it's often said that the organised hasn't produced a lot of new affordable units but in fact if you look at a whole production actually counting on you and your produce it isn't necessarily the most important piece of the tender really is to make sure very high end housing here and your obligation increases as a percentage it could be as high as twenty five percent a matter where you are in the city based on the market rate there so for the ord y we also have the concentration of i c u it's built today is largely in neighborhoods has taken place in neighborhoods that already a real mix of household income so we're we're succeeding  in getting affordable units bill but primarily in areas that already have lots of affordable housing that we get with so what we try to deal with is is that issue of spreading sharing this opportunity and that extra you know the three wire after that is is higher a higher rate of seventy thousand dollars until you reach a larger number of units and then it kicks up to eighty five so i think it's now that has a trust fund of money that we have set set aside is not in the charter and so i'm hoping that this will start the conversation about what is the right amount and then to  suggestions that was discussed was the idea of figuring out some way to smooth large increases from one year to next on larry needed income and i don't think there was ultimately a resolution of do some deliberation i think you could talk about that and i think the point about the institutions around is a new one then we haven't really talked about the things we were going back about a bit and then i also think we need to look at the map the less we have two options in terms of the map and we should we should look at that as well but we didn't really grab this issue of it when how you said demand let's your basis for setting a rant and it just said we can't just kept coming back to sixty five percent of very median income affordability for rental units so having really not going to come up with a better criteria i would still say that by looking at that how any of those that kind of a significant number would cause problems in terms of consensus but for the record i feel like i still think the state of that phrase even with a smile at me you're still going to have so although there was agreement on most everything and i i think i didn't know that i was not and i had not agreed with the elimination of parking at all terriers and i had concerns about that and and how that relates to projects that may not require not provide parking with  resident pay for them we had a conversation that's reflected in the mess and i just want to note that i believe that those details need to be worked out and it's it's in the record i'm not posing that we ha that out but i just wanted to make sure that that was reflected that there was that outstanding issue think everything else i think we all agreed upon but for me part was not something that i could as we move through this process and give the planning commission and we're  to i think it would be good i just think that they're planners they hopefully would understand what our goal is and they which if you are a someone who is eligible for a new highs even it and you have a car and the owner charges for parking then the r difficulty yeah right i mean i'm just sort of thinking out loud here in terms of the neck would be between a household that doesn't have a car are we saying death essentially that there should for creating more affordable houses that came to do could be utilized to subsidize the cost of parking for those individuals that qualify would have to be criteria i don't think it's simple but i  still feel in one way it's not fair if you're giving people a break because they have a car they're paying less than brand but in another way it's not fair if they are need we want to start doing more risk analyses and do deeper monitoring so y even greater than i feel this is like oh my god it's like you're taking your ripping off the scare here at the wall and here is that the boundaries for the institutional zone are far greater than what the years and i don't know that word six has the same issues but one certainly does so i think that you would be precluding the creation of some affordable units if we don't address is to redefine that the end inclusionary zoning doesn't apply to housing that's built on the campus as opposed to design and so to me that is the way to address this in the short term i look would love to look at the big picture but in the short term why not just find it that way and i would love to hear the institutions response i don't think that that consider that their campus oh my gosh to my chagrin but i'm saying within their campus within their foundries that that was a college and they bought it and it remains a college or university so i'm not really trying to open the door for challenges and i'm trying to make sense out of it keep it within their barry so that pleasure place let's say it's let's just say it's not only just saying and the only reason i'm proposing this is so that if there is clarity regarding we guarding this we can go for it i understand the disparity between what i'm proposing versus what the criteria for champlain i do get that but if you was to now take over from our christie they would have to do the same thing that champlain was doing because that was outside  mean with any of these we can just say we wanted we want incomes moving to be factored into the rent said because this will get ordinance and we will be doing line by line so is there some stuff we can just say we're going to deal with it then three years five years ye twenty seventeen you would average them and you would calculate sixty five percent and then set the rent to be fordable to someone at that so but what i heard and so this is not my world all of you know far more than i do but what i heard was that there was a spike one year so if you have fewer years to smooth that spikes going to play a bigger role then more years so those five years and only one of those years was a spike you could soften if it's three years as i said it's going to play it's going to get attacked more so i don't know part forget the part about counseling pusher you're absolutely right for the record i'm on the problem is if you go back and do a five year average you're seriously behind where people's incomes are yes i listen to it but the reality is when it becomes this moving average yes they can work with you and they can work against you and you know maybe there are maybe three is better you know you spend much more time dealing with this than i do i just three years is to me not even i mean it is moving average but just barely you always talk about three variables so you know some of them a lot but you know again i would i guess we could leave that for the ordinance committee way that or if you you know obviously the best thing to do it which i think would take a lot of time and i'm not sure that anybody wants to do it would be to take the last fifteen years and see what five years is and see what a three year is and see if the battle it really has been affected spike last year i think the before it went down almost three percent so i'm not sure if that's a good argument for five years or three years necessarily but just as very bold i mean i know that's an argument for expanding the the payment loop by a right geographic order as compared to the worker proposal of eight percent beat the eighty percent allows more units to be spread throughout the city versus yours that's what i said so it would be more inclusionary yes that would have to be killed think the main point that the mayor was trying to make was that one hundred percent immediate and it is rooted in the ordinance as the maximum household income that you can qualify for an i c u unit and so that it was appropriate to the timing part inclusion too to the actual right to so a household regardless of what the the rent did is or the purchase price of the which is could be located off site given that the income limited just find it more or less references median income we support it these areas be defined by a hundred percent three median income instead of eighty percent we further rights or expansive geographic area for payment by rights makes it look like we're ok with almost all of  requirements being met through payments of the house and president which i don't think once it was that listen the intent and i think that if a real strong point of the proposal as follows is that this idea of and and people have different areas of the city like to live in and as they develop at if it development comes in i would like to see that bad in that section of the city people like the new north them for reasons people like to sell them for a reason people like the hill section for a raise i just i just think it's more in keeping with what the n e a the original intent was which you defined at the beginning of this meeting you know i mean i it does appear to me that there are areas of the extreme you northbound that appear to be very popular now particularly for people moving into broad terms it's one of the few areas where younger families can have can afford to live to own it if this helps this helps that i think that is a good thing so i i don't know if you want i mean if you want to  things that this that we do with the university so you know i don't i don't know how that's going to i'm not on the ordinance but i hope that there will be an arbor and a real effort made to engage them and figure out if we can get what we're looking for without it being overly burdensome on anybody and i think sounds but i hope that we'll be able to figure that out  if the university and the city council determines that someone in the university i mean champlain has done this i'm i'm trying to remember of an example where the university has recently university decided to buy property outside and so it would have felt that that was that was put into an ordinance that they felt was inappropriate and so they would not do it when i tried to get that for the university of vermont they felt that that was legally erroneous and so it would they would not replicate that so there is no nothing to preclude down if they buy that they own it and happen to electric place so it sticky it is a sticky issue that i think the community really should resolve it sounds like and it's and we're just tiptoeing around it because of this but i was just trying to say if you if you have housing if you build housing on your campus boundaries right now this doesn't apply come into the neighborhood even though it was institutional so yeah yeah that was like you're leaving richard and i'm not sure it was clear and the process will be once the council takes action next monday for the plane commission to get the items that were first to it the community development and davi public will have lots of opportunities because the political machine is a completely open public process city council or this committee will take public comments throughout the process the city council debated we're really about maybe halfway through the oh just some housekeeping one of the one of the homework items that we were tasked to with was to contact my commodities and ask him to connect with the mayor around this change from seventy five percent to seventy percent i'm not aware of the major continues to have concerns about us my understanding is that conversation took place so unless the mayor has communicated directly with