in strategy update for housing help with the flow in the other concerns in regards to sign in sheet before they go if you're not on staff or part of council thank you very much for doing that there are any items that the folks in the crowd would like to address the council in the city business on items that are not on tonight's seventeen to one thirteen two thousand and eighteen in we have job description for accounting first which looked like it had raised a few in the last meeting so with that i would retain a motion in the comments questions concerns regards to  engineering so members of the public are welcome to that commission meeting to come and hear the update on where we are with plans to really build the myer school the next noise compatibility program meeting at the airport this is the process that brian airport is going through to look at to put forth a funding request to the f a a for a noise reduction mitigation mode measures the next name for that is tomorrow night at five o'clock at the airport people are welcome to attend that meeting if you're not interested in attending yet another night meeting you can follow the progress at w w w dot t v sound dot com so that's the airport code for burlington b i will turn over now to counsel for my counsel reports church so i don't have anything from the public safety commissioner roemer i think you all heard from public safety commission members more directly asked council meeting and we haven't had a meeting since then but i did want to share i was down in augusta georgia this weekend and happened to meet somebody who is on the city council and kirkstone georgia is a city that is about one point four miles where and sounds like they share a lot of similarities with whisky they've got over sixty languages spoken in that one point four square miles they're in a period of economic revitalization like we are so it's just really cool to make that connection and i hope we can foster a good relationship  between that community and hopefully share some tips tricks and best practices between us and them for how we serve what sounds like a pretty similar community thank you is just going to make sure we knew about the commission making lots of great things happen so as the government's discussion has progressed between ourselves and south burlington and barely ten we can report that we're having really good conversations we're hoping to have some reports back on that soon however in the absence of some concrete action over the last year plus the council's asked for some action around it and from the airport have our press conference out outlined legislative priorities i'll be carrying the economic development banner in specifically in regards to tonight's topics around potential to sorry the legislature is back in session and you know like the global reference to being up there but will continue to stay neutral third representatives there and planning commission is thursday and i just want to give a big shout out to staff in the last couple weeks and support past couple months of the main street revitalization project in the work that's been done to get us to the point remember those alternative selections boards for doing all that work to conducting the annual evaluation but the city manager said the timeline that we have set out is ambitious but we have every confidence that we'll be able to pull it off so that the council can finalize both exact to be determined will be at the senior center at some point giving a presentation the budget but not only is there the best this year but we also have the two ballot items going forward and that neutral impact in taxpayer borrowing around doing improvements in the zero six spring street limited partnership and this is largely courtesy and a formality as the champlain housing trust acts as the administrator on the custodian of the funds and the city has no legal standing or signatory the questions concerns comes from the public trust operated by the howard center specifically serves low income individuals who suffer from a mental health mental illness we have over the last few months we've looked pretty extensively michael and i into this parcel and i'm legal opinions our city attorneys do say that this is a tax exempt parcel of people qualify as a tax and some are sold so c h t was willing to talk with us about a service agreement i'm considering that we do provide a improvements or property so this basically is just that once we do this financing gets different terms of what we could do and we can go into make some major improvements will be some there's a good thing too as well for the property as well as keeping the city home so we thought this was  these smaller apartments but we do have some and this one works pretty well from home would serving a lot of high income folks here mostly very low income some challenges and again we provide we make sure we have some money from howard there would services to continue support support the folks who are living there supportive services to their questions to us from council for uva master's in public administration program that was then passed along to the planning commission the number one recommendation that was to create a housing commission so planning commission made their recommendation and we convened a housing commission basically to look at overall goals and vision of housing in the city what mics are we looking for where are there gaps and what do we need to fill in and that will also be as as the housing commission comes up with those targets and that vision that will also feed into our municipal plan in the housing chapter in order to hit the ground running city staff to targeted outreach to get area experts in various pieces of the housing puzzle so we convene a board that's comprised of members that includes representation from the when you ski housing authority board burlington housing authority housing finance agency from a refugee resettlement program the superintendent of the school district a former city counselor and a professional never really it's because we've been on a pretty tight timeline we stood up the housing commission in august the first meeting was in august and there been four meetings since then one of which was meeting to present to the planning commission we decided to strategize by examining rental housing first the reasoning behind that is because there's such rapid development of rental housing in the city that can quickly change what our housing stock is whereas the home ownership market will change so quickly so we took the time to really focus in on rental housing the housing commission reviewed and analyzed a broad range of data over the last few months and that is the process today is kind of listed up here for you so the things we looked at were when you see household demographics comparisons of the rental market to surrounding municipalities the number of existing subsidized housing units affordability of our current stock by income brackets housing targets developed in other chittenden county municipalities and potential gaps in our vailable rental housing some of the new data that we received this year from our landlord rental registry was tremendously helpful throughout this process and as we go through this presentation although we're not going to show you all of the data that we looked at we'll be able to see some of the key points that were taken from census data as well as some of the key points that were taken from the landlord rental registry and what we did with that is john oddie was kind enough to offer to me an opportunity to send out a letter to the landlord registry and ask them to voluntarily share information about that rooms per unit and the price that they were charging in rent for those so i had an unbelievable response rate to that so we got some very very good information from that and that will be presented as part of this is evening ok so i guess what i'm going to do is i'm going to turn it over to housing commissioner christine locke first to all kind of go through our process and some of the high key points of the data that we looked at and then we'll go on to planning commissioner palace the plan to present the rental housing recommendations themselves our rates so the first thing that we looked at as far as the data goes is subsidized housing and when you ski and we found there of the rental market here thirty six percent of the units are project based subsidized and you can see here compared to you know the other parts of the other cities in the county where at the top end i think the average here is around twenty two percent so we are pretty high above that when you add in tenant base vouchers which again compared to the county we are forming there as well we're looking at over fifty percent of rental units restricted to two low income folks to us and so here's the breakdown of the information that we received so we already know about the thirty six percent project a subsidized of the units that were then reported we can extrapolate here that twenty four percent of our existing answer market seven percent are luxuries so that's what's confirmed by the landlord reporting thirty three percent of units are unreported because of the administration of subsidies we know that those are market to market  plus we also receive the rental information from landlords which most of us are pretty surprised by this the median rents in the area are well under the fair market rates so you can see here the pricing because the actual costs weren't reported there either so we also collected data and household sizes and income levels so the key thing that we're seeing here is that even at like the thirty percent maximum affordable  thirty percent of income is the maximum affordable rent this is also well above the median rent prices that are being reported in our area we looked a little bit too it's like household size and unit science you can see here that about seventy percent of household of renters it's only one or two people per household which also aligns with our existing units about seventy six percent are in the city a two bedroom range and then the higher and larger units sort of like thirteen percent better larger households four and above and twenty three you know twenty household looking at the income data for the area we also determine that seventy two percent of renter households are low income and when you ski so that's you know in percent area median income or so we have thirty six percent of our units project based subsidize seventeen percent voucher they subsidize so fifty four percent of rental units being restricted to those earning less than eighty percent am i and then we also found from the reported the landlord reporting data that additional thirty six percent of our market really units are affordable to folks making less than eighty percent am i so that's eighty four percent of housing units that are available to two low income folks so we're covering the existing seventy two percent of the of the households that are low income and what we're also seeing there than is like a pinch on market rates that are affordable to people making middle income so again this is a comparison of like the amount of stock available against the county in our surrounding cities and in that in these project based units those are completely income restricted so they're just not even available to to middle income earners you know voucher based follows the tenant so that could change but that's still as you can see here a lower amount  oh middle income that would be people making eighty to one hundred twenty percent of every median income so the key findings from all of the data that we looked at there were were outperforming on our affordable housing against the region we have a high level of low income households seventy two percent eighty four percent of our reported units are they are affordable to low income  income restricted units for people earning less than eighty percent make up a larger share and when you see than in our surrounding area and market rate rentals that are available to people not income restricted is a smaller share of our overall stock like we see a gap there when you ski also has a high level of poverty indicated by that the amount of house rental households that are low income and there is growing income disparity between renters and homeowners so the big picture story here is that we've got a lack of housing  income folks we have a sufficient amount to cover low income folks at this time and so we're seeing that gap and this is something that we want to address to prevent this income disparity from growing more in the future  some things that we have also talked about in the commission are the importance of economically integrated in our neighborhoods you know so we want to deter this growing income gap and we also want to avoid concentrated poverty in the way that the housing is distributed in when you ski so we you know we done a lot of reading on this there's a lot of research out there to show some of the negative effects of concentrated poverty you know lower quality housing there's an impact on schools a great impact on our children in the community couple of of their common themes here the access to healthy foods and a mismatch between jobs and location versus if we could get more economic integration the community this improves our schools this improves employment outcomes it's good for like economic growth it's good for the kids and health outcomes there are there's a lot of information out there specifically around how economic how concentration of poverty impacts schools and children encouraging economic integration provides it gives children more examples more information you help spread resources better  and there's also information or research that just improving outcomes of children in schools has a correlation to the city's economic success as well and growth there so the data story here is that we're looking to address this gap in our housing for these reasons and i want to pass it to hell is here to talk about the planning commission that we took a look at the target target numbers set forth by some of our neighboring communities so south burlington in williston had set a ten year target south burlington had wanted the distribution you see at the top left hand corner of having seventy five percent of their rental stock be affordable by people earning less than eighty percent am i by two thousand and twenty five thirteen percent for eighty to one hundred twenty percent am i and twelve percent for over one hundred twenty percent am i i'm so this is a goal that they hope to achieve by twenty twenty five we'll astin below that you see twenty per cent for the less than eighty percent am i as their and twenty four you'll note our current number is below which christine is already covered right now as we stand eighty four percent of our rental stock is affordable by people earning less than eighty percent of am i so we're actually exceeding the goal in that area compared to the long term goal for our neighboring communities but where we are fall behind is in that eighty to one hundred twenty percent and my number where we only have six percent as christine  mentioned one interesting thing to know is just that it's not really an apples to apples comparison the previous slide just because when you ski has such a larger a much larger share of rental housing rental stock in our overall housing to begin with so about sixty percent of our housing stock is where our rentals are currently where as you'll see in south burlington it's under forty percent so we are our share of housing as are we have a larger percentage of renters so the goals that the housing commission presented to us and that we are working on using as a framework as we develop the municipal plan we'd like to maintain the current level of so that i as housing units in the city we're going to look at ways to improve the existing housing stock  and rehabilitate the subsidized housing that we already have being utilized in the city and then we're really going to focus on ways to encourage new construction of housing that would target the eighty to one hundred twenty percent a group so that we can expand options for our moderate income renters and create more fluidity throughout the housing options throughout the city and we'd like to expand and balance the available or adult stocks to that we can encourage economic integration both in individual neighborhoods and across the city as a whole ok and not that way the next steps that we had of us are kind of laid out for you for planning commission and for housing commission the planning commission is being charged with considering a parking requirement reduction bonus as an incentive for new affordable units within the gateway district as we developing impact fees for the city it's possible to do a reduction in impact fees as an incentive incentive for affordable housing within what we're trying to target we should be looking at considering minima housing quality standards as part of the municipal plan ensuring that the municipal plan encourages economic integration of housing and when you ski and we're also charging the planning commission with defining metrics and the schedule for evaluating effectiveness of meeting targets so what does success look like if we're actually effectively doing incentivizing that eighty to one hundred twenty percent and mine for the housing commission we're going to step into the next stage of reviewing affordable housing data for homeownership and when you ski  evaluate home affordability and level of economic integration by neighborhood block group identify gaps in existing housing stock recommend housing goals and targets for homeownership and once we have all of that compiled in combination with our rental targets will look at making recommendations for uses of the home improvement loan fund based on both of those sets of goals and we are happy to take question project that we probably from a time perspective didn't structure and was as well that we would like to on the up front and so on the back end we were pretty demanding as a group to say we  love to see some recommendations come out of this insurer and appreciate the time and thought that went into it and appreciate the comprehensiveness and clearly you know fact based data driven approach that was used to try to draw some conclusions to support or not support you some of the proposals from a policy over standpoint they're put before us so just you know backing up the question for this body has consistently been you know an item that comes back to us in the survey after survey of the average of the composition of our community the diversity that we support and diversity doesn't just mean people look different read different food it's people who have different  socioeconomic situations and conditions in and people who have very poignant and people who are different diverse on a number of different levels and housing is one of the key ways that you support that  diversity in the community so we were handed a report that included what i would say are pretty standard arise mechanisms and policy mechanisms to consider for potentially increasing or a holes prior to starting to gang come policy levers we should understand what it is we're trying to achieve or we just start pulling threads and seeing what happens and having react to that it's responsible right and so that was sort of step have you had the opportunity to speak with any of the private project people that are currently going on throughout the city to find out if going towards that particular group  that you specify here would be more incentivize for them to go for that extra level of the building as opposed to what we're trying to do before for it actually is the same level it was easier that was eighty to one twenty and that's mostly what people are developing at this point i think one of the and i'll talk about this a little bit in the housing update one of the shortfalls of i think that incentive is that it's not well understood in the community so people don't know what that ranges so they just go for it and get it through the energy efficiency but they're eligible for it through the affordability that they're creating so at three forty eight they would have been eligible through the level of rent that they're charging at three twenty five they would have been eligible through the rent that they're charging every night before on main street they would have been eligible with the rent that they're charging they just i think maybe developing some materials and making sure that we're putting that out into the into the community a little bit better in promoting it would help those the policy needs i think people are looking at the energy efficiency and th is just my guess but i think they're looking at the energy efficiency and planning on meeting anyway and feeling like you know that's an easier trigger to paul but i think that they're not understanding that you're also already meeting this criteria and so having those  little more widely available for people who make them understand hey where eligible this way to thank you and if i can do that i think that you know going through this process and really understanding the data and having the community come out strongly behind targets and goals will help ease that communication will help tell our development community this is what we would like to see you do so that that will be triggered to pay attention to some of these incentives as well i think we're seeing not quite frankly on the ground i think we have developers who are very conscientiously looking to develop properties in that with a mixture of housing options within them or on comparable sites so i think we are starting to see of those things more of her to achieve that people are meeting minimum series cold for the for the energy efficiency and then also meeting the affordability requirements without trying to have that get now i think something that they should definitely be discussing and i think it will come up pall dreyer and i have discussed a little bit best ways of incentivizing and whether it's  pitting energy efficiency versus affordability and that may not be our best way of going about it and actually reducing that the amount that people have to pay in parking may be a much better way of incentivizing by having mo available to create more units but i certainly think the planning commission should be considering all of that does that come from the survey that was completely does that come from the rental registry but those landlords survey was the rental registry program so we sent out a letter with the landlord rental registry and they voluntarily sent back information right and so that's the one where a third of landlords to not respond that's correct so that the data on pricing is reliant on a voluntary survey  of which we we don't know but i thought christine that you had a statement that i messed the third did not report but we know that fifty percent is restricted and you drew a conclusion i missed it oh the conclusion was just that we know that unreported units are not income restricted because that would be documented right and we know based on the total number of units that fifty four percent of them are currently either through projects or vouchers income drawn that in the absence of that third that could have a pretty significant impact on the conclusions so i'm just wondering you know house whether that factor was discussed at length and what your what your view is on the validity of this these benchmarks current benchmarks as a metric for us to be aligned certainly i think if i mean i think that because of some of the ones that we know didn't report that would bump up what that median prices but i don't believe that it would bump it up in a huge way because we know that river runs seventy two units we know i mean river run is fifty six units we know the river house is seventy two units so we can put together what those are when you see block is another one of the ones that didn't report and those are actually priced at around eight hundred per month so those are below in the eighty to one twenty range or possibly lower than that we know that we have seventy percent of our overall market three hundred thirteen total units didn't report  so we're guessing that a seventy seven a seventy percent report rate probably is fairly representative of the market as a whole because there's only about you see seventy two units fifty six units milhouse falls within the affordable range concentrated targeting was raised as a concern to the commission look at where the subsidized housing units are located in the city we  and whether there was a concentration of subsidized housing in certain parts of the city versus not this is a look at where the higher concentrations of poverty are we also look at the gentrification report that was one of the things that we reviewed pretty early on which gives some of that the but in terms of this is where the subsidized housing is distributed the green yeah larger circles indicate fifty or more units  and so when i think about them as i'm reading their recommendation or hearing their recommendation it seems to be that the development in the city which is largely going to be occurring in the gate to gate ways that that being targeted toward middle income predators and i just wonder whether there's a risk of ensuring pockets of subsidized housing in certain parts of the city and that the the expansion of housing opportunities is it available to all of us just that discussed it was just yes we had that we went through a mapping exercise where i did actually match single family homes as well so just so we could do an overlay but i think that as part of this next analysis i would be doing a pretty detailed analysis of which neighbor like block group by block group which neighborhoods are economically integrated or closer i would say that the city of kabul as a whole isn't very economically integrated because we're primarily a low income community so we're not yet you know when you look at some of the strategies that are used by scholars and researchers and looking at academic integration it's about a balance between low income moderate income and high income you know to a lesser or greater extent so i don't know that will find overall tremendous areas of economic integration based on what i've looked at by far the place that's most economically integrated is our downtown that didn't come forward and what was taken off the table during conversations i don't i don't know that we took did we take anything off the table and we said we were looking at the science and that level of the housing soccer league decided not to get into that as it's not doesn't seem like a crucial issue like hitting a point there anyway and it's also not a priority issue at this point that's the only thing that's coming to mind for me offhand from the when you see housing needs assessment i don't think that we've taken anything off the table at this juncture i think we've come up the housing commission has recommended goals to the planning commission for their consideration as far as the policy piece i are you thinking of a specific thing we discussed in housing commission where we took from from this body's perspective it's important to understand that if there except in recommendations that inherently disable or not to true or from some moves future policy considerations that we've talked about you know i don't think we t subsidizes to use versus affordable and i'm curious as to the thinking behind adopting subsidize there versus using affordable and whether or not it's yeah i think that one of the things we're looking at is  because we use subsidize pretty specifically there that was because one of the concerns we were looking at something that we've discussed here at c council pretty repeatedly and that is the fear that people will be pushed out of our market and we've discussed it in terms of the all sudden it pushes the place where people will be pushed out of the community so that place for the gap is so our concern as a housing commission was that the people will actually be pushed out of this community if we don't create new housing for them is the people who are right eighty percent of the people eighty to eighty five percent and i are actually the people who will not be able to find a place in the new ski and so you're looking at people who are pretty common in our market and who are working that i think that that was a concern that was raised by one of the board members of good housing authority and i think anecdotally there is some evidence that that maybe some of some of the older aging housing stock and need need some attention so i think that's just anecdotal at this playing time and we'll talk a little bit more about firehouse in the housing update but we will use data to kind of drive where we're putting th  the effects of gentrification in the community and i think for looking at that whole population of residents increased cost of living within the community as a result of changing housing stock is also something to be concerned of and something we'd have to you know would be different discussions that are outside of just stock discussions but i do appreciate the prioritizing of that goal to ensure that those are members of our community that are getting pushed i did have a question about it seems like there was a lot of discussion at the commission about economic integration was there discussion or in that discussion was there or anything about not just ensuring that we're creating an economic integration with where units are in the city but economic integration within units for a specific dwellings within those units and if there are ways that the could set of eyes that that is something that is desirable to achieve so mixed income developments as well yet we didn't specifically get into that and i think one of the reasons that we were really looking at economic integration in the city is based on the outcome of the economic development strategic plan as well as the marketing and branding initiative that the quality of schools is repeatedly raised as an issue for why people move out of the young families move out of the community and sell trying to address there and we and we do have some new developments you know being proposed at this point that do follow that model  specific target it's that are being recommended here correct that's correct so i guess i'm a couple points about framing and messaging this whole conversation i'm a little challenge sometimes when we compare ourselves to other communities with engine cowling we are like other county and that's actually i think for many people a source of pride in that one of the reasons i think seth would have two earlier we celebrate our diversity and that comes from a number of different reasons but one is that we're very affordable and that ought to be celebrated and that didn't come through as much in this presentation it came across as though we were somehow out of line so i just wan and as was made clear our housing next is totally different from those communities so it's difficult to even compare is the reason they were selected because they happened to be two communities that have set targets yes  had i was unable to find them in these were set in a very similar format radio kind of we were using this as a precedent to look at how we might go about doing it i definitely appreciate what you're saying that i can look at another one of the bottom lines in or we can pull this way of looking at it how i think this was really meant to be a way to frame the conversation with a housing commission from the beginning so that we had something we were working toward and a clarity of to do that and i also think there are other communities in vermont that may look more like us or other parts of the country is there discovered that would be more useful to help me understand give who we are and who we've said want to continue to be looking at communities like south growing to wilson does it doesn't click for me so let's just commentary the the piece i'm really interested in is these numbers have to add up to one hundred percent is that right from the back of the math problem we have you know eighty four percent now according to the best information we have is the recommendation to reduce that number and increase the eighty don't hundred twenty and if so by what amounts or is that i don't see where we get into those numbers in either of the process or or the recommendations what number one there's no reduction of housing because we're not getting rid of  right there's an addition of new housing that is in the eighty to one hundred twenty percent so that would change the percentages but it depends on how much housing is created right so one of the reasons that we didn't get into very specific this number of units or this percentage is because when especially what's going on on the waves we have no way of predicting how many of those properties are going to be redeveloped or how you know what the total is going to be so if we were to say  real number of units we can we can gauge our success like that when we have no control over what's actually relevant so we use this as a starting point but definitely not losing the lowest income units well good didn't use in the best use of property and so while true i think the idea has always been you you could displace units and you know that's a conversation from a policy perspective but that a tool that you can use that when the forward loons are displaced you've got to replace them but the idea has always been the single family home that's been chopped up in this probably three units can become a twenty four unit property and that was the idea that so i think the concept for this to mean what has always been there is the baseline of what exists what do we want to do with policy to try to drive what happens to the net new unit creation and what what number should we be aiming for in terms of how the creation of new ones of you know so i think if you try to make it constructive is like the baseline affordability you know subsidize units if there is a recommendation not  pursue you know policies that are going to significantly increase those which i would also add does not mean that this initial that net increase then you could also see companion policy this is the sitting room gauge and you know one off subsidise you know like we're doing quite frankly right now on two different projects right where we are talking about creating net new subsidise yes it's about those net new ones versus the conversion and replacement of those of those humans because this is always  encouraging is slated to one hundred twenty a m a and our focus is on evaluating percentage of new unit development and where on the spectrum that falls and we're missing those units that are redevelop that you know as a market really important of the takeaways i got from the initial the data comparing us to other cities it's not that we should use that as a benchmark for where would you see should be i think that's a community vision we'll come by with actually give you the other impression there is such a low percentage of affordable housing available in the neighborhood communities if that stop windles all that and there are places for people who are displaced to go and buy the hard part about the up to eighty is that there's a gap between subsidize this is and then you get into small which is capital live for all units there's there are not policy mechanics  easily impacts how that inventory is managed and how those rents increase or decrease in a short of you know doing what large cities have to do which is you know the the me and the rents right that you rent control  the way that we actively participate traditionally from a housing policy lurched into what the way most actively participate in that range is by trying to influence inventory by managing what a line and trying to write programs in the support of the continued affordability those programs and by that i mean you you try to find opportunities for people to maintain those homes in a way that affordable being and what new units are coming on so when the goals come back it's good to have you know we want to find tools to to re you know to maintain what's there as a as a cornerstone but what's something we need to be comfortable with understand and so what worse just to restate that with this document says i'm still not clear what little we have approving or excepted whatever given feedback is that  so it appears to that document appears to privilege the eighty to one hundred twenty percent population and i would say that i think that's not consistent necessarily with some of the statements we've made in our vision statement which talk about an affordable livable diverse  is the tipping point for being considered low income in algebra for most of the subsidized housing right well that we don't have but we have more housing unit that serve the less than eighty percent population that are subsidized consider a subset or ask yes and so i think one of the priorities at least that i've tried to articulate is maintaining the level of affordable housing and if we're defining affordable i'm not sure how we're defining fordable because it was a surprise to me to find out that are affordable i understand that but that that's a big shift i think from what we've talked about so i thank you for calling that out i'm interested in what others think about that and i'm also interested in what what we play and in the continue ability what percentage of housing stock exists between subsidized housing  seventy nine that are market units that are allowed that are affordable to below eighty percent so i guess that does see to that but some paradigm shift that counselor mace was just referring to and being confused about what we're defining as affordability seems like the term we've been using market rate in the past so that's what confused me it seems like those in this discussion those terms are interchangeable whereas in the past i think the discussion was that there was a difference between or considering affordable or considering  that's a tricky c to wade into because it will mean different things and they're defined by they're defined differently for different reasons and do bacteria regional question is there's no simple answer to draw on the income limit based based on what's we would consider subsidized because subsidies can mean different things depending on the type of subsidy where it's coming from what the benchmark is different problems have different am i cut off for example and so that that just gets really complicated you know going back to the i mean i don't know if this is helpful but there are i mean you can do deeply subsidized versus subsidize versus affordable units and there's different here breakdowns from a data perspective that you can get very specific into because it's almost sounds like you're kind of curious as to what like it sounds like you want to make sure that i interpret in this the right way and that is that that those three hundred seventy nine units that are not subsidized but are currently affordable for folks who are below eighty percent may know you know the policy goal appears to be well maintained the six hundred eighty seven but if those three hundred  seventy nine units are replaced by units that serve primarily eighty to one hundred twenty percent not only is that ok but that's a goal of ours and i and i have a problem with it and not what a city we're finding is affordable all of which i do find really interesting too because if we look back you know we always like to look back to that strategic vision statement where we have quality affordable housing right in identifying where our strategic vision of what we want to encourage in the city so i could fix that a little bit so you're saying here that eighty four percent of these units are portable below eighty percent but we also know that seventy two percent of the population is making eighty percent or less a have twelve percent that we can step up to open up more to people making it a one hundred twenty percent and that but i don't know that we i believe that we were intending to shift existing unit correct me we're talking about it's new development expanding that so there are more units available to people who are making it one hundred twenty percent and that's not just about new people moving in and that's also about people that are currently low income trying to move themselves up and having housing available to them you know if somebody becomes disqualified for subsidy where are they going to go and to be able to stay in this community like i appreciate that and i think you could tweak the language to make clear that we're not just talking about maintaining subsidize units were mean we're talking about meet the current level of affordable and affordable is now going to be defined as what policy doesn't you know what the target is doesn't change and i think that's the important piece for this conversation here and the knowledge of and i think that so i i definitely understand that where the recommendation with him going forward is not to change what our housing stock currently is it is to incentivize a specific type of housing stock in newly developed housing if that is the direction that the city goes and the focus is on the eighty to one twenty what's really important to me is so whether or not this change existing housing stock what it is is changing the composition of our city as a whole we look broad context and we need to be able to look back frequently in that goes back to that agenda and those metrics to say where are we book agent we go too far did we get this loss and now we need to make sure to change our policy lever so we're stock and and because of the stock that we have we're so small and you know a few more home one hundred unit that comes on line changes our percentages pretty significantly because we have such a low amount of housing stock and i can really change the face of our community so quickly i'm just damn priestley add from the planning commissions perspective and we're presented with these goals point for and i don't know if you want to go to that page  of the housing goals and the expand and balance the available rental stock and encourage economic integration of neighborhoods in the city as a whole i read that as we need to be thinking across the spectrum and we need to be putting in specific adjusting the policy levers so that we're getting that full spectrum so i do think that there was there is a conversation specifically about our lack of rental stock in the eighty to one twenty range but i think least when their housing commission presented this to us we saw that as a shortfall but not the entire picture or the point of the presentation that's one of the points but i think point four here is really the biggest point which is that we have to develop our recommendations based on looking at the spectrum as a whole and having a more fluid distribution of rental prices so that people have the ability to move and that we're not like polarized on the low end in the high end and the anyone who is living in our community who might be increase their income or wan stock elsewhere would not be people that are increasing from the level of subsidy to non subsidized because if we have eighty percent below the a m a but seventy two percent of the population within that there's enough stock below the a m a for people who are our community can mean for our community community affordable for all of our residents and that looks different across income levels and one of the ways we stay in affordable community is to have some of the higher end development so we can keep our and below i think misses the opportunity to think about our workforce housing our middle income housing and our young family housing and again to palace's point kind of creating that that spectrum of options that allow people to move here in graduate school or out of college or as a young working person and stay here through having children and having a family and having some options and so i think we need to think about for at least for a staff when we think about diversity and affordability it's across that life cycle and across that experience in our community and not just for a stagnant income level or a stagnant population and i think we've kind of got off to off a little into the weeds of the data because it's very data heavy presentation to remind us of that kind of larger context of how we create affordability at all in comeuppance will salute let's also get us focused on what outcomes these guys need from us tonight in terms of the back and i mean to that point of what's the goal what are we trying to richey we have before us into housing bubbles what we don't have are those numbers right these are general general policy directions and i think that's a question as to whether you know you've got in here under the housing commission recommended housing goals and targets for homeownership whether or not you see a future of applying a coming back with a particular percentage and saying we think fifty percent of net new units should be we should be trying to influence the market to give us this and we think this person there should be this and maybe it is that is that somewhere you think down the  is that not a productive way of approaching it in your minds so i think ultimately that is the council per product you are the policy center is you happen you are the one you know your policy extension boards can do that work and present options to you but i think alternately it's your call whether you want to talk task us with setting final targets and bringing those back to you for recommendations i do think that you know we've talked about this a little bit in the past about this work rolling into the master planning work so certainly we're going to if we decide to more we will go in that direction by at least decide to let that public process play out with these goals those are those are targets numbers values our community can that over the next couple of months with the housing with master planning process but it's really your product of how specific do you want us to get are you comfortable with these d about the different types of loan programs and work partnerships they can take place to help with some of those activities i think it's once you get down to courage construction of eighty one twenty in my is is where we need to talk about our expectations as to what that benchmark looks like and what success looks like and whether we want a number recommended to us and i don't think it's productive this body this evening we try to come up with a number o outcomes for these guys are so happy with the lives and what the expectations are coming back and i i do think that when the rubber meets the road we need we need to have something to measure number three by you know we can say so i appreciate that i think that would be really helpful for me is to see what is the recommendation that says because if we're framing it without percentage of what do we want to use our policies for what percentage of new units coming on to be trying to aim for with these policies just having that goal of we want to encourage that the impression that i got left with is that we want to put all our eggs in the basket of as m every single unit we want to try to get online being in that eighty to one hundred twenty percent am i and so i think having a percentage breakdown of what do we want the pool for new units to be not only tells us what's the recommendation for percentage of new units one hundred twenty percent and why but by virtue what is the percentage of new units we were encouraging we want to hit being subsidized and what's the percentage we want that's below eighty percent  to build additional units and that it's not about retention as much when i think terminology is sick so subsidizes specifically whether or not through one program or another that people that rent is being subsid it's calculated doesn't matter but the but the idea being what this is saying is eighty one twenty you could say i want to see some percentage to eighty to sixty you know you can you can make and you can also ask for that and ask if they i think the more appropriate way given the amount of work and thought going into this is that them to look at that to see if setting a you know side by side layer policy that specifies between those two different am eyes from a little perspective makes sense but if it were also making decision of what you know what our goals as a city are  so i would say yes if we're looking at how do we want to use our policy to encourage growth in specific areas and what percentage of their growth we want to be x y or z right then looking at new units which is what we have control over  gentrification young will have the latest design from also good so i think that that's just the reinforcement of the importance of the net and kind of gives also direction on a really targeted focus maybe in the future of that data to say to make sure we're looking at that and i think well i think to that point i i think it's also given the importance placed on the i think it's important to to hear so we're hearing it back and saying this is what we think is the vision now look at policy so i would be interested to see what the recommendation comes out as you know what percentage of new  new units you would want to incentivize storage being eighty to one hundred twenty i would like to hear from a top counselors and i don't know where folks stand for me it's really important that in those percentage pools of new units that some percentage doesn't include subsidized housing just as well that we're not saying no we want to exclusively encourage only the growth of x y and z i'm not saying that should be our focus but that i don't want us to say we're prioritizing building  yes in percentage of stock maybe but if we're saying we value the profile of our community and what our community looks like from the vibrancy standpoint and that changes if we're not also continuing the build out opportunities to maintain that ultimately i would prefer to see a balance in those three percent and one hundred thirty three thirty three thirty three but not eighty five percent or six pay for six in ten either i think you know i think that's how i read this report originally before tonight coming into this i looked at it as yes majority of incentivising would go in that eighty to one and twenty percent only because that is what's needed to bring that balance somewhere a little bit more like justice and affordable for everybody and affordable for low income of course for middle income for higher income and i again i one hundred percent agree that we need to be really protective current mix which again is what makes this a special thing that's how we do it respectfully but still bring these percentages kind of into each other a little bit where you said i you know i  from a lot of people around that you know of the one of the challenges for living in staying in in his he often goes back to the school record whether it's true not true perceived whatever some people believe it's true in some sense of the word right so if bringing these these gaps in a little bit and then allowing people to go from you know being lower income or just being new to living on their own or whatever drives to new city and bringing that middle range mix up is really an important piece of the puzzle so i definitely agree with all this that said and i appreciate the discussion around affordability and that is  i think it's really super important but i think having that mix is also the way that you get people from start to finish and i think there's another piece of the story that's missing too if are it one hundred twenty percent housing stock is this pinch that causes rents to go up and so for bringing on these new units and we're expanding that range it's easier the way the market fluctuates it's easier to keep those rates where they're at if we're having it you know this much of our stock as subsidize and then there's also another folks willing to pay for luxury units pay those rates then you're going to end up with nothing in the middle and more lecturing it's because that's what the market is going to be asking for so if that's this is just another point of why you want to have like a balance across all three ranges and it sounds like we're giving the housing commission the next step of the housing employment commission next step of you know ten percentages of growth all if so i would also love to add a next step of having the housing commission look at all some those policy mechanisms we talked about before around mixed income housing and then also have the housing commission look into what the mayor mentioned you take  r place it just in regards to redevelopment and i you know i don't know we're engaged in this discussion now around new housing stock think it's ok toby look at those potential policy recommendations released look at you the replace it recommendations after once we have those discussions out of the way so that's more about redevelopment of existing but i would really like as we're looking at policy incentives to encourage new housing stock and what that's going to look like maybe with the planning commission is just if there are if there are also policy levers going to be taken off the table i think we need to be really really suppose that about that and that's what we're talking about that mention inclusionary zon understanding of policy else it's going to go because you know what's good is a lot of these mixed in with other issues so it's good to see housing you know tending these conversations quite frankly that's a good thing but there's also just now open up to the public comments questions concerns yes to that point ensuring you're saying ensure the homeowner ships a part of that of those gold discussion the city's website to the housing commission to the folders with the documents you'll see all of the presentations back through the course of their meetings that has a lot of data so please feel the members of the public should feel free to dive into oth not my area keeping out thirty six percent is what's required to the ongoing affordable units right now but i don't know where it is in the stage where it any of those are in their state of succession potential so there is a list  maintained by a number of entities that maps out in the state where expiring affordable housing units are located and there's a coalition of funders that gets together and talks about ok we know this is make improvements as soon as they make improvements on the projects than they are subject to another round not purpose to be but a link thinning of those to the point one thing i was going to tag on to the ins it's probably just time to have ed come in and do an update on their other projects and that would be a great thing to throw out to him on whether or not the new ski has any concerns about the retention of the current subsidize the change in the market i think is really important to you personally i think i'd really appreciate that going on thank you so much for bringing it up i don't have that concern as much because one of the gems i think kristen brought up a really good point that i think that there are people right now that are renting down the rental units that are less that cost less than what they could afford that eight percent that still exist that are in renting units that are under that eighty percent likely have higher incomes so i don't as we have those pressures we need to worry about as much so thank you for that as well susan just a quick again context for the finish line i know but what happens is there's a there's an adjustment a fair market rent in the vouchers don't have a set  value on them they're just from the baseline rent that somebody is charging between that and fair market rent so the properties in areas where rents go up are actually further and cinna biased in most cases the keep the vouchers in in the interest of time and our familiarity with these reports at this point i'm wondering if we want to just respond to any questions that you all have yet i on the welcome package today because he is deep in the midst of doing the annual report and community services from brochure so we're not going to be really actually looking at this for a few months but certainly that has been very much on  using their orientation process for new families coming into our community and going to them and meeting with them so i may not be a traditional welcome packet as much as a welcome meeting lunch training may look different for different  was attractive in its current confined can we i think that may help us in getting people to use them as at least having access to them somewhere i have a folder that had two pieces of paper and that's what i have on the we're about to rewrite the fool so it's completely shut off that's a so that's a complicated yet question with a long answer so there's an agreement with champlain housing trust administer the program so technically somebody who wants is interested when you go to champlain housing trust we have significant questions and issues with the way the programs designed it needs to have a complete redo so about two years ago we really decided to stop sending people their wall they got re so it is clear i would consider it currently in use a woman was made two years ago to do a roof and then it was it was done in a way that was very patched together and that experience  the fire house that was contingent on completing that fire up in the firehouse software and having that ready to roll which it now is live down the back and on that and set it up so that we have people going out and doing inspections live with  pads and we're gathering that data i believe that because the cycle of our inspections is a four year cycle to get through the whole city we're going to have to set something up initially with an expectation that will be revising in june look at what we've compiled written in a learning process but we're we're in the place that we've never been certainly with the program and being there to look like the data in the understand was to nine points that we're checking on the checklist so there's fifty nine data points on the initial and we can change those as we move in those housing commission does the work you guys that policy and we can we can shift those and we've data to be compiled because we have had some useful conversations about the potential for piggybacking some of these programs so for example pearlington lead program is really interested in getting fully involved in when you see and spending out funds here so the possibility of making accessing some of these funds contingent on having already gone through the light program for example is one way that we could start to approach that so we're leveraging multiple funding sources to get as much and get a maximum i mean impact brevity i have used this is the first update on the baseline gentrification data that i presented to you in august of two thousand and seventeen i used the same criteria that urban planning standards define gentrification at a census track level therefore this analysis has been done at a census track level criteria to meet gentrification sads have been developed based on an approach used by lance freeman  is at columbia university and is considered one of the foremost scholars on gentrification the indicators of gentrification analyzed in this report were drawn from who knew steve housing needs assessment in addition to an urban planning literature review institution definition which defines stratification as the process by which higher income households displace significant numbers of lower income residents of a neighborhood that's changing the essential character and flavor of the neighborhood  i'm not going to go through it data point by data point like i did last time with the full charts what we're showing here is the gentrification indicator scorecard from the obvious two thousand and seventeen analysis and that data was taken from on cases it was two thousand and ten u s census data ever since two thousand and fifteen american community survey although there were certain there were certain points that i looked at from two thousand until two thousand and fifteen in august checkmark means that we met gentrification criteria and it's divided out into track twenty four and track twenty five which are the two census tracks in when you ski and x means we did not meet gentrification criteria so there were four places where we met gentrification indicator criteria they were in median income and track twenty five renter and homeowner disparity in both tracks and an increase in high wage jobs with a corresponding decrease in low wage jobs in track twenty four equipment you'll see here between two thousand and fifteen and two thousand and sixteen data we only meet criteria for two of those so it appears that we're just we're not meeting   my recommendation would be that we very carefully continue to monitor things like incoming rental units and where those fall but maybe put the full gentrification analysis to a six month  you know through what changed i guess to january that has us with two fewer why i think it does have to do with the time period because i think the most significant changes that we had that may have a leaning toward gentrification were actually developed in the district which is that for me where i'm really interested in what are the pressure points being created by implication rather than development of the down from the jump to using two thousand and fifteen should be more consistent and we shouldn't see big fluctuation like that i will say that in looking at income disparity between renter and homeowner in the year two thousand to twenty thirteen we had a fifty four thousand dollars difference between a whole average median homeowner and a median renter whereas that has dropped down to a thirty eight thousand dollars difference in sixteen so there was this and now it's doing i think then moving in the right direction thousand so that is something that we have implemented each year since it is not something that we actually are legally obligated to do and i would say moving forward it's a level we need to look  because while it is a significant increase every year i don't believe it's actually getting us to those preventive maintenance levels that we need to be funding to maintain our infrastructure so it's a warning of what we might talk about in future years ip that you'll see next year our intent is to have it formed by the asset management system that we continue to build out and follow our internal adopted procedures which means we will go through a review process internally that actually will pick up starting in about a month and a half to develop they have my twenty one and then that those recommendations will be reviewed ideally by a finance committee and the public works commission in advance of coming to you during the budget cycle so these are h p related f y eighteen accomplishments again i'm a little bit flying through these because you saw the most of these on the public works presentation a few weeks ago and then we have this presentation breaks out the c i p is presented tonight differently than in past nights across funding sources across enterprise funds so this is the roll up of the c h p general fund supported budget  please do note that at the end of your of your presentation that you have in front of you is an updated full document of the c r p which is different than the one in your budget book so when you're looking at that please look at the one that's in the presentation i think the city's realized that it needed to address the specifically the firetruck issue for many years when there was no plan this is usually a couple of your process to even spec a truck in the future really taken a consideration going to a trip to truck said i believe this truck is step one of that soon we replace the aerial is it feasible that we will roll operation know vendors trying to get to a point of finding a truck you know any one of them to put a truck here in the city something has been here in the city for twenty four years we have some comfort with them with their vendor the type of truck how it's held up for e looked into to fill that gap this is the media delivery with this model if we were to spec a truck again we'd be looking at two years of kind of talking to and internally what that is and getting all the pieces worked out and from placing the order it would be twelve to sixteen months for the manufacture to deliver that truck i'm here to tell you depending on another truck that we're slowly depending on i don't mind w own option with the manufacturer so it would be an annual payment of twenty seven five for twelve years and a three point nine percent interest rate so it will not be a fun bond vote this is using the leasing pay we are recommending some equipment purchases for f y one thousand including a dump truck for public works that joe can talk about the vehicle left that you've heard us talk about before that will allow us to do maintenance on all of our lease payment for police car and camera equipment we're also carrying ninety three thousand for a street and sidewalk work which will include the paver and ptions but we don't know how viable they are we don't really know the cost yet so we're just barely getting into that now so i can't really answer you know what we're going to do about it yet but we're in the infancy sorry just want to raise that flag as a community i think that's a really important conversation because we're taking away from our capacity to save for the future by using it for debt service to make payments for things  just whether or not that's a that's a good practice america i've always questioned that and it hope that at some point we can pay down the existing debt in the point where it wasn't there anymore and start to use those funds for for capital improvement savings and then transfer when those new debts came in there was a bond you know i understand where the city did it but i don't think a street bond frankly is an appropriate place to put here in the capital for i think the voters  after vote on that and decide to make those improvements and understand it impacts taxes that's my personal reflection on that i think from a values perspective a new knowledge that we're adding additional long term debt into the capital debt service that's funded past capital having it in the capital budget is an appropriate place to put it because it presents that goal that complete picture of how we has a as a community have invested our tax dollars and i think the question perhaps more the question you're trying to get at is what is that love only as a community need to be investing to do the regular permitted maintenance we need to be doing to maintain our infrastructure and if we're not thinking about it from that perspective and thinking i think what we've done to start in the city is think thought about it from the perspective of what money do we have available and therefore project should we do as opposed to what's the work we need to do and how do we funded and if we can switch to the latter i don't think it really matters where the debt service gets it's what's the investment of the dollars into the infrastructure that we're making here useful software would i would i would defer a little bit from that i think i think as much as were looking at the waste water improvement on bond vote in march so the intent is to put forward a request for the one point two for the head works and the two hundred fifty for the addition building edition garage in the same boat  an access control that we saw and we heard the need for as part of the parking study and our annual preventive maintenance to maintain that garage so we have a summary here of what we are proposing  and then finally just to acknowledge that there are some very significant commercial issues on the capital front one new public works director starting in a couple of weeks new see what c a p procedure for implementation f y twenty updates as well obviously we don't want to lose sight at city hall in the o'brien community center and you heard the chief talk classed week about potential impacts for the police department if we go to regional dispatch in some small cattle investments that will that are new this year or that are being addressed to me kind of talk that a lot of the link regarding the mechanics of dress in those terms of bumping up the firetruck to being something that we always had a number fo point out that that was done and it's interesting councils the tax rate i mean i think it's an important conversation for us to have that's a non binding that was a non binding resolution that was put comments concerns it leadership proposal my job was to reduce the office manager position to thirty hours a week i'm following that recommendation we have actually received two resignations from our front office staff both of our part  we have gone through a process with the leadership team and the administrative office staff team to look at how do we best staff moving forward in this proposal as a result of those discussions so what we recommending is to go from i've always two of whom were recommended to work forty hours a week and the other three to work part time to an amended proposal to have four  staff who all work full time and are fully benefited the same number of hours of service for the public so it's not a reduction in that service area and we believe that this is the best way to provide services so we can do that with four bodies instead of five it does have a financial impact that you'll pay you see in the memo in totality it's a twenty nine thousand dollars add to the leadership proposed last meeting about the treasurer position the reduction of duties to move some of the funds currently allocated to that position to the straightest staffing for a balance of twelve thousand one hundred sixty seven dollars so that has a five dollar will be three of the staff will be continue with the title of city clerk or assistant city clerk and they will take on the responsibility of supporting the council and doing the minutes of these meetings which will free up angeles so the leadership proposal was to reduce the total hours of service time so if you look in that member of the box on the left has the leadership proposal budget so reduce the office manager position from forty hours a week to thirty hours a week down payment of a fire truck that you just heard about for the c h p presentation fifteen thousand six hundred seventy three dollars to fire and the rest of the c i p general find a gap and there are six thousand dollars to fund the municipal planning grant grant match that we got from a master plan which we carried in the upper class by just for taking out because it is a one time expense not an ongoing expense that would leave every meaning and aside from a balance balance of three hundred ninety five thousand vote at your next meeting as it does have budget implications with the rest of the f b i team budgets currently you tell you jump so this is our attempt really there's no additional information here but in the interest of coming to you as prepared as possible next week with a final budget amount to go on  and not forcing enjoyment of life and things spreadsheets we want to have a conversation about your inclination about budget additions or subtractions you'd like us to cost out or explore in advance numbers of two point one six from the church so the additional i have two point six one six percent we receive the changes from budget of one point one one percent that's i did not do that probably could do it quickly if you want to  the last night and sometimes to shuffle things around we try to do the meeting for the see if there's you know there's they're based on things that we want to set as a foundation of our conversation but this is to try to kind of  a little bit and get some of those items on the table and to start to take the temperature to of what these percentages look like in part because if you know if somebody says by gosh we're going to cut it off at one percent and we have a leadership proposal and we have opposable for you that is reflective of what staff believes is the best way to execute the goals that we've laid out for them but in the end each line of this budget is yours and if there is a particular piece of it while we haven't found that to be a great methodology of budgeting going through each other and hacking each one to be particularly good any items that were added prior to the budget coming here if you've got an issue with any of those items and then you know probably most obviously the items that are on this you know the expenses in staffing benefits  it's going to something different there's no two point one five percent you get or two point one five increases before you and i think it would be great to see other sheep to what that net impact to taxpayers look like that's being considered but the same time i guess maybe the first question is how people what their senses of you know whether we feel if they're two point one five years it's going to be that middle proposal woman i guess subsequently two point three five or three seven percent so those numbers are going to run in court nation with this so that you know i would take a leadership budget and just add on the twelve thousand for the ministry of support that's an increase of two point one five standpoint what you people feel good about what that accomplishes from a proposal standpoint are there specific aspects of it that are concerning this is a different we're going down about this in a different way we've spent less time the difference from you know additional lad pieces and that's that's another question i have in this admin piece because we reinstated office manager here i'm assuming that that's actually yes i don't think reinstate and then we use the remaining piece to start giving additional commerce to the other class action but we didn't have enough to also get that and so these are the ems two that have been put in front of you the reason also if there are specific issues on the general fund budget details that people you know want to bring up when i have issue with  you know them that's that's also open i mean there's again you have the sheet with it's got home and i guess of all the shows if something change you know something that was cut or something was added you've got significant concerns about this where we had him do that percentage change spreadsheet for everybody you know certainly having that information or those concerns now we're ahead of the next meeting as much as possible would be very good for us to be able to have the detail about it to be able to easily just talk i'm in now because from my perspective but then if not then it's really june down to the issues that are stuck a little bit because obviously especially now you just hire a public works director like there's just an example here but like you know i think it's just challenging to even start making any sort of recommendations absolutely so i can understand why you feel that way it was not done as a placeholder of saving in dollars we went through a long process with the leadership team to come up with the hundreds of thousands we had to cut to get to the local tax rate budget and the decision made specifically about that is that we have two strong leaders in that department who have demonstrated their ability to keep the operation wheel operational wheels on the bus and instead of looking to cut another position in that department or in the city that we were more interested if that was where we wanted to go if we want to cut to that level of figuring out how to continue to operational leads as opposed to cutting a cd driver or another or a police officer or another staff person in the city it wasn't made lightly it wasn't made as a  it was the one i was the most anxious about but it was not meant as a threat and so an option for you if you really wanted to see us additional funds is to sit it's to direct to me in the next couple of days to go back with staff and look for thirty thousand dollars of other funds to cut that's not that position you can certainly i mean that being said i think that for me puts me in a position where you know with those feeling more comfortable with the leadership proposal obviously you're for it what so that to me means that i i don't know exactly presuming the more the more obvious cuts even if everyone doesn't agree on them so i don't know what i'm trying to say at this point but for me i feel like i'm not totally comfortable just increasing the leadership proposal and accepting look you know full budget and thinking about cutting sixteen thousand dollars hours something that's not a lot of money but i really think that like it's also the respectful thing to do the taxpayers  continually scrutinize every dollar that's spent here and i personally had opinion on where i wanted this to come in and they are pretty open about that as low as possible  in the beginning so i think for me i'd like to cut it back down under two percent if i have to start to look at this list and say what are the things there the list confuses me a little because it's a new forehead i like it but it's like that's it see that number already you knew basically something out where we haven't gone through the same sort of priorities conversation discussion that that's an inherent difference between this budget process and the last is that we haven't spent much time talking about where does this rank in terms of pervious and how is that so that's i mean that's just reality we have it we have a spending time there we could ask those questions we could ask them to talk about   or you him you can propose to impose your own value on it and say you know i feel like this is a place where we could we could check first and see if there's a conversation to be had there yes i did i don't want to make it seem like i think i know better than the directors of our departments and here in the city which is should be or should be cut necessarily yeah i had an a in in the department all day so i guess my preference personally would be to get a recommendation from staff on how they would propose getting this back down to thirty percent but i don't know what that looks like because this was a visit this was the best boo to own it and to executed in a way that meets the needs and services of the community so i just and it is important that we listen to the question is i think i think the groups are very respectful and responsible in that manner listen to the great very smart professionals that we have here i'm just i'm i'm trying to empower him bolden in some way to say look this is the one opportunity that you do have over the course of the year to happen to have that for fish and it's the one so yeah i mean i think it so we looked at c p i when we built the budget in november and it was at point one nine we have seen it was two point seven can do to most appropriately staffing the budget you're seeing in front of you is a budget we've built and for and it is it is really unfortunate and it's timing and we certainly can go back and find you know the next couple of days figuring out how to get it back below two percent you can give us a direction where you want to see that done or you can ask us to come up with three scenarios where we might find that because i agree with you it is it is a last minute of the three where you might recommend   reserves toward talk or short dispenses you know shape or form and i just want to i just want to put that out there because it's creating an inherently structural issue with our budget that has so next year you're starting with a thirty seven thousand dollar budget deficit on the friday record position and again the rationale behind that was that it's a position that's really soley emerged during a service delivery system the chances of getting thirty seven thousand dollars of additional revenues  i mean it would be pulling a rabbit out of a hat that you know from what the from the goes to the budget there's there's things that i think we probably would have talked about quite a bit in the leadership but in terms of whether or not we were or two three years ago right here it better i think conversation but you know i just would challenge us to artificially keep the tax rate down and building a structural deficit because a number sounds good to us i struggle with that so if it's three cents it's three cents and we do the right thing on the budget i want to the right thing that's a very poor choice of words  consider when you're looking at three proposals you know restructuring the administrative team well that mean my might make sense  decision when you have special revenue for funds so the intent of the city is that the cost of this program is going to be borne by the revenues coming into the program that it is my obligation to have the programs of support itself so to the extent it doesn't we can use general fund taxpayer dollars to subsidize that program but that is a different value statement and saying we're going to use the the revenues from this program to support this program so the reason it was taken out was to say we're going to treat it as a special revenue fund as it's established we're going to have the revenues match the expenditures are going to try and figure out how to get there if we can't get there that's it there or if we can't get there then there are different staffing level do we need to expand doing need to staff differently there are other questions we can ask if we can make that happen but as it's been set up as that kind of special revenue fund why should the general fund taxpayers be subsidizing it you can or simply continue to subsidize it from visitors instead of asking for the general i mean they're still doesn't mean you have to increase rates it means you can continue to do it said aides but it's like they're just using essentially the same thing it's do you want to see if the program survives subsidize what you need to or you want to ask for all the money upfront it's a way to start in the city has chosen to track self supporting programs it's not any i'm not confused as to what those are what was the original thinking behind having general country general from contributions to thrive director and general president because quite a while ago but what is the end to ability of staff to dedicate time to looking at childcare opportunities and when you ski with moving it over to thrive is that diminished and what do so since we're still in the midst of discussion around the promise communities fred what's the trajectory how much money is left there how was that going to be spent if we are moving this position entirely over to thrive  what's and if so how would that money be spent if there wasn't a person to spend it because we're having the right director be entirely the driver i'll have we found so i know there was a discussion drug seizures something right if we got that we could potentially put that towards cameras if we wanted to the v a put in that we would all otherwise have just like a stipulation on the money or something so so  value on training for professional development eight thousand overall i was something i would want to have some more discussions around i think it's incredibly important we invest in our employees not only with that create increase quality of services for our residents but it will increase retention and i think that it's important for us to that's an important value that i have i don't necessarily looking at half full now but i do think that that's a discussion i would have wanted to have had we not been thrown into this position of now discussing that administrative proposal if we were just if that's you know a race that we're like ok with the leadership proposals fully spend the training budget every year this seems like this is a this is one of those backwards ones actually that i use this frenchie to because it was easier than trying to quickly up to the other way so this is an eight thousand dollars so i guess where i said it is i would be very interested in the concept of coming back with what you know it sounds like there's interest from the other counsellor someone could three offered three options to get under two percent looks like and i'd be super interested in looking at what your recommendations of that i'd be i don't necessarily feel beholden to that but i think it's an important discussion and i think under two percent is a lot more palatable more because there is the threshold of moving from a whole number to another whole number but i don't think there's necessarily anything that is magic between one point nine eight percent and two point zero eight percent or two point one five percent i but if that's so well that how slow be really you know and i had so i feel on board with seeing what some options might  three i'm comfortable with a two point one five level i'll say that i'm not come forward how we got to the two point five one five level i would like that to be reevaluated figure other things on this list that i find to be more in my own personal just saying three one particular level i think there are some people here who are fine at the two point two point one range yeah i feel comfortable there  five i haven't heard anything specific that people highlighted where they need to see different scenarios or two point one five six and the different options two point one five six people with i've heard i mean right so what i'm saying is that what i don't think is ok is for us just to have those with zero flexibility exercise i think that we need to have a model that will allow us to make a basement if that's what people would like to do