HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Steering Committee - 01/24/2022AGENDA
SOUTH BURLINGTON STEERING COMMITTEE
(Joint meeting of the City Council and School Board) South Burlington City Hall 180 Market Street
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
Participation Options In Person: 180 Market Street - Auditorium - Main Floor Assistive Listening Service Devices Available upon request: Reach out to staff or committee members before meeting begins Electronically/Virtually:https://www.gotomeet.me/SouthBurlingtonVT/steering-committee-meeting01-24-2022 Dial in: +1 (408) 650-3123 Access Code: 134-039-181
Steering Committee 6:30 PM __ _ Monday, January 24, 2022
1.Welcome and Pledge of Allegiance (6:30 PM)
2.Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology options –Jessie Baker, City Manager (6:31 – 6:32 PM)
3.Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (6:33 – 6:34PM)
4.Comments and questions from public not related to the agenda (6:35 – 6:45 PM)
5.*** Approve Minutes from May 18, 2021 and October 27, 2021 Steering CommitteeMeetings. (6:45 – 6:47 PM)
6.*** Presentation of the FY23 School Budget – David Young, Superintendent (6:48 – 7:45PM)
7.*** Presentation of the FY23 City Budget – Jessie Baker, City Manager, and Andrew
Bolduc, Deputy City Manager (7:45 – 8:30 PM)
•All City FY23 Budget documents can be found here:https://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/departments/finance/fy_23_budget.php
8.Other City and School Updates for the Council and School Board (8:30 – 9:00 PM)
9. Other Business (9:00 – 9:05 PM) 10. Adjourn (9:05 PM) Respectfully Submitted:
Jessie Baker David Young City Manager Superintendent *** Attachments Included
STEERING COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2021
The South Burlington Steering Committee held a meeting on Tuesday, 18 May 2021, at 7:00
p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
City Council: H. Riehle, Steering Committee Chair; M. Emery, Sen. T. Chittenden, T. Barritt, M.
Cota, K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager;
School Board: B. Burkhardt, B. Day, Dr. T. Child, B. Minier, A. McHenry, D. Young,
Superintendent of Schools
ALSO PRESENT: C. Baker, Chittenden Country Regional Planning Commission; D. Saladino, VHB
1. Any changes to the order of the Agenda:
No changes were made to the Agenda.
2. Comments & Questions from the Public, not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised by the public.
3. Minutes of 20 January and 1 March 2021:
Ms. Burkhardt noted she had sent some small changes to Mr. Dorn. They don’t change any
substance.
Mr. Barritt moved to approve the minutes of 20 January and 1 March 2021 with any small
changes noted above. Ms. Burkhardt seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Riehle welcomed new School Board members Dr. Travia Child and Becky Day.
4. Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) I-89 Study Presentation:
Mr. Baker said one of the issues the City Council is dealing with is a recommendation to the
CCRPC on which Interstate exits would be the best choices for future construction 20-30 years
out. The question is how the various options would impact the school, and CCRPC would like
the School Board’s input on this so that can be factored into the final decision.
Ms. Burkhardt said she has seen the agendas and minutes, but the School Board has not
discussed this. They would not be able to make a decision tonight.
Mr. Baker stressed this is not the last chance to provide input. He then reviewed the process to
date including community meetings and a big public meeting a few weeks ago. There will be a
STEERING COMMITTEE
18 MAY 2021
PAGE 2
Study Advisory Committee meeting tomorrow, and they will be asked to keep all three
potential interchanges alive. There will also be a shift from those projects to shorter term
options (e.g., reducing vehicle traffic). Mr. Baker said even after the study is done, there will
still be tracking to see when/if the point is reached to make the big investment. He also
stressed that a lot of things can happen before a decision is made. Technology can change,
there will be more electric vehicles, more people may be working from home, etc.
Mr. Baker noted that the City Council supported the 12B project by a 3-2 vote, but they will be
revisiting this. Other city committees (e.g., Bike/Ped, Natural Resources, etc.) also discussed
and they were leaning toward the Exit 13 project.
Mr. Baker then reviewed the goals of the project:
a. Safety
b. Livability
c. Mobility
d. Environmental
e. Economy
f. Maintaining the system
He noted that there is a matrix provided under each of those goals and showed the scoring
from all these for each option. He stressed that there will be trade-offs and noted “traffic is like
that.”
Mr. Baker noted that the Exit 13 project would result in the largest traffic increase south of
Kennedy Drive (30% increase). It would slightly reduce traffic north of Kennedy Drive. Ms.
Emery said noted that truck traffic could use that route. Both Mr. Barritt and Mr. Cota said Exit
12B would be better for that truck traffic.
Mr. Baker then showed the maps of the Exit 13 Single Point Diamond option. It would remove
a number of ramps and bring all traffic to one signal. It would also become a state highway
instead of a federal one and would look more like Kennedy Drive. The plan would bring the
Kennedy Drive bike path along that route to connect with the network. All crossing would be
“at grade.” Traffic would have to slow down more than at Exit 14 now. Mr. Baker noted this is
a very expensive option, $60,000,000, but the old infrastructure wouldn’t have to be
maintained which would be some savings.
STEERING COMMITTEE
18 MAY 2021
PAGE 3
Mr. Baker then showed a map of the 12B concept. Some intersection control would be needed.
It would include a sidewalk and rec path. This would result in a 39% increase in traffic to the
south, but north of Kennedy Drive traffic would be reduced. This options reduces the most
traffic on Williston Road.
Ms. Burkhardt asked whether Rt. 116 would have to be upgraded. Mr. Baker said it would
probably have to be 4 lanes.
The question was raised as to whether 13 and 12B would result in more development near the
interchange, residential and/or commercial. Mr. Baker said their analysis suggests there is not
much developable land near 13. The estimate is that 12B would result in 5% more
development than is now projected.
Ms. Emery said she would like to see the numbers for traffic on 116. She also noted that Exit 13
could reduce the backups when school lets out. Mr. Baker showed a series of maps regarding
volumes of traffic and change in delays. He stressed that there are pluses and minuses “all over
the place.”
Sen. Chittenden said he feels this isn’t an “either/or” and suggested a phased approach where
both of these options could occur over the years. He asked if there has been any modeling for
that approach. Mr. Baker said that will be proposed at tomorrow’s meeting for all three
options. In the fall, they will look at the full package and see how it all works together.
Mr. Baker said they are still looking for feedback, but it is not critical. He advised the boards to
have CCRPC come back in the fall to show where things are.
Mr. Baker was asked to describe the Exit 14 plans. He said it would tweak the cloverleaf to
make it safer for cyclists. A diverging diamonds plan would reduce capacity. He showed a map
of that concept. It would eliminate the current ramp and move traffic to a signalized
intersection. Mr. Baker noted that the cloverleaf is the highest capacity you can have. The
proposed plan is the same as what is being done at Exit 16. There is also discussion of adding a
lane under the bridge to protect exiting cars from through traffic, eliminating the challenging
“weave.”
Ms. Burkhardt asked if there will be clearer numbers in the next stages. She was concerned
with more crossings, especially at dropoff time and pickup time at the schools. She also noted
STEERING COMMITTEE
18 MAY 2021
PAGE 4
the schools will be moving offices to 575 Dorset Street, and there will be increased traffic back
and forth across Dorset Street during the day which is also a concern with Exit 13. She also
noted that emergency vehicles leaving the fire station could be impacted at some times of the
day.
Supt. Young echoed the concern with increased traffic on Dorset Street. He said they now have
1600 students and staff on the site. South of Kennedy Drive is problematic, especially in the
mornings when students are arriving. In the winter, there are many occasions when bad
weather has caused accidents north of the park. He was concerned this could become worse
with a 30% increase in traffic. He also noted that even now parents are concerned with
students biking to school from south of Kennedy Drive. Traffic backs up all the way to Swift
Street at times, and that could get even worse with more traffic. Supt. Young said that anything
that can get traffic away from the Kennedy Drive/Dorset Street intersection would be good.
Ms. Riehle said another thing that is hard to predict is housing growth. It will not stop in the
next 50 years. There will also be more businesses. Both of those things will change the
dynamics of the roads.
Ms. Burkhardt said there is also the question of which option could increase the number of
students and the impact on the schools. Two of the elementary schools are at capacity now,
and the high school is over capacity. She stressed that having more students is fine, but they
need to plan for that which takes time.
Sen. Chittenden noted that most development now near 12B is industrial, but a zoning change
could result in more residential development
Mr. Baker asked that the school share population data with CCRPC. Ms. Burkhardt said they
can do that, but she cautioned that it reflects only development that is already permitted. This
is always a problem for long-range planning.
Mr. Barritt noted that what is in the pipeline for 116 is about 150 units at Cider Mill 2, the Hill
Farm, which would be both residential and commercial, the completion of the O’Brien Hillside
development, and 10 more homes on the Rye property. There is not much more south of Cider
Mill.
Mr. Baker said CCRPC will do much more work on this over the summer.
STEERING COMMITTEE
18 MAY 2021
PAGE 5
5. City Update on Completion of Library and City Hall and Move-in Schedule:
Mr. Dorn said it still looks like the Library will move in the last week in June. Then the City
Clerk’s Office will lead the City hall move-in about the second week in July. The hope is to have
everyone moved in by mid-July with a “grand opening” on 23 July. Everything is going along as
planned, and it is very exciting. He invited members of the School Board to set up a time to
tour the building.
6. Other Business:
No other business was presented.
As there was no further business to come before the Committee, Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn.
Ms. Burkhardt seconded. Motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:40
p.m.
________________________
Clerk
STEERING COMMITTEE 27 OCTOBER 2021
The South Burlington Steering Committee held a meeting on Tuesday, 18 May 2021, at 6:30
p.m., in the auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote
technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: City Council: H. Riehle, Steering Committee Chair; M. Emery, Sen. T.
Chittenden, T. Barritt, J. Baker, City Manager; School Board: B. Burkhardt, Dr. T. Child, A. Henry,
B. Minier, L. Rowntree, D. Young, Superintendent of Schools
ALSO PRESENT: A. Bolduc, Deputy City Manager
1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology
options:
Ms. Baker reviewed instructions on emergency exiting of the building and reviewed technology
options.
2. Any changes to the order of the Agenda:
No changes were made to the Agenda.
3. Comments & Questions from the Public, not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised by the public.
4. Minutes of 27 May 2021:
Ms. Burkhardt moved to approve the minutes of 27 May as written. Ms. Emery seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
5. City to Provide an update on the recent city-wide reappraisal:
Mr. Bolduc showed a graph of the grand list growth over time. He noted that the original plan
had been to reassess only commercial properties in 2018, but the City got no response to the
RFP. In 2020m, Tyler was awarded the contract to do both the commercial and residential
property reappraisals.
The reappraisal result in a 31% increase in the grand list, from $3.1 billion to $4 billion. It
didn’t, however, disproportionately affect residential and condo properties because of a
decrease in
STEERING COMMITTEE
27 OCTOBER 2021
PAGE 2
commercial property valuation from $1.76 billion to $1.45 billion. Following the reappraisal,
the tax rate was reset from .5567 to .4350.
Mr. Bolduc then showed a pie chart comparison of the percentage of the budget paid from
residential/condo properties and the percentage paid from commercial properties.
Approximately 700 property owners filed grievances with Tyler Technology. Of those, about 80
appeals went to the Board of Civil Authority. 40 of those appeals have resulted in reductions in
property values with additional outcomes still to be determined at one more BCA hearing. 9
assessments have been confirmed. One appellant is further appealing to the State. There are
a few neighborhoods where one property went up disproportionately to other similar
properties. These were equalized.
Because of the result of appeals where assessments were reduced, the grand list went down
$16 million. This results in a $65,000 shortfall for the municipal budget. Mr. Bolduc said the
feeling is that this will be “eaten up” within the budget. This will not impact the school budget.
7. School to provide an update on enrollment and demographic data:
Supt. Young showed a report recently received from the demographer who serves the school
district. The figures show a slow increase in the number of students in the district. Supt. Young
then showed the current enrollment number, including pre-Kindergarten students. The
numbers for elementary and the middle school are rising for 2022-23, and this is expected to
continue. The number of students from Market Street development exceeded expectation.
School principals will have to determine what these numbers mean in terms of classrooms.
Supt. Young observed that South Burlington is a good place to live.
The numbers for the high school don’t appear to be increase in proportion to the elementary
school increases. The district and the Board will be taking another look at that as it does not
appear to make sense.
Ms. Burkhardt said the question the School Board is facing is how to use projections to make
decisions as the new figures do not reflect the projections of just a few years ago. The
elementary schools were not supposed to be this stressed, and the question is why that
“bubble” doesn’t move on to the high school. Ms. Burkhardt also noted that the models for
other parts of the country doesn’t fit South Burlington, and it feels like they are almost in a
“guessing game.”
STEERING COMMITTEE
27 OCTOBER 2021
PAGE 3
Supt. Young then showed the figures for the 3 elementary schools, the middle school and the
high school:
Rick Marcotte School, which was built with a capacity of 323, now has 415 students.
Congregate areas (i.e., cafeteria, hallways, gym, etc.) are beginning to have pressure points.
Supt. Young stressed that student increases are good; the district just needs to make decisions
as to what to do.
Chamberlin School is the least stressed of the elementary schools. 320 is the ideal number of
students, and they are at 325. This number is anticipated to go down a bit.
Orchard School is built to accommodate 350 students. It now has 441.
Mr. Barritt asked if the district is aware of where the immigration is coming from. Supt. Young
said they don’t although some of it appears to be from housing turnover from older residents
to young families. Supt. Young said having more students is a good thing until it impacts
student learning, and they are beginning to see more “anxiety behaviors.
Tuttle Middle School is still a 3-grade school that can handle up to 750 students. The move of
administrative offices across the street to the former City Hall building has freed up some
spaces at Tuttle.
The high school now includes 152 tuition students which is down a bit, possibly due to COVID.
The issue at the high school is also the pressure on the congregate spaces which are inadequate
for the school numbers.
Sen. Chittenden said he would like to hear whether they are considering redistricting or moving
the 5th grade into the middle school. Ms. Burkhardt said the School Board will be hearing some
ideas from Supt. Young at future meetings. She noted that redistricting doesn’t seem to be an
option a there isn’t a lot of room at Chamberlin School, and they would only gain maybe a year
or two with that option. Supt. Young said all the options will have pluses and minuses. He said
that trailers and additions to the schools are among the options.
Ms. Emery asked about school additions. Supt. Young said that while additions can provide an
extra classroom or 2, it cannot relieve the pressure on the congregate spaces or on certain
classes (e.g., music).
STEERING COMMITTEE
27 OCTOBER 2021
PAGE 4
Ms. Riehle asked about the timeframe. Supt. Young said they would like to see things begin to
be resolved next year. Ms. Riehle said the City Council would like to know if there is going to be
any proposed bonding to go to the voters. She noted it doesn’t appear this is likely for this
coming March. Supt. Young agreed. There are assessments being done for the elementary
schools (e.g., electrical). They are hearing that in general the buildings are in good shape.
Mr. Minier said this is not just an enrollment issue. He cited HVAC issues at the middle and high
schools and said that in the next few years they will have to reckon with millions of dollars to
address these issues as well.
8. City and School to discuss initial plans for the upcoming FY23 budget process:
Ms. Baker referred to the city budget schedule in the meeting packet. She noted that one
change this year is that the capital budget will be integrated into the general budget. There will
also be budget hearings based on specific areas of the budget. The Council is committed to
maintaining services and to keep the budget below a 3% increase. There will also be a focus on
the best ways the city can use the COVID funds it is receiving. There will be city votes on TIF
eligible funding in November 2022 and also a 2023 vote. These are not general fund
obligations.
Supt. Young said the school district also has a budget calendar. There will be direction from the
School Board at the next meeting. He thought they would be looking to level fund, though this
is easier to say than to do. The infusion of COVID dollars will help. One complication for the
school district is that they don’t get a lot of data from the State early enough, and it is hard to
program with “after the fact” information.
Mr. Barritt asked about health insurance. Supt. Young said all schools are now under the State
system, so they don’t know how this will go. Ms. Burkhardt added that the State is currently in
arbitration, and the district may not know anything until December.
9. Joint update on additional efforts:
a. Discussion on potential Charter changes:
Ms. Baker said there is discussion about governance (i.e. the number of Council members, the
possibility of wards, etc.). No decisions have yet been made. If these ideas move forward, the
city would like the School Board to be involved. Sen. Chittenden noted that legislative
STEERING COMMITTEE
27 OCTOBER 2021
PAGE 5
districts will all be expanded and said this is a good time to “explore.” Ms. Burkhardt agreed
but noted the challenge of trying to fill seats on the City Council and School Board in recent
years. She added that there are a lot of moving pieces on the School Board which require sub-
committee work.
b. School Impact Fees Discussion:
Supt. Young said they are doing an impact fee study now. There had been school impact fees in
the past, but they were discontinued when enrollments were steady or declining. They are
looking to see if there is merit in reinstating them. Ms. Baker noted that whatever plan is
decided upon, it would have to be approved by the City Council.
c. School Resource Officer Discussion:
Supt. Young said they were honored to have Resource Officers in the school. They do have to
look at this from all perspectives, and it is a standing item on the School Board agenda. Mr.
Henry said they are looking at the typical day of a Resource Officer. There is strong interest in
being on the committee looking at this. There will be a public hearing. He stressed that the
Resource Officers they have had have been outstanding and have continued to do a good job.
There is also good feedback from students. They are hoping Ms. Baker will serve on the
committee.
d. I-89 Corridor Study Update:
Ms. Baker said that Charlie Baker of CCRPC has provided a memo (in the meeting packet) which
includes the next steps. They are working now on identifying improvements and will convene
more public meetings near the end of the year. The city hopes to have an update for the
January Steering Committee meeting. The next steps include a draft implementation plan.
e. Airport Sound Monitoring:
Supt. Young reported that they are trying to get access being shown by the sound monitoring.
They are hearing that the work done on the school has brought about a major improvement in
the classrooms. Ms. Riehle asked if there is a sound monitor just for Chamberlin School. Supt.
Young said there is one located on the Chamberlin School site in a fenced in area. It has a very
sophisticated microphone. Mr. Barritt asked if there were window changes as well as HVAC
STEERING COMMITTEE
27 OCTOBER 2021
PAGE 6
changes. Supt. Young said only the HVAC system was changed. There are now no outside
units.
F. Legislative Issues for upcoming focus:
Supt. Young said the Vermont School Board Association will be collaborating on some items.
There is an opportunity to look at how teachers and staff are recruited. The Superintendent
noted it is difficult for a teacher to be licensed if he/she comes from a different area of the
country. Other issues include the complexities of education funding and the inability to plan
proactively. Ms. Burkhardt added that facilities are an ongoing discussion with no way to get a
broad study of issues beyond HVAC (which will be covered by COVID money). The pension
issue is also very “tricky.”
Mr. Henry said they would like to get back to the days when schools had support for capital
issues. Supt. Young noted there are still schools that get “small school aid.”
Sen. Chittenden noted there will be some modeling that will come out next week in the
Legislature including shifting of the ELL funding. It now counts as 1.2 students, and the thought
is to remove that weighting in favor of a specific count.
Ms. Baker said issues the city is looking at include tracking stormwater changes and TIF
legislation. The city received one extra year in which to spend TIF related money (2 years had
been requested because of COVID). The city will also be tracking how the Legislature allocates
the additional COVID monies.
Ms. Baker noted the city is looking at what the Cannabis Control Board is doing and what the
city needs to do locally. There will be discussion by the Council about putting the retail side of
the cannabis question on the March ballot.
6. Other Business:
Mr. Barritt said he liked the new sign at 577 Dorset Street. Supt. Young said the new space is
working out great and noted they have never had all the administrators in one space before.
Mr. Barritt asked how the schools are handling COVID now. Supt. Young said last week they
needed to have 23 students out of school because of “close contact.” They will be soon be in a
STEEROMG COMMITTEE
27 OCTOBER 2021
PAGE 7
“Test to stay” program which they will probably do at 577 Dorset St. where they can have
results in 15 minutes. They are also trying to mitigate absenteeism. When vaccination for
school children is available, there will probably be several sites available. Supt. Young did not
think they will be getting away from masks even after vaccination because of the issue of
younger siblings. All in all, they remain optimistic.
As there was no further business to come before the Committee, Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn.
Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:10
p.m.
________________________
Clerk
South Burlington School District
Board Adopted Budget
For FY23 Steering Committee
January 24, 2022
Updated: 1-20-2022
SBSD FY23 Proposed Budget
Priorities: The budget needs to support the necessary staffing and
experiences for students to meet the SBSD Ends Policy:
a. Disposition for Lifelong Learning
b. Academic Proficiency
c. Personal Development
d. Citizenship
Notes: The FY22 Budget was well supported by the South Burlington community
even with the uncertainty surrounding reappraisal and pandemic concerns. This
budget focuses on education recovery and continues the Administration’s focus
on preparing, preventing, and responding to pandemic challenges while meeting
District Ends.
2
3
Factors Impacting the FY23 Budget
Significant increase (6% over 12 months as of November
2021) in consumer price index causing upward pressure on
all consumables, supplies, professional services and
equipment
Required response to increased enrollment at RMCS and
Orchard Schools
Negotiations for all three collective bargaining agreements
(Teachers, Administrators, Union Support Staff)
Critical labor shortage forcing market adjustments to attract
and retain non-union employees to continue school
operations
Undesignated fund balance (surplus) from FY21
estimated at $2 million for inclusion as FY23 revenue
$3.1 million in Elementary and Secondary School
Emergency Relief (ESSER III) funding to offset
pandemic related expenditures and support education
recovery efforts in fiscal years 23-24
Expenditure Revenue
Adopted FY22 = 498.18
Filled FY22 = 485.75
Proposed increase in FY23 (Local) = 3 / 501.18
FTE as of Nov 1, 2021
State Factors
CLA - 100.99% for FY23 (-11.04%) - NEW
Equalized Pupil - 2568.67 for FY23 (-1.64) - NEW
Property Yield - $12,937 for FY23 with potential
increase up to $13,846
Income Yield - $15,484 for FY23 with potential
increase up to $16,705
44
Enrollment Projection
School FY22 (current)FY23 (Projected)
GCS (PreK - 5)269 276
RMCS (PreK - 5)415 422
ORCH (PreK - 5)441 454
Elementary (PreK - 5)1125 1152
FHTMS 492 494
SBHS 919 920
Total Enrollment (PreK - 12)2536 2566
5
+4.89%
Proposed increase for SBSD expense budget
from FY22 approved to FY23 proposed budget.
+3.64%
Proposed increase for Net Educational Spending
from FY22 approved to FY23 proposed budget.
6
FY22 FY23
9
Proposed Local Additions to FY23 Budget
Location Desired Support FTE Rationale Cost
DIST Exec. Dir. of Equity 1 Ensure educational systems and programs are equitable for students and staff $148,779
DIST Utilities - 577 Electricity and heating for District Offices $35,000
DIST Cleaning - 577 Cleaning contract for District Offices $39,000
GCS Assistant Principal 0.4 Support operations to allow Principal to focus on instructional leadership $51,487
GCS Playground upgrade Improve playground to comparable level with other elementary schools $45,000
ORCH Assistant Principal 0.8 Support operations to allow Principal to focus on instructional leadership $102,974
RMCS Assistant Principal 0.8 Support operations to allow Principal to focus on instructional leadership $102,974
Total FTE Additions:3.0 $525,234
8
Facilities Stewardship Overview
9
Master Planning and Visioning
Phase Year(s)Objective
I FY 23-24 Address emergent elementary
enrollment issues
II FY 24-25 Address SBHS Options
III FY 26-27 Address FHTMS Options
IV FY 26-30 Explore property available for future
school options
Projected Tax
Impacts
School districts can only
project the tax impact on their
communities. Since moving to
a Statewide property tax for
education, the tax rate is not
finalized until the Vermont
State Legislature and
Governor approve the State’s
FY23 budget.
10
1111
SBSD Proposed Budget -
Net Educational Spending
FY22 FY23 $ DIFF % DIFF
FY23 Proposed Expense
Budget
$55,623,080 $58,344,602 $2,721,522 4.89%
Minus Offsetting Revenue $12,448,887 $13,599,887 $1,151,084 9.25%
Net Educational Spending $43,174,277 $44,744,715 $1,570,438 3.64%
1212
SBSD Proposed Budget -
Property Tax Rates
FY22 FY23 $ DIFF % DIFF
Net Educational Spending $43,174,277 $44,744,715 $1,570,438 3.64%
Ed Spending/Equalized Pupil $16,797.30 $17,419.41 $622.11 3.70%
State Calculated Yield $11,317 $12,937 $1,620 14.31%
Homestead Tax Rate $1.3249 $1.3333 $0.0084 0.63%
Non-Homestead Tax Rate $1.4389 $1.4675 $0.0286 1.99%
1313
SBSD FY23 Proposed Budget -
Projected Income Sensitivity Property
Tax Rate
FY22 FY23
South Burlington 2.48% (of HH income)2.25% (of HH income)
A typical income-sensitized property tax payer (approx. 68% of all taxpayers) is projected to pay 2.25%
of their household income in education property tax. For instance, a family with household income of
$60,000 (just above the median tax filer income in Vermont) could expect to pay around $1,350 in annual
property tax next year, an estimated $138 reduction from FY22.
1414
SBSD FY23 Proposed Budget -
Homestead Tax Rate History
1515
SBSD FY23 Proposed Budget -
Comparative Per Pupil Spending
(2,500+ Students)
District EQ Pupils Net Education Spending Per Pupil Spending
Mt. Mansfield UUSD 2,525.00 $42,244,792 $16,730.61
Champlain Valley USD 4,167.21 $69,969,649 $16,790.53
South Burlington 2,570.31 $43,174,277 $16,797.30
Essex-Westford EC USD 3,762.61 $63,626,750 $16,910.27
Maple Run USD 2,541.56 $43,451,554 $17,096.41
Burlington 3,971.92 $68,895,317 $17,345.60
FY22
16
SBSD FY23 Proposed Budget -
Comparison to Statewide Estimates
Statewide
Estimates
SBSD FY23
Proposed Budget
Growth in Total Educational Spending 4.28%3.64%
Change in Equalized Pupil Count -0.4%-0.06%
Growth in Spending Per Equalized Pupil 4.74%3.70%
Average Equalized Per Pupil Spending $18,023 $17,419.41
●SBSD expenses are projected to be 4.89% greater than the FY22 approved budget.
17
Common Level of Appraisal (CLA)
South
Burlington
FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23
Common Level
of Appraisal 95.44%93.28%89.92%112.03%100.99%
Education Tax
Rate $1.5506 $1.6030 $1.6336 $1.3249 $1.3333
The common level of appraisal (CLA) is determined by dividing the education grand list by the
equalized education grand list (32 V.S.A. $ 5401). An increasing CLA will result in a downward
adjustment of tax rates, and a decreasing CLA will result in an upward adjustment.
18
$58,344,602
SBSD’s projected FY23 budget. Increasing by approximately $2.72 million, or about 4.89%
$17,415.41
Spending Per Equalized Pupil
Change in Per Pupil Spending
3.68%
19
Tuesday March 1, 2022
Or Sooner Via
Early Voting
Options!
City of South Burlington
FY 2023 Budget –Approved by City Council
Jessie Baker, City Manager
Andrew Bolduc, Deputy City Manager
Martha Machar, Finance Officer
Steering Committee
January 24, 2022
Overview
•FY23 Goals
•FY23 Fixed Liabilities
•FY23 General Fund and Budget Highlights
•Penny for Paths and Open Space
•Capital Improvement Plan
•Enterprise Funds
•Emerging Issues
•Community Outreach All FY23 Budget documents
available here:
www.southburlingtonvt.gov/d
epartments/finance/fy_23_bu
dget.php
FY23 Goals
•Sensitivity towards tax rate increases
•Conservatively plan for wage adjustments with
City’s three expiring collective bargaining
agreements during a high inflation year
•Funding frozen and unfunded positions to restore
pre-pandemic levels of service
•Meet operational needs of 180 Market Street and
19 Gregory Drive
•Fund critical pandemic-deferred capital expenses
•Incrementally restore FY22 CIP funding reductions
•Strategically allocate ARPA funds to achieve
budget and tax-rate goals
FY23 Fixed Liabilities
Salaries $ 592,700.39 COLA + Step
ARPA Salaries (20%)$ 57,629.75 -
Group Health $ 176,931.17 6.97%
Pension $ 36,391.39 2.28%
Retirement Match $ 30,440.20 15.29%
Property Insurance $ 46,035.00 15.50%
Pennies Increase $ 190,567.00 30.65%
Total $ 1,130,695.17
FY23 General Fund (GF)
FY23 Total GF Budget $28,461,478.56
FY23 GF Increase (without prior levies)$2,337,542.00
FY 23 Amount to be raised by property taxes $17,962,812.57 3.24% increase
FY23 GF Tax Rate –Operations $0.4423 5.19% increase
FY23 GF Total Tax Rate –with Pennies $0.4623 6.27% increase
FY22 tax FY23 tax
Annual
Increase Monthly increase
Average Residential $1,882.33 $2,000.46 $118.13 $9.84
Average Condo $1,260.91 $1,340.05 $79.13 $6.59
Impact to Taxpayers
Overall Summary
FY23 Budget Highlights
•Maximize the service delivery of 180 Market Street
o Library staffing: 2 new PT, 1 28 hour to full time, increased sub time
o Handyperson
•Focus on Information Technology Infrastructure for
better more resilient service delivery
o Information Technology staffing: 1 FTE
o Modernize body camera and cruiser camera technology
o Office 365 Implementation
o Permitting automation
•Focus on capital planning strategy and connecting
to maintenance
o 1 FTE to oversee City-wide capital projects and connect to maintenance
staff. Split between General Fund and Enterprise Funds
FY23 Budget Highlights
•Maximize ARPA for one-time costs
•Remaining ARPA Funds = $4.5M
•Other ideas discussed
o $1M for the Housing Trust Fund
o Smooth re-funding CIP into tax rate in future years
o Funding to support businesses, commerce and hospitality events
o Stormwater and/or Wastewater projects
o Public process for identifying priorities
ARPA Funded Salary Lines (at 80%)$230,519
Other ARPA Projects
Dispatch consoles $225,000
Ambulance $310,000
Microsoft Office 365 $39,000
P & Z Software $50,000
Firefighting clothing $48,000
Fire/EMS staffing $50,000
Subtotal $722,000
Total in FY23 Proposed Budget $952,519
FY23 GF Expenditures
Administration (Insurance,
Manager, Legal, IT, Physical
Plant, Finance), 11.96%
Capital Reserves, 2.84%
City Council, 0.26%
Social Service & Other
Entities, 3.05%
Debt Service,
5.24%
City Clerk, 1.00%
Fire and Ambulance,
14.83%
HR & Benefits
Administration, 19.94%
Public Library,
3.04%
Planning and Zoning,
1.98%
Police, 20.24%
Public Works, 13.16%
Recreation and Parks, 2.45%
Total FY23 Budget =
$28,461,478.56
FY23 GF Revenues
ACCOUNT 2019 2020 2020 2021 2021 2022 2023 2022 vs 2023 2022 vs 2023
DESCRIPTION ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET $(+/-)%(+/-)
Local Option Tax-Sales $3,002,190.90 $2,780,000.00 $2,853,896.04 $3,000,000.00 $3,022,930.29 $2,950,000.00 $3,083,388.90 $133,388.90 4.52%
Local Option Tax-Rooms/Me $1,040,874.58 $1,010,000.00 $975,603.29 $1,050,000.00 $665,898.41 $850,000.00 $950,000.00 $100,000.00 11.76%
$4,043,065.48 $3,790,000.00 $3,829,499.33 $4,050,000.00 $3,688,828.70 $3,800,000.00 $4,033,388.90 $233,388.90 6.14%
•General Fund Operating Budget
•63% of the General Fund revenues are from property taxes
•37% from non-property tax revenues
•Projecting local options taxes to rebound to pre-Covid levels
•$952,519 in one-time or salary ARPA investments
•Formula based enterprise support to General Fund –with
incremental implementation over 3 years
•Anticipating continued lower programming revenues
•Projecting increases in permitting revenues
FY23 GF Revenues
Property Tax, 63.11%Ambulance Services
Billing, 2.53%
Local Option Tax, 14.17%
Recreation and
Parks, 0.60%
ARPA Grant Funds,
3.35%
Police, 1.82%
Planning and Zoning, 1.35%
Fire, 1.95%
Public Works, 4.90%Clerk, 1.35%Other, 4.87%Total FY23 Budget =
$28,461,478.56
Special Fund Levies
($0.0200)
•Separated from General Fund Operations budget
•Represents $.0200 on the tax rate and 1.08% of the
6.27% property tax increase
FY22 Budget FY23 Budget Increase with reappraisal
Open space $310,870 $406,154 $95,284 30.7%
Penny for Paths $310,870 $406,154 $95,284 30.7%
Capital Improvement Plan
Prioritized Projects
•Capital Improvements Reserve for City Center = $800k
•Increase paving budget by $50k
o $30K dedicated to Recreation Path maintenance
•Park Improvements increased by $65k
•ARPA Funding:
o Technology and permitting improvement = $89k
o Ambulance replacement = $310k
o Dispatch consoles replacement = $225k
FY23 Utility Rates
Utility
Existing
Fiscal Year
2022 Rate
Fiscal Year
2022 Annual
Fee for the
Average
Home Owner
Proposed
Fiscal Year
2023 Rate
% Increase
from FY’22 to
FY’23
Annual
Increase for
South
Burlington
Home Owner
Stormwater $7.20 per
month per
residential unit
$86.40
$7.32 per
month for
residential units
1.67%$1.44
Sewer $42.99 per
1,000 cubic
feet
$350.01
$43.64 per
1,000 cubic
feet
1.95%$6.83
Water $32.40 per
1,000 cubic
feet
$284.48
$33.37 per
1,000 cubic
feet
3.00%$8.53
Total increase to average homeowner for FY23 utility fees = $16.80
Historic City Tax Rates
Year City Tax
Rate
Tax Rate
Change
2021-22 0.4350 -27.40%
2020-21 0.5542 2.08%
2019-20 0.5427 6.32%
2018-19 0.5084 3.17%
2017-18 0.4923 3.90%
2016-17 0.4731 3.61%
2015-16 0.4560 6.18%
2014-15 0.4278 1.50%
2013-14 0.4214 4.11%
2012-13 0.4041 5.20%
2011-12 0.3831 5.46%
2010-11 0.3622 0.44%
2009-10 0.3606 4.69%0.43500.55420.54270.50840.49230.47310.45600.42780.42140.40410.38310.36220.3606MUNICIPAL TAX RATE HISTORY
City Ballot Articles
Note: Anticipating final TIF bond votes in 2022 and 2023
Emerging Issues Tracking
•Tracking inflation and unpredictable cost of goods
in FY23
•Union contracts not settled
•Regional Dispatch planning
•Climate Action Plan –anticipate future funding
needs
•With 0.98% increase last year, 5.19% increase this
year with ARPA funds absorbing deferred costs
requires that we will continue to be “catching up”
Community Outreach
•Other Paper
o Warning January 27 –Posted in public places throughout city
o Additional information in February additions
•Budget book
o Available at City Clerk’s Office, City Manager’s Office, on City website
•Town Meeting TV Presentation –January 25
•Pre-annual meeting –February 28
•March 1 –Annual Meeting –Vote!
For more information, all FY23 Budget
documents available here:
www.southburlingtonvt.gov/departme
nts/finance/fy_23_budget.php
VOTING!
Ballots will be available on February 9th.
Early voting by:
1) Request a mailed ballot by calling the City Clerk’s Office at 846-4105
2)Mail back ballots by March 1st (received)
3) Drop off ballots in box provided outside City Hall by March 1st
OR
4) Bring your ballot with you to the polls on March 1st
Polls open
7am-7pm on Tuesday March 1st
Orchard School
Chamberlin School
Middle School (2 Districts)
VOTING