will be here right now on October 24th and we will be installing the crushed stone as they adjust the gate entrance as well and then on October 20th the water department has the contractor coming in to look at the water leak under the interstate so we should know more after that. Just a reminder to the community that the second installment of tax bills are due November 15th there are still several options for relief or payment plans if people are struggling financially as we continue to come out of the pandemic please reach out to our tax collector assessor Martha Lyons and she can work with you on a plan and then finally October 27th at six o'clock here is our next meeting for the city center park or city center park phase two construction of the boardwalk in anticipation of that final tiff pond vote six o'clock yeah and that is what I have thank you I have one more item I think that everybody has had their general election ballots mailed to them I think most people have received them by now and if you've gone through that process of filling them out and mailing the vacuum you probably recognize that they had prepaid postage on them which is great the cswd the waste districts bond vote to build the new mirf is a totally separate ballot and you have to request that um donnie kinville the city clerk has been trying to communicate that as effectively as possible through front porch forum articles and elsewhere you have to request those ballots in order to have them mailed to you if you go to the balloting place on election day I think they'll be there if you have them mailed to you just before warned that there is no return prepaid postage on the envelopes so either you would fix some stamps to get it mailed or you could drop it off here at city hall there's a box on the outside or during the city hours you can bring into the city clerk so just make sure you know that that there's no there's no prepaid return uh postage on those cswd bond ballot ballot votes great thanks tim can I add one more thing yes we're on elections because whoever's listening I think it's important that if you do decide as many do want to vote on election day bring your ballot that was mailed to you to the polling place that is your official ballot now if you've never received one maybe get lost in the mail maybe it fell in with the recycling you can still vote but you will have to fill out a lost ballot application which takes a little time so if you want to vote on election day bring your ballot to the poll thanks item number seven a six sorry the consent agenda were there any questions about the disbursements that's the only item on there otherwise can we have a motion to approve the the consent agenda I move that we approve the consent agenda second we have a motion and a second is there any other discussion all right then all those in favor say aye aye aye all those opposed none all right that's the consent agenda is approved and now we're going to item number seven which is opportunity for counselors in the public to share information and resources on climate change do any of the counselors have any information um I'll just say that uh that the I cannot I mean the uh energy committee had a really interesting discussion about the wheeler house and the um there was a plan a while ago so so first of all the the wheeler house right now is heated by uh an oil fueled boiler that I think produces steam into old steam radiators throughout the building many years ago there was talk about um changing that to be natural gas so now of course we're thinking about an ordinance that might prevent that even though it's not new construction so the energy committee is talking about what alternatives are there to um natural gas and heat pumps came up that generated a lot of discussion it was very interesting and and then another question was asked well what's the electric energy consumption of that building right now what would it be if it did have heat pumps and how well insulated is it and has it had a door blower test and a lot of interesting you know efficiency questions like that and then I asked the question why aren't there any solar panels on top of the pizza oven roof because there is a walk-in freezer in that building right and um that we don't have I think we've hit our cap in the city so we couldn't sell any of our excess power back but if you had a small array it would probably end up you know taking care of the freezer and a little bit more on on those sunny days and maybe part of the heat pump if it's running to cool the building but so that was an interesting discussion about um that that one example of an older building that needs a retrofit so I'm sure though that discussion will continue with that committee anything else from anybody the the public hearing is scheduled for seven o'clock do we have the ability to move 10 or that interfere or can we split 10 so we have uh both Jonathan Jonathan Slason from RSG and Violet joining us at seven they were planning to be here at seven for that school impact fee can we um Paul or Colin can you weigh in on given that we're going to hold the public hearing tonight but then also ask provide other information to the council can we do that in advance of the public hearing so my understanding is we're going to hold the public hearing tonight on the ordinance on the TDRs um we received written public comment from my understanding is from Vermont land trust about a request they would like to see to the ordinance and we are going to recommend that they make those changes I feel like you guys are looking at me like you don't know what I'm talking about make those changes um and warn another public hearing so could the council take up what those other changes might be before the public hearing starts so why don't we move to nine okay don't take action on it until you've had the public hearing but Paul can outline what I'm talking about more eloquently okay hi everybody Paul Connor director of planning and zoning so I'm here to speak to item nine on the agenda which is some proposed amendments to the land development regulations you're going to be having a public hearing at 7 p.m and staff is going to be recommending that you warn a second public hearing and I'll go into that in just a moment um the amendments broadly speaking um are to expand the function of the city's transfer development rights program and make some related edits and some technical changes um the expansion of the TDR program would not change anything on the where transfer development rents can be sold from but it expands the markets for use of them uh so the markets currently are all within the southeast quadrant that stays the same the expanded areas are in the areas along Shelburne Road, Kennedy Drive, parts of Williston Road, and then adjacent streets like Swiss Street and Allen Road where the um the purchase of a TDR which would um conserve land zone natural resource protection in the southeast quadrant could then be used to buy additional density in these areas residential density where there's a current a cap um along Shelburne Road and these other places so that's the basic function of it this was one of the recommendations that had come out of the TDR interim zoning committee and is also aligned with the city's um goals of fostering and allowing for more housing in the areas that are served by uh transportation utilities etc so that's the basics of it i'm happy to go into greater detail the change that uh we are recommending this evening we received a letter from the Vermont Land Trust that's in your packet and the VLT was uh concerned that the prior round of amendments adopted earlier this year establishes different types of planned unit developments one of the types is a conservation PUD um and it's mandatory in certain areas in a conservation PUD what uh the function of it is essentially that uh if you have a piece of land you can develop on 30 percent of that land and you must conserve at least 70 percent of the land Vermont Land Trust's concern was that they uh were were are anticipating performing a conservation effort that would conserve something in the neighborhood of 70 or more percent of a parcel in advance of doing any development work they wanted to be clear and get clarity from the city that if they were to do that conservation work say today and then two five ten whatever number of years into the future they choose to do a conservation PUD that uh they would get essentially credit for having done the conservation that they did today so let's say they conserve 70 percent of the land on a parcel today the outcome that they would not want to see is that of the 30 percent that remains today that they then have to conserve 70 percent of that in order to be a conservation PUD does that make sense so they sought a clarification um we had our city attorney look at it our city attorney felt that uh she felt that the language is probably reasonably uh was reasonably clear as stands but there's no harm in being more clear on the subject um you know with i i take i'm not an attorney but i take the philosophy of if somebody's worried about it then that's probably a good reason to think about it and consider a change so the um deputy city attorney has recommended a small adjustment and i'm going to put up on the screen i did send it to you just shortly ago but i don't expect folks are um reading your packets in the minutes before meetings so this is in the chapter on conservation planned unit developments how they work um this is where it talks about the 70 percent that i just spoke about and the proposed addition is what's in red there um it's clarifying exactly what i just said that well i'll let you meet it so that's the recommendation um in order to make any changes there's two there's two thresholds for when the council needs to want a public hearing one is if it's going to be a substantial change um deputy city attorney doesn't feel that this substantial change is just clarification however it's also in state law that if the council makes any changes to a draft set of regulations sooner than 15 days before the public hearing and the public hearing is today that it is required to hold another public hearing so the public can review this change so our recommendation would be that you hold your public hearing this evening and then um conclude it and warn a second public hearing with this language for your second meeting in november thanks paul i understand why you need to do that public hearing process and i understand i think that this is just a clarification of the conservation area that that was approved um earlier this year but this doesn't affect tdrs in any way so this is just i'm just interested in the process this came about because it was just uh spotted uh and they thought that this would be a good opportunity to revise it because of we're making additional changes to the to the ldrs through the so i had a conversation with our contact at the montland trust about a month ago and they said we've been reading the language about the amendment to the tdrs we wanted to understand how this works we're comfortable with that but as we were reading it uh this question came up to us um and it's related it's not tdrs per se but it is a related subject because it has to do with the essentially what happens as they pursue conservation of land um some of this retaining values of tdrs some of this is um conservation puds um so i invited them to write a letter to council if they chose to i did specifically ask our deputy city attorney if she felt that this change was sufficiently germane to the changes that you are making right now um and she felt that given that it's a clarification and that's in a section that was uh warned for public hearing that she was comfortable that you have the authority to advance it and not send it all the way back to the beginning there you go so we have a nexus and if i'm cautious i do it because there's not those from our land trust but another land trust sued the city regarding our tdrs saying that they are in fact illegal the supreme court upheld the city of south berlington tdrs are legal despite those efforts to overturn them correct you so this brings up an interesting point that i was just thinking about um is the land trust are they interested in well so if you did a conservation pud in a sending tdr area would are they interested in that conserved area to be potentially sellable for tdrs or if because i think the way they're written now is that there has to be surveyed for the purpose of being sold as a tdr but if you put a conservation easement on 70 percent of that parcel and it's an ascending area and once that's done you can't create a tdr out of it because it's already been taken as a the um the and call them feel free to jump in here but the what has been described to us is that they are two separate areas of law so a tdr is a um is a function of our zoning and a conservation easement that is done is a property is a private property choice essentially between the montland trust and the land owner therefore we have historically and this would continue to allow both to happen so you can both choose to permanently conserve a piece of land and retain its tdr valley wow i'm i'm surprised by that it seems illogical right it seems like because they're both trying to do the same thing which is prevent any development on that piece of surveyed land and any conservation easement has to be a surveyed right but as well right consider and and you know we can certainly have policy discussions on it but in the instance for example of the octler property which is what the montland trust is looking at now part of how they and the various different partners looked to and were able to acquire the property for conservation purposes was accounting for the tdr value as something that they would later be able to sell so that's part of the math of how they were able to buy the property and conserve it to begin with was that's a embedded value so that would mean there was two separate you know filings or easements filed with the deed then right yes okay this language ensures that the land trust can retain that asset essentially or or clarifies it right well this this specific change would assure that if they go ahead and conserve some portion of the property that the as i said a conservation pd has to um conserve at least 70 of the property set aside tdr is completely it would say if you've already conserved some at some portion of it you get credit for doing that you don't um you don't have to start all over so if you had a hundred acres and today of your own volition you conserve 70 percent of that 70 acres uh if in three years time you go to do a conservation pd you don't have to conserve 70 percent of the remaining 30 you get credit for the 70 that you've already conserved great explanation paul that was if it's i understand yep it's almost seven o'clock tick tock and the date of the second meeting in november would be what uh november 21st november 21st at seven p.m so that would be our recommendation once you do close your hearing to hold the second one we have a question in the audience but do you want to hold that till we start the public hearing we have a quorum megan's online um i would sorry what was the date we wanted well let's wait till we have two minutes we're taking two minutes we're just gonna we're just gonna sit here and just wait two minutes stretch we're just gonna like bask in the sun the former city hall building in the senior's little closet i discovered one time had a series of knock knock jokes yeah that proved very useful when we had one or two minutes they were really really low quality knock knock jokes but they did you have a hand right now i don't we left them we left them for the school district so you might find them the school board meeting in the future i had a bunch of horse jokes prepared but they all went out to pasture well i'll tell a quick story uh when i was five years old uh you know and i summered with my parents on the vineyard um i made friends with the kid that was four years old and today um i actually located him randomly on the internet and contacted him and said are you the same person he goes yeah so it's it's pretty amazing that the internet is just too powerful you know i mean he could be lying of course and you know and so then you know i'm just writing checks or something like that but you know um i think it's pretty cool if you go back you know 58 years or something like that and you ask somebody so anyway okay i think we're seven o'clock on the dot so can i have a motion to open public hearing i would make a motion that we open a public hearing on amendments to the land development regulation so expands expanding tdrs second thank you we have a motion in a second is there any other discussion all those in favor say hi hi hi the public hearing is officially open paul connor director of planning and zoning you uh we have received one comment um during the comment period was from the vermont land trust that's been shared in your packet and we have proposed language uh up on the screen of um a staff recommendation for adjusting that that's the only comment we have thus received so this is a public hearing we want to hear from the public now mr mitag you want to come up and turn on the light on your microphone a proprietary question whether it is appropriate for me uh as a chair of the interim zoning tdr committee and a planning commissioner to be able to make a comment as a simple resident of south berlington sure it's it's it would be it's difficult for me to just to distance myself from them um i think the tdr ordinance that has been drafted and with the help of staff and the planning commission is a vast improvement on what we had before but um i believe it's still deeply flawed and the reason i say that is that sending and receiving areas remain both in the secu and the secu is an area where we uh we try to conserve open space and most of south berlington's open space is in the secu and furthermore this fact runs counter to what the climate action plan recommends namely that south berlington should conserve all the open space it has wherever possible and i'm asking the council maybe to revisit this sometime when the planning commission gets back to its its work and starts to review the things that have been brought up in the public comment that's it thank you is there anybody else from the public they would like to comment on these proposed changes to the transferable development rights within the ldr tonight during this public hearing i see linda bailey i would hey linda hi everyone um basically the only comment that i want to make is one that i brought up to the planning commission but i want to make sure that the city council gets to hear it as well the tdrs has they currently go to the best of my understanding they are forever if you have sold the development rights to your land to have denser housing in another part of the city your land can never ever ever ever have anything done with it i think that that ties the hands of our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren i'd rather see some sort of revisiting of whether a piece of land continues to be undevelopable at i believe the state's death limit is 30 years is the least time to conserve it and i'd like to see something added to the tdrs that it can be revisited at 30 years whether to continue conserving it or be in the best interests of the people at that time to do something else or have available to do something else thank you thank you who else in the public would like to make a comment going once going twice one more chance anybody in the public want to make a comment on this public hearing about the transferable development rights all right then i guess we have no choice but to go ahead and have a motion to close the public hearing i would make a motion that we close the public hearing on amendments to the land development regulations transfer development rights mail second we have a motion in a second is there any other discussion all those in favor say i i i okay thank you so the hearing is now closed we're going to talk about potential action on the amendments for the ldrs to expand the tdrs there is a a suggestion that we should uh warn another public hearing on november 21st is that what we should do uh if the council is interested in integrating this language as proposed then you should set a second public hearing for november 21st at seven o'clock with the norntons as provided in front of you so uh after hearing from um paul uh i and from callin i would make a motion that we hold a public hearing on november 21st at seven p.m on the proposed amendments that are presented tonight with the changes that we just saw recently second we have a motion and a second is there any other discussion all those in favor say i i i megan i okay just to make it sure all right so we have a uh a public hearing scheduled or warned it will be warned for november 21st at seven o'clock on this same subject matter thank you everyone thank you paul um moving on to item number 10 which is receive a proposal from the school board on implementing school impact fees and provide direction to staff in advance of considering an ordinance update great so i'm going to kick this off i believe we have with us the interim school superintendent violet nickles and jonathan slayson from rsg um andrew could you email oh there's violet great um so i just want to make a few introductory comments and then i'll pass it over to the experts here so the council um at your steering committee meeting on june 22nd heard a draft of the impact fee report from jonathan and rsg and the um and the uh school board recommending that we as a community consider implementing impact fees um we since that time violet and i have spent a fair amount of time together thinking about what that could look like for our community um the thinking the community has done to date on neat infrastructure needs for the school um and tonight we are bringing you a recommendation an initial recommendation to think about updating our impact fee ordinance to include school impact fees specifically for kind of phase one of increasing infrastructure for our school community specifically the implementation of zems um the council has talked in several different settings about how we keep up with the growth in our community um with our infrastructure and with our staffing on the municipal side this is a very similar conversation on the school side this community needs to invest in our school infrastructure as our community continues to grow and there are more children um and families in the school um really appreciate the partnership of the interim's uh superintendent violet and jonathan to move this forward in this phased approach it is a phased approach we will be coming back to you in the future as we have more community conversations about the permanent needs of the school community to appropriately provide services to our to our students so there are kind of three key questions that um we're gonna you're gonna hear some details on tonight but we would love the council to provide feedback on those are one is the proposed impact fee amount uh palatable to the council in the community is there a different um percentage you would like us to look at for that proposed impact fee amount um the second is um the school is recommending an exemption for the development of permanently affordable housing um is that an exemption that you are interested in looking at ordinance language around um and then the third is the implementation timeline at what point in the permitting process are those impact fees attached are they at zoning permits or are they at construction permits um and what is the runway we want to give our development community that these impact fees are coming after you hear from the experts and consider those key questions our next steps will be to bring back to you an actual proposed ordinance draft that you will then consider hold a public hearing on and move from there so we're not looking for a vote tonight as much as feedback on that after you hear from the experts um in preparation for an ordinance coming before you in the future so with that I will turn it over to Violet thank you so much Jesse and good evening everyone um I'd like to thank you all for having me here tonight I um I've enjoyed um the opportunity to have a lot of discussions um regarding how to continue to support enrollment um within our wonderful community which I believe enriches it a great a great deal um and so how do we continue to um provide the excellent quality of education that our district draws so many new residents to so that's the question that I've been working with um both the south burlington school district school board and with um miss baker and mr. slayson um and many other constituents in the community including some of the faces in this room I'd be remiss if I didn't start by acknowledging the work of our past board and uh superintendent young as well as the enrollment committee that uh committee made up of community members and um educators alike made a recommendation uh for our current school board to move forward with putting these zems uh these zero emission modulars for each at two of our elementary schools that are experiencing the greatest um over enrollment rick marcot central school and orchard school are birth are both currently well over capacity and uh these zems were meant to be temporary solutions uh put in this school year to help alleviate some of the burden that we're seeing in these schools so again these are unbudgeted expenses uh when I um began in this role on July 1st one of my first orders of business was to get straight to work so I started collaborating with our friends at the agency of education um combing through our funding sources looking at everything from esser funds finally settling on um some bond money uh the district had slated about 1.2 million dollars for um a new roof at the middle school as you all know uh with supply chain difficulties this project was delayed as materials were unavailable so we were able to um with the board's approval re-appropriate this um current f y 23 money toward zems at the time this amount seemed sufficient um as the quotes um were in I don't know the early summer late spring brought forward to be about 160 000 per unit so uh 1.3 million dollars being an estimated total since then we've experienced a number of of significant um impacts to that figure those starting with the cost the increased cost of labor um supply chain issues causing further uh inavailability and driving up the cost of materials um some of the most expensive pieces of those projects were not put in the quote um so I would name labor um being one of those so um nothing was budgeted for a construction manager for architecture fees legal fees permitting fees um things like technology finishes such as what siding what flooring um hooks versus lockers all important decisions um were not factored in so those are some of the reasons that we've we've seen this um significantly increased cost um to six million dollars and the six million dollars is for um it's not inclusive not inclusive of any financing fees which um you know we'll likely discuss later in the conversation um you know and I'm here today to acknowledge that um you know we need to find enrollment um well solutions for this for this over enrollment that we're seeing um right now at the two elementary schools but as these students age through our system they'll continue to need uh spacing solutions as they become middle schoolers and high schoolers and um because we don't know exactly what that will look like at this time we don't have approved quotes for instance of what a middle school or a high school um renovation or build would look like right and of course that would involve significant community engagement so those plans are not set in stone so we're unable to tie figures um to the impact fees associated with anything other than this very solid quote that we have for the ZEMS um so that is phase one of the um it's road to solutions here for continuing to provide excellent education to our students through just a physical space um you know I I think right now I'm here to engage in a conversation about seeking additional revenue sources uh the plan is for the district to go out to a bond vote in March at this point in time given that we have no other options to pursue in that none of these facilities needs urgent facilities needs were budgeted for this fiscal year if we were to go out for a bond vote in March we know that only about 20 percent of our voters have students in our schools and that bond votes are not um a reliable um source if we have our if we are in a situation like we are now where we have a um something that needs to be addressed immediately I utilizing um impact fees would allow us to continue to provide education for our students and and have the facilities to do so right now if an act 250 permit crosses my desk um and we have students in the rick markot or orchard schools I'm unable to approve those requests um this is um you know something that Jesse mentioned a partnership I feel very strongly I want to support um the developments the city has planned and with these developments um these impact fees are essential for providing um the educational needs facilities needs for our students um you know I guess I would say um addressing finally the point to a phased in approach as I understand and I have limited knowledge here but it's my understanding that many of the planned projects such as many of the two or three bedroom projects that are already underway um have already had permits pulled um and so when we're looking at when to implement these um these fees I would I would urge the council to consider a phased approach maybe it's a phasing in of six months um maybe it's phased in thirds um but I think we should certainly comb the numbers to see uh really in detail if we were to implement them now versus a phasing in the impacts that would have we certainly don't want to be in a position where we're prohibiting development um or providing unexpected costs to developers and then finally I would add uh as Jesse briefly mentioned um a provision for affordable housing as an equity provision that the board would like to see considered by the council as well and um I think that's uh that's it for my piece here I'm happy to um pass it on to Mr. Slason at this point and I'd like to thank him in particular too for um you know being supportive of um you know providing all kinds of information and in tight time frames too and to thank him for his knowledge so um Mr. Slason I'll turn it over to you. Very well thank you uh superintendent um I think really you've covered the majority of the materials and we met previously I believe it was June as uh as Jesse had mentioned um we covered really the the background of impact fees and how this particular design has come to fruition and we now have this phase one in front of us and I think probably the one piece that I would like to just make sure we're all aware of is that uh to the first question that was posed the impact the amount the amount that's being tabled in what was called the option uh that we're looking at is a legally maximum amount and that is to pay for the amount of new capacity that would be provided by the ZEMS that's in proportion to the share that the new growth and additional students that would be projected by that growth that would impose on the existing school environment and so this is a legally maximum fee that we could justify but it is up to you politically to understand whether that fee would be passed on to new home construction in the city if we did not pass on the full value then the general tax base would be asked to bear the burden through additional bonding and then the payment of that bond through the general education fund uh or the local a local percentage at the at the local level so I think that was one clarification that I thought would be helpful for you as you consider this and we're here to answer any questions clearly the ideas that new growth and new development imposes burdens on the existing infrastructure and that's what we're here as one potential funding source that would diversify our funding and revenue potential to offset that general burden imposed on the on the wide residents of South Burlington thank you very much for the presentation I've looked at the the presentation in the packet and I'm supposing that Councillor Emery and Councillor Cota have also done that there are only three of us tonight can you take us through if that's appropriate what those bottom line numbers are that you came up with at this point can we see that again do we have that document yes I can pull it up okay right now yeah and while uh Jesse's pulling that up I have the table in front of me which would be table 14 I think is what you're looking at on page 28 in the document and if there's a particular question about it I'm happy to answer that but the the bottom line numbers if you will arrive at a per bedroom rate and that's all predicated on the amount of students that would be anticipated that a household would generate and we're particularly looking at the pre-k through eighth grade students in the city the ideas that the ZEMs would be relocated or initially installed in the in two elementary classrooms or two elementary facilities however because these ZEMs would last for many years they could potentially be relocated but it also gives us flexibility within the pre-k through eight environment generally if we were to shift students between students between schools and shift people around it's adding capacity to that general pre-k through eighth environment and as you can see in the table on the screen here that based on the data that we have available to us is that if you're in a zero to one bedroom unit you have a pretty low probability of having a student as you get a two bedroom yet increases in probability and then basically a three plus bedroom you have a higher probability of having a student within the pre-k through eighth grade school environment and based on the cost of the ZEMs it costs $43,867 without financing to to accommodate an additional student daily student or annual student I should say in the in the school district within those grades and that's where those costs per household start to arrive from the last column D is one that I would call out quickly to say based on the share of housing types that are expected over the next five to 10 years using a weighted average we could rather than design the fee to be imposed on the per bedroom count you could impose a $4,331 fee to all housing units equally so that's the way the table is designed so we we could be looking at a choice of of this near term weighted average per building or actually doing it on a per bedroom basis is that a suggestion yeah okay so that is right and if it was three or more bedrooms it would be the flat $11,280 it would not like if it was a five bedroom house it would still be $11,280 you just want to make sure that's clear that is the way this is designed at this point in time but we could ask for possible change to have it just you know every extra bedroom has an additional charge to it if we wanted to right beyond the three bedroom there is some data to support that a four and five bedroom does have slightly higher occupancy and therefore a higher number of students but it is not a linear per bedroom ratio and so that's why you can see the scales here at the column A and B and then you jump up to the C it's not a linear scale between the number of bedrooms Matt so yeah question thanks Tim so Jonathan thank you for this you build a home you build a three bedroom home there's your impact fee if you are building a apartment unit that may not be permanently affordable the developer pays the impact fees upon when what is the what is your anticipation of how that would happen at this point in time it's at the time of the building permit is being pulled so prior to construction they would be paying the impact fee and that is the second or the third question that Jesse posed is that do we reconsider that timing at this point and maybe my professional recommendation at this point in time that we keep that consistent with current policy but potentially if the phase if the fees are as what's being proposed here maybe we would phase them in over a period of months six months even potentially longer yeah the challenge as we all know when you get final plot approval for building a home that is when you get your capital typically because you know your costs and then when you pull your permit is sometimes after that and it's a challenge I think for anyone building particularly those that are trying to build much needed affordable housing in the city small aid affordable would you impose it when we pose a fee based on pulling a permit um because of the financing concerns so I think a phased in approach is prudent phasing phasing in what way well the idea that you're going to pay based on what you pull your permit we may have projects already approved already financed already planned and now there's a fee associated with that because the permits haven't been pulled in order to build individual units that seems to be right that seems to be problematic from a financing standpoint do we have differentiation yeah go ahead go ahead I was only going to add that the phasing approach could take various forms but the general philosophy would be a percentage of this full rate and at some point in time it will reach that 100 percent of the full rate and it's up to you or prerogative to determine is month one 10 percent month two 20 percent or some derivation of that do we have a difference in situations between um you know a single family or one two one or two or three unit multifamily versus you know a 60 apartment block on on market street for example those are two different financing situations right do they require different treatment does anybody think I mean not being a developer if I were going to go build three single family homes in some development and these impact fees suddenly made an appearance when I pulled my permits I mean they you could just raise the the selling price by the amount of this impact fee but if you're going to build a 60 unit building you need to know what those costs are up front before you start because that's that's a lot of extra money that you hadn't planned on I understand that maybe my thinking is too simplistic here um correct me if I'm wrong but does there need to be a different approach there if you're asking me I would say that there that is where there are various ways that this fee can be assessed currently there is some distinction between single family multifamily however in the context of schools housing generates students regardless of multifamily or single family and it's all really about the size of the household or the housing unit and so the phase and approach as well as the fee design I think is more and the timing of when that fee is levied I think is more important rather than the single family multifamily distinction we have three situations here right we have single family homes then we have multi unit apartment buildings and then we have multi unit potential condo buildings right and they each have their own different workflow for how they're you know financed and then when they get permit and then if they get sold and or rented but they all have the same effect on the school district that if they have children living in some of these bedrooms it's it's it's more population for the school and therefore the impact fee is is relevant right because there's a capital cost to these zems I just want to make sure the audience knows that a zem is a zem it's a zero zero what energy zero energy module so it's a it's a prefabricated room that would have classroom activities in it that would be located adjacent right immediately adjacent to these schools right okay just want to make sure everybody knows that it's attached to the buildings is what we're hoping to see and I think we could I like to liken them to energy efficient trailers if you will only the spaces are much more conducive to learning than a trailer especially given the square footage so the so the framework of this impact fee I think is is appropriate because I mean there's a really good amount of work that's been done behind this and then the final numbers are what we need to talk about and and if we need to differentiate between like condominiums and single family or or duplexes or triplexes and have there been any feedback yet from any developers that we know of so we have not brought this to any kind of public hearing yet for developers I mean I think what I'm hearing is that there may be some interest from the council about looking at different models of what that phase and approach could be so I think we can do some homework for you to provide you some options we can build an option into an ordinance take it to a public hearing solicit that specific feedback from the development community and come back to you I know I would be interested in having a fourth column which is after three bedrooms have a four plus bedroom that that's something that I would love to see and to know what that number is I'm with you do we want to take a comment or question from the audience at this point I'll just add that I like the near term weighted average I think that um it just uh I think it it it ensures that the the you know the impact is is is spread out and and that the goal of the schools is met and I think that's what's really important here that we meet the the goal of the schools if it entices people to make three plus bedroom um uh impact our housing um they would be helping enrollment um but they would be meeting they would be meeting hopefully um the goal of having this this new resource uh to help pay for these zems until a more uh permanent solution is found so I'll just add that I guess my other opinion is that even though it's been voiced that you know there may be a desire to not ask for an impact fee for affordable housing I think we may want to talk about that extensively to understand whether some percentage of the of the final impact fee numbers should apply to affordable housing because the affordable housing is also going to generate a load on the schools and there has to be some payment by somebody because of that so I think I don't know where that money would come from and there there are a lot of sources um but I think that we need to have that discussion too because um you know both affordable and not both affordable housing and other types of housing generate um you know extra children in the schools and they need to be responsible for some portion of that capital um uh fees that are needed to build the zems so that's my other comment we have some people in the audience that would like to speak anybody else here before I offer them Jerry Silverstein are you on he is on Jerry you're muted on you want do you want to turn on your camera if you'd like uh camera can you hear me we can okay so I have a couple of questions let me try to just stay with the issue at hand with the impact fee a thought occurred to me will that be built into the final price of the house which I expected would the developer is going to have to eat that cost and I have presumed he'll roll that into the cost of the house now the problem there is you created double jeopardy situation um a person's educational tax assessment is driven by two factors the education tax rate and the value of the the assessed value of the home divided by a hundred so if you increase the cost the selling price of a house by twelve thousand dollars as of the impact fee the person's also going to pay an additional fee in their education tax because you've raised the assessed value of their home I think of that as a double jeopardy situation maybe other people have a different idea but that was my reaction when I heard that the second point with three if bio may answer this with regard to over enrollment for the two schools can you tell me what your optimal enrollment is in terms of students or teacher in the two schools which are over enrolled versus what you have right now in terms of the ratio of students to teacher how much above your optimal student to teacher ratio are you at right now if you have that information at hand hi mr. Silverstein thanks for your questions nice to hear from you um let's see so your question to clarify so you're not asking about class sizes here you're asking how by how many students are we over enrolled or about what percentage no i'm actually i'm actually looking for the ratio these numbers were talked about previously with david and i just want to know like is the difference between a student to teacher ratio of 18 to 1 optimal versus we're now at 21 to 1 you know how much above the optimal yeah so board policy g6 uh specifies the number of students to teacher ratios and there's there's two different levels there's an actually there's three and i can just pull these up right quickly all google this policy we calculated these impact fees at 17 students which was the average teacher to student the average class size based on these ratios so um that was the basis for calculating these jerry i right now i'm i'm operating on one screen um and so i want to stay with with this group right now later time if you can't get it now that's okay policy g6 if you'd like to go to the south burlington school district website you can pull that and it outlines the the class sizes for every age can you tell me about how much higher we are now because of the over enrollment is it 10 percent 20 percent do you know so i don't know that the ratios have the ratios haven't been impacted because as we've added students we've had to add teachers to stay within uh to in a in compliance with policy g6 so those ratios haven't changed um you saw i know you you track fte's effectively there were a few ads at orchard school for instance to continue to be within those class sizes um i think what you know an interesting question though is what by what percentage are we over enrolled at orchard school and rick marcot central schools and mr slason i don't want to put you on the spot but is that i recall seeing these figures last year is that something that's included in your report there is a table table six that does use the service standard that's being employed in the impact fee calculation which is generally based on square footage per student so it's a more encompassing number which accounts for common area space as well as other space within the educational facility at large and we're we do have a in the table six that i'm looking at there is a the service standard requirement if you will as well as what's existing today is in each school and show it so it does show how the rick marcot particularly has a deficiency of per student of 31 square feet on average the pre k through five shows a deficiency of 24 square feet per student so that's how it breaks down today um how a chamberlain excuse me is is is okay based on these service standards uh but we have difference between each of the grade levels okay my last my last five more general so i'll wait till other people talk okay thank you jerry i do have an answer for your first question if you'd like to address that one okay uh yeah the the term is double payment and we will design the fee so that if a impact fee payee a household pays an impact fee the base fee would be reduced by the amount of property tax burden that that house might be contributing for the same capacity so the law states very clearly that you cannot pay twice for the same benefit and that is why the report that's been put together is all draft because we have a base fee and that's what we're talking about today that base fee will be adjusted by a uh an estimate of how much property tax burden that household will pay that will contribute to the capacity expansion at hand so if we do try to make an attempt at uh the fact that impact fee payers will also be paying property taxes that will contribute to the educational fund okay okay moving to uh monica osby are you there monica you're you're here but my question is uh just posted there which is um wasn't there impact fees in the past if i'm remembering that correctly what was the structure then and did the school receive some of that last impact fee i don't know if uh paul connor is in the audience still and he answered this question back in june uh hi monica this yes hi monica this is paul connor uh director of planning and zoning so yes there was uh in the past uh the city has several impact fees and in the past one of them was a school impact fee the school district requested that the council remove that in i think 2009 um at the time uh because essentially the projects for which it was collecting were complete and therefore uh there was no basis for additional collection uh for it to continue so the count the council uh proposed an amendment to remove that in itself paul can you go ahead i just was going to ask if you could clarify was there any difference of you know three bedrooms versus studios or anything like that in the structure of that uh if you don't know right i don't recall there being a difference in that way uh in in terms of waiting it but you are asking me to recall back 12 years so i might have to look at the actual ordinance and see my only point that for anyone in the public who's listening to this this is this has happened before the city has honored it to help the schools in this kind of situation so this ask is something that has happened before and seems very appropriate and reasonable um given the situation so i guess that i just wanted um any counselors who weren't familiar with the fact that this has happened before um to know that that is the case and so i i personally fully support it thank you other questions from the public yeah i think it's important that that distinction is made monica the fact that there was a previous impact fee and that um just like this impact fee there could be an end date where when the zems are built and there you know there's no more money needed for them the impact fee could potentially be terminated at that point as well but there could also be another future capital project uh for future growth in the city that would require an impact fee for the schools but this one is narrowed narrow indefinition to the zems right now correct it is and i can i'd like to add to that i i i want to be really clear when we refer to our phased approach that we are absolutely anticipating in line with our facilities project that we will need high school and middle school solutions as well which will be separate projects um again we don't have um any idea what those will look like at this time you know we'd need to engage with the community and um certainly work with architects get get um you know quotes on what that would be and then impact fees would be calculated for those projects um and what we would do is bring those forward um you know eventually turning these off the understanding is that these would need to be in use for five years and impact fees could be collected for six to pay these off um and um we know that in four to five years we're going to need to be looking at a high school solution and a middle school solution um so um in our phased approach this really is that um the just the phase one associated with the zems at the elementary schools to alleviate the very current uh over enrollment thank you um Megan did you want to say something yeah a question i had is can the fee structure be changed within the six years so let's just say for instance that we were to go with the the weighted average and then we decided that that really wasn't meeting the needs of the school district could that be altered in any way within those six years yeah Vermont statute doesn't give us any limitations on when to come back there's simply a procedural process that's articulated and that would be coming back to the city council frankly if if somebody were to um if the fee goes up those who are paying now great kudos and then if the fee goes down then there could be some comp complications with ensuring that the same asset that you're paying towards gets compensated in the right fee design so there's a little bit of complexity if the fee goes down in the future but absolutely you can revisit it at any point but we could stop it before the six years are up if we have satisfied the needs of the school district in less than six years yep as uh the the the school district will be required to track all the money coming in and all the money coming out and you cannot overpay for the project and so if we were uh if if the growth were to happen the way that's uh anticipated in the current planning then the revenue would be there and then as soon as that revenue were to be collected then that fee would be would be terminated thank you so it would be paying for the completion of the ZEMS project and nothing more and as soon as that's paid off I would indicate that a desire to turn off the impact fees most likely that would look like um here's phase two you know in getting ahead of it it might not be that sequential depending on of course facilities needs as as our students age through our system um you know we have the McGibbons report which has been fairly consistent um however um as Mr. Slason just said you know we'll certainly modify this as we go again not collecting a cent more than is required to pay for this project and making modifications as we need to move into phases two and three those would be based on actuals again thank you so Jonathan do you have a low estimate and a high estimate for let's say the next five years if we implemented this plan the way it's proposed with the rate of development that could happen I don't know if you have a magic ball to look at but for those um um you know uh residential areas that uh have been you have received their act 250 you know you know okay and local I don't know if the permits but they've been green lighted right that if they are built out at the normal schedule for the next five years can you tell me like what you think the the best case revenue might be from the impact fee total well the impact fee total will be no more than the cost of the ZEMS themselves so the around the six million dollars right is what the impact fee is designed to recoup uh approximately 91 percent of that to be uh to be fair because some of the ZEMS capacity is actually mitigating the current deficiencies that we're seeing so those are some nuances the growth that is projected here this the way the fee is designed is that it is on the marginal basis and the key risk that the city does have however is that if the growth does not come in at the pace that we anticipate the annual change on the tax burden will will vary if the growth comes in at the rate that we're expecting was just approximately 140 units per year which is a long run average and if the growth happens at that rate the revenue will be sufficient to pay off the the ZEMS within about seven years okay thank you I see that Jerry Silverstein wants to ask another question more of a comment I would encourage the council to avoid or delay making any significant monetary decisions until we have the results of the current contract negotiations between the teachers union the SBEA and the school board and the reason I say that is because with inflation now running at eight percent or around eight percent I expect that the SBEA and all teacher unions throughout the state of Vermont are going to be asking for significant salary raises as an example in 2017 the initial bargaining position of the SBEA when inflation was running at two percent was they wanted 4.89 percent salary increases for three consecutive years they also want an additional retirement program in addition to the one offered by the state they wanted a health insurance program where they would pay absolutely nothing for their health insurance and they wanted another float holiday now the reason the statewide issue is important for South Burlington is if across the state of Vermont all teachers unions are asking for big salary increases this could very much stress the state education fund and as you know the state of Vermont is the only entity legally responsible for paying for public school education in the state of Vermont if the state education fund is stressed because of significant salary increases across the state they may very well have to mitigate the impact to the fund through what's called the yield the yield is the state basically the contribution the state makes to every budget this year it was enormous and that's why the education tax rate in south burns in other communities basically budged but that surplus of money was a fallout from the COVID relief funds and Vermont was number two of all 50 states and how much money was brought into the state from COVID relief funds i do not expect that overflow of money to exist in the state education fund going forward and if that fund is stressed by significant salary increases they'll have to reduce their yield which means the amount of money coming to the base budget of each community is going to go down which would mean the state the edgy this local education fund education rate will go up what all this means is until we know the outcome of contract negotiations between the teachers union in south Burlington and statewide we really won't know just how much education tax ratios going forward are going to go up there are a lot of unknown variables right now and to make monetary decisions before we have that outcome i think is a bad idea thank you any other comments from the public hey tim can i just make a quick comment christ rombly christ rombly yep am i okay to go go ahead yep so on the uh on the impact fees i fully support the um the kind of the proposal that's been put forward for the um for the zems as a member of the enrollment committee i understand the urgency uh in the need and this is a very reasonable i understand it came in a little higher than what was originally quoted um so this is a fantastic solution because it's directly related to some of the growth that they experienced um very recently and this you know this really would provide them uh some flexibility uh in the future um i would only express um concern for future um projects um it is important to highlight that impact fees are not income sensitive um and we are and this is a flat fee based on bedroom count so with that three bedrooms it's just to kind of emphasize what tim and matt said um three plus bedrooms you could potentially have a you know a five bedroom luxury home paying the same fee as a three bedroom condo for a more um lower middle income household uh it's fantastic that there was a recommendation for affordable housing um exemption um i would just point out that the city of berlington leverages a per square foot um to help uh kind of temper that and i know that that's come up before um and so when you get into the bigger projects where um you could really have a a cost because it's collected at permit that's a lot of money to put up front where it's not collected at the at the at the co time um and you know that those are costs that are hard passed on to the um you know whoever's going to live there whether it's be a higher rent or it's going to be um a higher mortgage payment and i don't know if you've seen lately but mortgage rates are are horrible and you tack on a a big fee so just some work on future big capital maybe to refine this little uh a little better to reduce housing affordability impact thank you so much thank you anybody else in the public i i just want to say that um i think that the school system is is really key to the health of our community and i think that it's a a needed investment and if we were to bring people into the city without being able to ensure them an adequate um you know facility for their children to learn we wouldn't we would be shirking our responsibilities so i want to just underscore that this is a temporary um you know uh initiative it's it's not something that is going to be into perpetuity and that it will ensure that into you know at least hopefully one or two generations that that we maintain the strength of our school system and therefore of our community so i i just want us to think long term short term thinking i think is a trap and i i just want to underscore that thank you can i can i add to that i i want to thank both chris and meg and i for your comments um i and to acknowledge mr silversteins as well you know i i think um this is something that has been put off for such a long time and that is why we're in this situation where it where it is dire um mr silverstein you mentioned we do not have any undesignated funds for fy 23 so that is um i you know for the council to know that is important we do not have any um as as mr silverstein also mentioned um negotiation trends have been reflective of inflation when budgeting was done for fy 22 inflation was significantly lower we have 1.2 million dollars budgeted in total for our union renegotiation and that was representative of where we were this point last year what were inflation rates then we're eight percent right so that 1.2 will not cover what's anticipated so given those factors already um you know one could anticipate a deficit which is um you know really difficult to think about especially given um these unbudgeted facilities needs um that we don't have the choice to put off any longer i do think it's important too for um the council to know in fy 22 when we look at comparative tax rates uh that south burlington school district um who i think in in my educational community i could say sometimes has the reputation for being um very plush uh we rank 229th of 259 uh for lowest spending so i say that to to for the council um and those on the call to understand contextually sort of some of the factors um that we're working with so of course the inflation being eight percent we do have all three unions um renegotiating um two for fy 23 and then for fy 24 all will be active with the administrators um notifying me of their intent to negotiate for fy 24 um and again these unbudgeted costs that we do not have the choice to um to put off any longer so i just wanted to share those factors and thank you to the folks who who brought up those important points thank you so from here you wanted the council to give some direction to staff right so the key questions for you to also think about tonight are um are you comfortable with the dollar amounts um are you comfortable with the exception exemptions as outlined by the school board and any timeline discussions so if you have you know i think the general guidance i'm hearing is that you're more or less comfortable with the dollar figures how it may be spread out may be still for discussion um that the exemptions for affordable housing may be for discussion but put in an ordinance and let's have a talk discussion about it with a draft in front of us and that the timeline may be something we want to look give you some options to consider as you uh warn a public hearing for an ordinance i think that's a great summary and and just the school board have a date in mind when they would like the impact fees to start at some level yeah so right now um we have um without the impact fees we don't have we don't have any funds beyond the 1.2 million dollars to move forward with these projects if we were to go out for a bond vote um in march uh we would be able to access that money july 1 2023 so um at that point we could begin paying ourselves back essentially with those um impact fees once they're collected um and we can do that across six fiscal years as long as they're still in use for those first five um you know the if we turned on impact fees right now um it would depend um i would have to know based on the structure what that would look like and how much money could could start coming in um i understand that after the readings there's a 30-day period where we could start seeing the benefits of those um so if they depending on the structure um which would impact the dollar amount and the timing we could have the ability to move forward with say the rick markup project um for instance um this uh fiscal year so what i heard you say was yesterday no you heard me say uh five years ago five years ago no not five maybe three or four okay can i clarify timing sure so what you're saying if i understand this violet is that if we approve subset of impact fees now then you can design a bond proposal for march in which the bond would be paid for by the impact fees or part of it would be paid for by the impact fees or we'd understand the relationship between how the impact fees that new developers would pay develop developers of new projects would pay in order to pay back that bond and what percentage would come from other sources right correct well it's a little more nuanced we'd have to know um it depends on what the council um decides to turn on uh when they when you all decide to turn them on and um what the dollar amounts are so if revenues start coming in sooner we could begin the projects and the bond vote could be for less money um right now the bond vote would have to be it's six million um and um that's less financing fees so depending on timing um say impact fees are turned on in three months um and the monies coming in are sufficient for us to pay the DEW the construction team um because this is a it's a service cost right not not goods um so I mean I don't I don't have an idea of what you know those figures would be of what we'd be getting in when but we could start to pay off some of the ZEMS um prior to the bond vote and the bond vote would mean that we couldn't access that money until July 1st of 2023 so we could do it phases um depending on I don't we'd have to you know I've reached out to DEW who's performing the construction to see if they'd even be willing to do the projects in two phases rather than simultaneously um you know with economy of scales at play um you know we'd be poised to see probably slight reductions if the sites were completed at the same time um however if we had the funds we would certainly move forward with rick marcott um as we've got um some permitting um needs um just a work through over at orchard so a couple of response comments to your question matt the it we are in this a little bit of a chicken and egg thing because I can't bring you an ordinance to a consider until we have the full financing of the project from the school to determine what those dollars values are with the with the um reduction that jonathan mentioned in the property tax double impact um bond let's just remember you know we do this on the city side all the time right where we have impact fees that are a partial funding source to a project we bond for it the impact fees pay the debt service on that project it's not that we are paying for the the infrastructure with impact fees it's that we are paying for the debt service I think the you know it's an interesting innovative question about how how the school district takes on that debt and what do they do it in tranches do they do all in how do we play the very complicated interest rate market right now to understand what those financing pieces are going to be um you know as we go through the next weeks together and figure out what's that right dollar amount to bring in the ordinance I think that is going to be an interesting question I I think we are going to have to bond this as a community because there's no way we're going to collect the impact fees we need in the next x number of months to get this the infrastructure for our students um and then it's a matter of how we structure the debt and the modeling to be sure we have the revenue streams on the school side to pay that debt service um while minimizing minimizing the interest rate impacts um so it's a complicated it's there there are several different levers that we're trying to pull all at the same time to bring this to you in partnership thank you so have we given enough direction at this point or so Jonathan I think they have um given some pretty solid direction I think what you may see coming back to you in November is a several drafts of ordinance with kind of pick your own adventure options here's some ordinance language pick the one you want to warn for public hearing and then we'll go from there does that Jonathan and Violet does that sound accurate to you yeah so if I may summarize I think I've heard um include affordable housing provisions um consider the number of bedrooms with that look at a phased in approach of six months or so and um is that are those all of the pieces Jesse I don't I say we'll try to we'll try to look at a four plus bedroom uh column okay and would we want to meet again at the first or second meeting in November so this will need to be on the November 21st okay we have another comment from Monica Ashby Monica are you there yeah I'm here thank you it's just kind of a going forward this is really for Violet but for everyone to hopefully hear I believe that in terms of future um you have a committee that is looking at what to do and one of the things that I believe the next steps included was looking at either something like redistricting or um reconfiguring where the grades go um and one of those one question that keeps coming back to me is when we're looking at adding all of these things which we need to do for now um if the fifth grade was moved into the middle school high school campus um what is the financial cost to do that versus is it opening up a tremendous amount of space in our three elementary schools to deal with this overcrowding and I don't want I'm not looking for an answer right now but it's something that I keep coming back to as a community member you know we're buying these things to deal with an overcrowding situation and one of the recommendations maybe to reconsider once again that fifth grade is um better housed on that campus and opening up more space so I guess I'm just curious to know if that's conversation or that review is still happening and what the timing might be and how that might fit into you know cost issue thank you so much and I'd love to speak to that if we have the time um what I have in front of me right now is the enrollment committee proposal from June of 2022 and um I've I've um you'll see on our next board meeting uh school board meeting agenda which is Wednesday we have a conversation um about um the board reengaging with this initial enrollment committee and following what the board has recommended here so um you know I'm looking at the report right now and what we're seeing is that um this committee this enrollment committee recommended the creation of an infrastructure committee and so that's what the board and I would like to pursue is the enrollment committee's recommendation to continue forward so in this enrollment committee proposal from June um it's it's a both and with these ZEMS so um it says you know add the ZEMS for both Rick Marcot and Orchard schools um and then uh looking at the the plans ahead of what to do make a decision about the fifth grade and depending on um the the um I'm reading from a section now that says transition of fifth grade um to the middle school within four to six years so with the creation of a transition committee if this is a recommendation made um that these ZEMS will continue to buy us time um so my understanding and reading this report is that the ZEMS will buy us the four to six years until um you know again based on actual population growth um so that we need the ZEMS now and we'll have to consider a move of the fifth graders to the middle school um and that you know as as we make these um these plans will have ample time to plan for things like um curricular changes um you know retrofitting or remodels um the current plan has in in 2022-23 adding the ZEMS um in 23 to 27 plan approve build a new high school again this is all proposed in in 2025 to 2029 plan design and approve building um and or renovation of the middle school so um monica I very much appreciate that question um because I think it provides important insights to um you know our longer range planning and the community's involvement with those decisions any other comments okay then so I think we have a direction and a date for a comeback from the school board and uh thank you for attending tonight very much and uh we will see you back in november thank you for um engaging with us and problem solving on how to support our students I um I greatly appreciate the conversation tonight and and to all of you for um you know supporting supporting our students in our and our wonderful schools thank you you're welcome so that concludes uh item number 10 and uh for those who were not here earlier there was a decision made because of the bear quorum that we have to uh strike items uh 11, 12, 13 and 14 tonight and have a a truncated uh city council meeting so at this point I if there's no other discussion or questions I think I'll uh I'd like to have a motion to adjourn and make the motion to adjourn I will second we have a motion and a second is there any other discussion all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you very much everybody for attending tonight this concludes the south plan city council meeting for monday october 17 good night. Are you good Travis?