Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - City Council - 01/23/2023 - Steering Committee Meeting
AGENDA SOUTH BURLINGTON SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/ STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING 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 Electronically:https://meet.goto.com/SouthBurlingtonVT/citycouncilandsteeringcommitteemeeting1-23-2023 You can also dial in using your phone: (408) 650-3123 Access Code: 242-658-301 Special City Council Meeting 6:30PM___ Monday, January 23, 2023 1.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 the public not related to the agenda (6:35 – 6:45 PM) 5.Consent Agenda: (6:45 – 6:50 PM) A.*** Consider and Sign Disbursements 6.*** Public Hearing: Hold a public hearing on an ordinance to implement EducationImpact Fees – Warned for 6:30 PM – Violet Nichols, Superintendent of Schools, andPaul Conner, Planning & Zoning Director (6:50 – 7:30 PM) 7.Possible action on an ordinance to implement Education Impact Fees – Paul Conner, Planning & Zoning Director (7:30 – 7:45 PM) Steering Committee Immediately following Council Monday, January 23, 2023 Convene as Steering Committee Meeting 8.Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:45 – 7:47 PM) 9.Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda (7:47 – 7:57 PM) 10.*** FY24 School Budget and bond vote: Presentation on the proposed FY24 SchoolBudget and bond vote – Violet Nichols, Superintendent of Schools (7:57– 8:30 PM) All information available here: https://www.sbschools.net/Page/2126 11.*** FY24 City Budget and bond votes: Presentation on the proposed FY24 City Budgetand bond votes – Jessie Baker, City Manager (8:30– 9:00 PM) All information available here: https://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/departments/finance/fy_24_budget_(7_1_23_- _6_30_24)_proposed_budget.php 12.Discussion on Dorset Street safety and possible feedback for staff – Jessie Baker, City Manager (9:00 – 9:10 PM) 13.Discuss the Charter Committee's work to date and associated next steps – Jessie Baker, City Manager (9:10 – 9:20 PM) 14.Other Business (9:20– 9:30 PM) 15. Adjourn (9:30 PM) Respectfully Submitted: Jessie Baker City Manager *** Attachments Included MEMORANDUM TO: Jessie Baker, City Manager; South Burlington City Council FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Possible Action on Proposed School Impact Fee Ordinance DATE: January 23, 2023 City Council meeting The City Council at its December 19th meeting voted to hold a public hearing this evening on proposed amendments to the City’s Impact Fee Ordinance. The proposed amendment include establishing a School facilities Impact Fee and applying an administrative fee for projects subject to the impact fees. Enclosed with this memo please find the following documents: •Draft Impact Fee Ordinance with redline markups as warned by the Council 12/19 •School Impact Fee Analysis Report prepared by RSG establishing the foundation of the draft ordinance •Published notice of the Public Hearing Overview and Public Hearing: Council is invited to open a public hearing on the proposed amendment, to invite an overview of the proposed projects and request from the School District, to invite any summary of the Ordinance amendments from staff, and to invite public comment. Motion: “I move to open the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Impact Fee Ordinance” Motion: “I move to close the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Impact Fee Ordinance” Following Public Hearing Following the Hearing, the Council is invited to discuss the proposed Ordinance. At the Council’s discretion it may elect to discuss the Ordinance with the School Board at this time, or prior to closing the hearing. The Council may then elect to adopt the Ordinance, as written, make changes to the Ordinance and warn a new public hearing with those changes incorporated, or take up next steps at a subsequent meeting. Motion to Adopt: “I move to adopt the proposed amendments to the Impact Fee Ordnance, as presented in this meeting’s packet.” PROPOSED AMENDMENTS to the SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE Public Hearing Monday, January 23, 2023 at 6:30 pm PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Monday, January 23, 2023 at 6:30 PM, the City Council will hold a public hearing and second reading, on possible amendments to the City’s Impact Fee Ordinance. The hearing will be held in person and remotely via GoToMeeting. Participation options: • In Person: City Hall Auditorium, 180 Market Street • Interactive Online: https://meet.goto.com/SouthBurlingtonVT/citycouncilandsteeringcommitteemeeting1-23-2023 • Telephone: (408) 650-3123; Access Code: 242-658-301 Following the public hearing and second reading, the City Council may take action on final passage of the amendment. The proposed amendments would establish a School Impact Fee, applicable to new residential construction and newly-added bedrooms to existing homes. The amendment would also establish a flat administrative fee applicable to all projects to which Impact Fees are levied. Copies of the proposed amendments are available for inspection at the Department of Planning & Zoning, City Hall, 3rd Floor, 180 Market Street, and on the city website at www.sbvt.gov. Helen Riehle, City Council Chair January 12, 2023 SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022 Amended December 5, 2022 1 Impact Fee Ordinance Adopted: January 9, 1995 Amended: April 17, 1995 December 2, 1996 February 2, 1998 September 7, 1999 July 16, 2001 December 3, 2007 October 19, 2009 July 1, 2013 (Effective October 15, 2013) May 19, 2014 December 5, 2022 DRAFT DECEMBER 19, 2022 SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022 Amended December 5, 2022 2 SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE Section 1. Authority. This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the specific authority granted municipalities to establish impact fees contained in 24 V.S.A., Chapter 131 and the authority granted the City of South Burlington to enact ordinances set forth in its Charter and 24 V.S.A. Chapter 59. This ordinance shall be a civil ordinance within the meaning of 24 V.S.A. Chapter 59. Section 2. Purpose. It is the purpose of this ordinance to establish impact fees to pay portions of the cost of constructing capital facilities for new development in the City that will be served by such facilities. To the extent that new capital facilities are necessitated by new development and such facilities benefit the new development, it is appropriate that the new residents and owners bear an appropriate portion of the costs of constructing the new facilities. Section 3. Establishment of Fees. A. Road Improvement Impact Fee: Except as provided in subparagraph (5), any land development as described in subparagraph (1) which is issued a permit under the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations after the date this Impact Fee Ordinance provision becomes effective shall pay an impact fee determined in accordance with the formula set forth in subparagraph (2). (1) This impact fee shall apply to any land development that results in an increase in dwelling units or, in the case of non-residential development, an increase in PM peak hour vehicle trip ends (vehicle trips occurring between the hours of 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM on weekdays), as determined by the Development Review Board / Administrative Officer as appropriate. (a) In making the determination required by subparagraph (1), the Development Review Board or Administrative Officer shall use the methodology set forth in Appendix B.2 of the applicable South Burlington Land Development Regulations. (b) In determining the trip generation rate for Child Care Centers, as defined within the latest version of the ITE Trip Generation manual (i.e. “Licensed non-residential child care facilities” as defined in the applicable South Burlington Land Development Regulations), the Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer shall apply a pass-by rate of 30%. This pass-by rate shall apply to all Child Care Centers for which the City already has issued a zoning permit since January 1, 2011, upon (re)submission of an application and to all future applications for Child Care Centers. (2) Formula for determination of impact fees: (a) Single Family Dwelling: $1,009.86 per unit less appropriate credits as shown in column 5 (net fee, single-family dwellings) of Table RD-4. SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022 Amended December 5, 2022 3 (b) Multi-Family Dwelling (fee per unit): $669.91 per unit, less appropriate credits as shown in column 9 (net fee, multi-family dwellings) of Table RD-4. (c) Non-residential Development: $999.86 multiplied by the number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends and reduced by the amount of any credit due from Tables RD-5 and RD-6. Estimate of post-construction assessed value of non-residential development shall be calculated as described in the Road Impact Fee section of the City of South Burlington 2007 Impact Fee Analysis Report referenced below. (3) The impact fee formula set forth in subparagraph (2) above is based on a study and report entitled, “CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2007 IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS REPORTS”, prepared by Michael J. Munson, Ph.D., FAICP, dated October 12, 2007, which report is incorporated into this ordinance by reference. The pass-by rate in subparagraph (1)(b) is based on a study and report entitled, “Adjustment to Traffic Impact Fees for Child care Centers” prepared by BFJ Planning, dated February 21, 2014, which report is incorporated into this ordinance by reference. (4) Impact fees collected pursuant to this ordinance provision shall be used to pay costs associated with the following road improvement projects which are described in the above referenced report: (a) Hinesburg Road/Van Sicklen Road Intersection Improvements (b) Williston Road Reconstruction (c) Airport Drive Extension (d) Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Road Intersection Improvements (e) Tilley to Community Drive Connector (f) City Center Road Network (5) This impact fee shall not apply to land development as described in subparagraph (1) which: (a) is for development within a subdivision that received final plat approval under the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations prior to January 9, 1995, which subdivision approval contained a condition requiring payment of fees to the City for the purpose of funding road improvements; and (b) the fees specified in the subdivision approval were paid to the City in accordance with the terms of the approval; and (c) a permit is issued for the development under the South Burlington Zoning Regulations on or before January 9, 2005. (6) A development that includes a Traffic Demand Management Plan approved by the Development Review Board / Administrative Officer may be granted a credit not to exceed 25 percent of the original number of trips generated multiplied by the fee per PM Peak Hour Trip ($999.86), provided that the applicant agrees to provide the post development verification study and security described in the above referenced Impact Fee Analysis report. SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022 Amended December 5, 2022 4 B. Recreation Impact Fee: Except as provided in Subparagraph (5), any land development as described in subparagraph (1) which is issued a permit under the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations after the date this Impact Fee Ordinance provision becomes effective shall pay an impact fee determined in accordance with the formula set forth in subparagraph (2). (1) This impact fee shall apply to any land development resulting in an increase in dwelling units. (2) Formula for determination of impact fees: (a) Dwellings in structures containing three or fewer units: $1,685.67 per unit, less appropriate credits, as shown in column 4 of Table REC-4. (b) Dwellings in structures containing four or more units: $1,179.97 per unit, less appropriate credits as shown in column 7 of Table REC-4. (3) The impact fee formula set forth in subparagraph (2) above is based on a study and report entitled, “CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS UPDATED” prepared by Michael J. Munson, Ph.D., FAICP, dated May 28, 2013, which report is incorporated into this ordinance by reference. (4) Impact fees collected pursuant to this ordinance provision shall be used to pay costs associated with the following recreation improvement projects which are described in the above referenced reports: (a) Develop Soccer Field on land in South Village (b) Land acquisition for “Marceau Meadows” recreation fields property in the vicinity of Hinesburg Road and Van Sicklen Road (c) Development of “Marceau Meadows” recreation fields (d) Development of Old Farm Road area recreation fields (e) Development of Dumont Park recreation area in the vicinity of Iby Street and Market Street (f) Development of recreation paths and bicycle lanes as described in the above referenced Impact Fee Analysis, including: (i) Dorset Street/Hoehn connection along Dorset Street (ii) Spear Street bicycle lane (iii) Shelburne Rd/Queen City Park Rd improvements (iv) Connection from Tilley Drive to Marshall Avenue, including bridging (v) Vale Drive to Spear & Swift recreation path connection (vi) Recreation path extension along Airport Drive extension to Lime Kiln Road (vii) Recreation path connection from the Williston Road Holiday Inn to Patchen Road (viii) Extension along Hinesburg Road to Tilley Drive (5) This impact fee shall not apply to land development as described in subparagraph (1) which: (a) is for development within a subdivision that received final plat approval under the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations prior to January 9, 1995, which subdivision approval SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022 Amended December 5, 2022 5 contained a condition requiring payment of fees to the City for the purpose of funding recreation improvements; and (b) the fees specified in the subdivision approval were paid to the City in accordance with the terms of the approval; and (c) a permit is issued for the development under the South Burlington Zoning Regulations on or before January 9, 2005. C. Dorset Street Waterline Fee: Any dwelling unit as described in subparagraph (1) which connects to the Dorset Street waterline referred to in subparagraph (3), after February 2, 1998, shall pay an impact fee set forth in subparagraph (2). (1) This impact fee shall apply to any dwelling unit in the Dorset Street Waterline Service Area as delineated on a plan dated January 30, 1998, which is incorporated herein by reference. (2) The impact fee shall be $187.25 per dwelling unit, which amount shall be increased on January 1, 1999, and each year thereafter by 4%. (3) The impact fee in subparagraph (2) above is based on cost in excess of $141,932 to construct approximately 5180 feet of waterline and related improvements within the Dorset Street right-of-way. (4) Impact fees collected pursuant to this ordinance provision shall be used to pay the cost of the waterline improvements described in subparagraph (3) above. D. Fire Protection Fee: Except as provided in subparagraph (5), any land development as described in subparagraph (1) which is issued a permit under the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations after the date this Impact Fee Ordinance provision becomes effective shall pay an impact fee determined in accordance with the formula set forth in subparagraph (2). (1) This impact fee shall apply to any land development that results in an increase in total value of property at risk in the City (including structures and contents), as described in the report entitled “CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2007 IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS REPORTS” prepared by Michael J. Munson, Ph.D., FAICP, and dated October 12, 2007, which is incorporated into this ordinance by reference. (2) Formula for determination of impact fees: (a) Single Family Dwelling: $304.85 per unit less appropriate credits as shown in column 5 (net fee, single-family dwellings) of Table FP-7. (b) Multi-Family Dwelling (fee per unit): $192.96 per unit less appropriate credits as shown in column 9 (net fee, multi-family dwellings) of Table FP-7. (c) Non-residential Development: $0.67 per $1,000 estimated value of all structures and contents. Estimate of post-construction assessed value of non-residential structures shall SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022 Amended December 5, 2022 6 be based on estimated improvement values for new structures contained in Table FP-8, multiplied by a factor of 2.5 to provide the total estimated value of the structure, site improvements and contents, reduced by the amount of any credits due using the procedure described in the above referenced Fire Protection Impact Fee Analysis report and Tables FP-9 and FP-10. (3) Impact fees collected pursuant to this ordinance provision shall be used to pay costs associated with the following fire protection improvement projects which are described in the above referenced report: (a) Renovations to Fire Station #2 (b) New Heavy Vehicles (c) New Light Vehicles (d) New Equipment (4) A credit of up to ten percent of the base impact fee may be awarded to non-residential developments that include installation of a sprinkler system designed to meet the guidelines of the Insurance Rating Organization with no more than 25 deficiency points. E. Police Impact Fee: Any land development which is issued a permit under the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations after the date these amendments to the Impact Fee Ordinance become effective shall pay an impact fee determined in accordance with the formula set forth in subparagraph (1). This impact fee shall be based on the report entitled POLICE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, prepared by Michael J. Munson, Ph.D., FAICP, and dated May 28, 2013. (1) Formula for determination of Police impact fees (a) Dwellings in structures containing three or fewer units: $503.88 per unit less appropriate credits as shown in column 5 of Table PD-4. (b) Dwellings in structures containing four or more units: $352.72 per unit less appropriate credits as shown in column 9 of Table PD-4. (c) Non-Residential Development: $237.76 per 1,000 square feet of floor area, less appropriate credits as described in the above referenced Police Impact Fee Analysis, making use of Tables PD-5, PD-6, and PD-7. (2) Impact fees collected pursuant to this ordinance provision shall only be used to pay capital costs associated with the new police station, as described in the above referenced report. F. School Impact Fee: Any land development as described in subparagraph (1) which is issued a permit under the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations after the date this Impact Fee Ordinance provision becomes effective shall pay an impact fee determined in accordance with the formula set forth in subparagraph (2). (1) This impact fee shall apply to any land development that results in an increase in dwelling units on a per bedroom basis or an increase in bedrooms in an existing dwelling unit. (2) Formula for determination of impact fees: SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022 Amended December 5, 2022 7 (a) For new dwelling units, the fee listed in Table SC-1, less appropriate credits for payment of past and future property taxes as shown in Tables SC-2 and SC-3. (b) For existing dwelling units that increase the number of bedrooms: the new dwelling unit impact fee listed in Table SC-1 for the total number of bedrooms in the unit after the increase is complete minus the new dwelling unit impact fee listed in Table SC-1 for the number of bedrooms that existed in the unit prior to the increase. (c) Affordable Housing. Dwelling Units meeting the definition of Affordable Housing or Inclusionary Unit in the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations shall be exempt from the payment of School Impact Fees.. TABLE SC-1: SCHOOL IMPACT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN DWELLING UNIT AMOUNT OF SCHOOL IMPACT FEE Zero or One Bedroom $2,748 Two Bedrooms $4,636 Three Bedrooms $8,929 Four or more Bedrooms $12,535 (3) The impact fee formula set forth in subparagraph (2) above is based on a study and report entitled “South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study” prepared by RSG, dated November 9, 2022, which report is incorporated into this ordinance by reference. (4) Impact fees collected pursuant to this ordinance provision shall be used to pay costs associated with the following school improvement projects which are described in the above referenced report: (a) PK-8 Zero Energy Modular (ZEM) Classroom Flexible Space: Capital Costs for eight (8) zero- energy modular (ZEM) structures for use within the PK-8 grade facilities as listed in Table 12 of the Report referenced in this Subsection. Section 4. Payment of Fees A. Except as provided for under subsection (A) below, impact fees levied under this ordinance shall be paid to the City Treasurer prior to the issuance of any permits under the Zoning Regulations of the City of South Burlington for the construction of any development subject to the payment of impact fees. The Zoning Administrator shall not issue any zoning permit for the construction of such developments without first receiving proof of payment of the required impact fees from the City Treasurer. (1) Perpetually Affordable Housing to which the City is a Financial Contributor. Payment of impact fees levied under this ordinance may be paid to the City Treasurer after the issuance of any permits under the Zoning Regulations of the City of South Burlington for construction SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022 Amended December 5, 2022 8 and development but prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy provided the following two criteria are met: (a) The project is for the development of housing that is not less than 50% of the dwelling units perpetually affordable, with “affordable” being defined by the City’s Land Development Regulations; and (b) The City has made some prior financial contribution to the development in the form of a grant from the City’s general or housing trust fund or by means of a Vermont Community Development Fund/Community Development Block Grant or other such State of Federal grants or loans in which the City is a transactional party. B. Applicability of School Impact Fees levied under this ordinance shall be phased in as follows: (1) For complete zoning permit applications submitted on or after July 1, 2023, 50% of the fees listed in Section 3F of this ordinance; (2) For complete zoning permit applications submitted on or after January 1, 2024, the full fees listed in Section 3F of this ordinance. B.C. Administrative Fee. An administrative fee of $100 shall be levied upon the issuance of each zoning permit eliciting payment of one or more of the impact fees established under this Ordinance, with payment due contemporaneous with payment of the applicable Iimpact Fee(s). The administrative fee may be used to offset administrative costs associated with payment and tracking of impact fees, for preparation of amendments to the Impact Fee Ordinance, and for preparation of analysis reports. Section 5. Accounting and Register of Payment. A. Impact fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be placed by the City Treasurer in separate interest bearing accounts for each type of impact fee established. B. The City Treasurer shall maintain a register for each account indicting the date of payment of each fee, the amount paid, and the name of the payer. C. The City Treasurer shall prepare an annual accounting of all fees paid into and withdrawn from each account, showing the source and amounts collected, and the amounts expended and the projects for which such expenditures were made. D. Collected School Impact Fees shall be distributed to the South Burlington School District in accordance with the “School Impact Fee Agreement” between the City of South Burlington and the South Burlington School District. The South Burlington School District shall prepare and provide to the City of South Burlington an annual accounting of all fees paid into and withdrawn from the School District’s Impact Fee account, showing the source and amounts collected, and the amounts expended and the project(s) for which such expenditures were made. SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022 Amended December 5, 2022 9 Section 6. Refunds. A. If the actual expense to the City of a project to be funded at least in part by impact fees is less than the fees collected or to be collected, the City shall refund to the then owner of the property for which the fee was paid, that portion of any impact fee, with accrued interest, which is in excess of the appropriate amount due to the City. The City shall provide this refund within one year of the date it completes or terminates construction of the project. If the actual expense to the School District of a project to be funded at least in part by school impact fees is less than the fees collected or to be collected, the School District shall return the overage with accrued interest to the City who shall refund the fees in accordance with this subsection. B. If the City reduces the amount of an impact fee after some fees have been collected, the City shall refund to the then owner of the property for which a fee was paid, that portion of any impact fee, with accrued interest, which is in excess of the appropriate amount due to the City. The City shall provide this refund within one year of the date it reduces the impact fee.[reserved] C. If the City or School District does not expend an impact fee within six years of the date it is paid to the City, the then owner of the property for which the fee was paid may apply for and receive a refund of the fee, provided the request for refund is filed within one year of the expiration of the six year time period. Any School Impact Fee subject to a refund in accordance with this section shall be returned by the School District to the City for distribution of the refund. D. A person who pays an impact fee established under this ordinance and subsequently abandons the project without commencing construction of the land development on which the impact fee was based, may request and receive from the City a refund of the impact fee in full. All such fees distributed to the School District shall be returned to the City with accrued interest so the City can refund the fees in accordance with this subsection. Any accrued interest shall be retained by the City to offset administrative costs. A person who receives a refund under this provision shall not commence construction of the land development for which the refund was made without repaying the required impact fees. Section 7. Expenditure Restrictions. A. All impact fees collected pursuant to this ordinance, and accrued interest, shall be expended only for the specifically identified projects which were the basis for the fees. Such fees and accrued interest shall be expended within six years of the date they are received by the City Treasurer. B. The City or School District Treasurer shall pay, from the appropriate account, expenses associated with the designated projects as they become due and upon receipt of appropriate documentation regarding such expense. Section 8. Credits for "In-Kind" Contributions. A. "In-Kind" contribution shall mean provision, by a person subject to payment of an impact fee, of land or equipment or construction of facilities that are included in the impact fee analyses and computations, and which are included in or consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022 Amended December 5, 2022 10 B. Upon recommendation of the Development Review Board or Administrative Officer, the City Council may approve a credit against any impact fee levied under this ordinance for the value of "In-Kind" contributions. The amount of credit for an "In-Kind" contribution shall be based on the actual cost to the person requesting the credit of providing or creating the facilities. The Development Review Board or Administrative Officer shall indicate the basis on which the amount of credit is determined. The amount of credit for an "In-Kind" contribution shall not exceed the total amount of the impact fee for that type of facility which would otherwise be levied on the proposed development. Section 9. Appeals. An individual or entity required to pay an impact fee under this ordinance may challenge the imposition of such fee, or the amount of the fee, by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk, which appeal shall not be filed later than thirty days after payment of the impact fee. Said notice of appeal shall state the basis of the appellant's challenge to the fee. Within sixty days of the filing of a notice of appeal, the City Council shall hold a public hearing to receive oral and written evidence and argument from the appellant and City representatives. Within forty-five days after the conclusion of the hearing, the Council shall notify the appellant of its decision in writing. Section 10. Enforcement. A. Any individual or entity who undertakes land development in the City of South Burlington without first paying a required impact fee imposed pursuant to this ordinance shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars per day for each day that such land development continues without payment of said fee. The Administrative Officer shall be authorized to act as the issuing municipal official to issue and pursue before the Traffic and Municipal Ordinance Bureau a municipal complaint. The Administrative Officer is authorized to recover a waiver fee of not less than $50 and not more than $150 for each violation and a civil penalty of not less than $100 and not more than $500 for each violation. B. In addition to the enforcement procedures set forth above, the Administrative Officer is authorized to commence a civil action to obtain injunctive and other appropriate relief Section 11. Severability. In the event any provision of this ordinance is for any reason invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions which can be given effect without the invalid provision. SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022 Amended December 5, 2022 11 TABLES ROAD IMPACT FEES: RESIDENTIAL TABLE RD-4: NET RESIDENTIAL ROAD IMPACT FEES PER UNIT Dwelling Year Single Family Dwellings Multi-Family Dwellings Base Fee Credit for past taxes Credit for future taxes Net fee Base fee Credit for past taxes Credit for future taxes Net fee 2007 $1,009.86 $0.00 $439.81 $570.05 $669.91 $0.00 $278.36 $391.54 2008 $1,009.86 $0.70 $414.68 $594.48 $669.91 $0.40 $262.46 $407.05 2009 $1,009.86 $2.09 $345.40 $662.38 $669.91 $1.19 $218.61 $450.11 2010 $1,009.86 $3.14 $299.17 $707.56 $669.91 $1.79 $189.35 $478.77 2011 $1,009.86 $4.79 $214.14 $790.93 $669.91 $2.74 $135.53 $531.64 2012 $1,009.86 $5.44 $197.39 $807.03 $669.91 $3.11 $124.93 $541.87 2013 $1,009.86 $6.10 $181.31 $822.45 $669.91 $3.49 $114.75 $551.67 2014 $1,009.86 $6.77 $165.87 $837.21 $669.91 $3.87 $104.98 $561.05 2015 $1,009.86 $7.46 $151.06 $851.35 $669.91 $4.26 $95.61 $570.04 2016 $1,009.86 $8.16 $136.83 $864.88 $669.91 $4.66 $86.60 $578.65 2017 $1,009.86 $8.87 $123.16 $877.83 $669.91 $5.07 $77.95 $586.89 2018 $1,009.86 $9.60 $110.02 $890.24 $669.91 $5.49 $69.63 $594.79 2019 $1,009.86 $10.35 $97.39 $902.12 $669.91 $5.92 $61.64 $602.36 2020 $1,009.86 $11.13 $85.23 $913.50 $669.91 $6.36 $53.94 $609.61 2021 $1,009.86 $11.92 $73.53 $924.41 $669.91 $6.81 $46.54 $616.56 2022 $1,009.86 $12.74 $62.25 $934.87 $669.91 $7.28 $39.40 $623.23 2023 $1,009.86 $13.59 $51.38 $944.89 $669.91 $7.76 $32.52 $629.62 2024 $1,009.86 $14.46 $40.89 $954.51 $669.91 $8.26 $25.88 $635.76 2025 $1,009.86 $15.37 $30.76 $963.73 $669.91 $8.78 $19.47 $641.66 2026 $1,009.86 $16.30 $20.97 $972.59 $669.91 $9.32 $13.27 $647.32 2027 $1,009.86 $17.28 $11.48 $981.10 $669.91 $9.87 $7.27 $652.77 2028 $1,009.86 $18.29 $2.29 $989.28 $669.91 $10.45 $1.45 $658.01 12 ROAD IMPACT FEES: NON-RESIDENTIAL Table RD-5: Credit for Past Tax Payments Construction Year Annual Expense Tax Rate Needed Tax on $1,000 value Credit per $1,000 of assessed value 2007 $372,750 0.014913 $0.15 $0.00 2008 $733,375 0.02848632 $0.28 $0.16 2009 $532,875 0.02009548 $0.20 $0.46 2010 $864,163 0.03163963 $0.32 $0.70 2011 $244,500 0.00869115 $0.09 $1.06 2012 $237,938 0.00821155 $0.08 $1.21 2013 $231,375 0.00775248 $0.08 $1.36 2014 $224,813 0.00731321 $0.07 $1.51 2015 $218,250 0.00689293 $0.07 $1.66 2016 $211,688 0.00649096 $0.06 $1.81 2017 $205,125 0.00610652 $0.06 $1.97 2018 $198,563 0.005739 $0.06 $2.13 2019 $192,000 0.00538768 $0.05 $2.30 2020 $185,438 0.00505199 $0.05 $2.47 2021 $178,875 0.00473125 $0.05 $2.65 2022 $172,313 0.00442494 $0.04 $2.83 2023 $165,750 0.00413243 $0.04 $3.02 2024 $159,188 0.00385323 $0.04 $3.21 2025 $152,625 0.00358677 $0.04 $3.41 2026 $146,063 0.00333258 $0.03 $3.62 2027 $139,500 0.00309013 $0.03 $3.84 2028 $35,438 0.00076214 $0.01 $4.06 Table RD-6 Credit for Future Tax Payments Construction Year Annual Expense Tax Rate Needed Tax on $1,000 value Credit per $1,000 of assessed value 2007 $372,750 0.014913001 $0.15 $1.39 2008 $733,375 0.028486315 $0.28 $1.31 2009 $532,875 0.020095476 $0.20 $1.09 2010 $864,163 0.03163963 $0.32 $0.95 2011 $244,500 0.008691152 $0.09 $0.68 2012 $237,938 0.008211549 $0.08 $0.62 2013 $231,375 0.007752477 $0.08 $0.57 2014 $224,813 0.007313213 $0.07 $0.52 2015 $218,250 0.00689293 $0.07 $0.48 2016 $211,688 0.006490955 $0.06 $0.43 2017 $205,125 0.006106519 $0.06 $0.39 2018 $198,563 0.005739 $0.06 $0.35 2019 $192,000 0.005387682 $0.05 $0.31 2020 $185,438 0.005051987 $0.05 $0.27 2021 $178,875 0.00473125 $0.05 $0.23 2022 $172,313 0.004424937 $0.04 $0.20 2023 $165,750 0.004132428 $0.04 $0.16 2024 $159,188 0.00385323 $0.04 $0.13 2025 $152,625 0.003586766 $0.04 $0.10 2026 $146,063 0.003332578 $0.03 $0.07 2027 $139,500 0.003090133 $0.03 $0.04 2028 $35,438 0.00076214 $0.01 $0.01 Page 13 RECREATION FEES: RESIDENTIAL ONLY TABLE REC-4 NET IMPACT FEES PER UNIT . 1 THRU 3 UN IT STRUCTURES 4 + UNIT STRUCTURES DWELLING BASE TOTAL NET BASE TOTAL NET YEAR FEE CREDITS FEE FEE CREDITS FEE 2007 $1,685.67 $281.33 $1,404.34 $1,179.97 $178.06 $1,001.91 2008 $1,685.67 $295.40 $1,390.27 $1,179.97 $186.96 $993.01 2009 $1,685.67 $296.06 $1,389.61 $1,179.97 $187.35 $992.62 2010 $1,685.67 $254.96 $1,430.71 $1,179.97 $161.21 $1,018.76 2011 $1,685.67 $243.77 $1,441.90 $1,179.97 $154.07 $1,025.90 2012 $1,685.67 $183.17 $1,502.50 $1,179.97 $115.54 $1,064.43 2013 $1,685.67 $109.60 $1,576.07 $1,179.97 $68.77 $1,111.20 2014 $1,685.67 $72.38 $1,613.29 $1,179.97 $45.08 $1,134.89 2015 $1,685.67 $58.95 $1,626.72 $1,179.97 $36.51 $1,143.46 2016 $1,685.67 $45.86 $1,639.81 $1,179.97 $28.15 $1,151.82 2017 $1,685.67 $33.07 $1,652.60 $1,179.97 $19.98 $1,159.99 2018 $1,685.67 $20.59 $1,665.08 $1,179.97 $12.00 $1,167.97 Page 14 FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES: RESIDENTIAL TABLE FP-7: NET RESIDENTIAL FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES, PER UNIT Single Family Dwellings Multi-Family Dwellings Dwelling Year Base fee Credit for past taxes Credit for Future Taxes Net Fee Base Fee Credit for past taxes Credit for future taxes Net Fee 2007 $304.85 $0.00 $168.74 $136.11 $192.16 $0.00 $106.80 $85.36 2008 $304.85 $0.04 $174.27 $130.53 $192.16 $0.02 $110.30 $81.84 2009 $304.85 $0.78 $133.91 $170.16 $192.16 $0.45 $84.75 $106.96 2010 $304.85 $1.52 $93.42 $209.91 $192.16 $0.87 $59.13 $132.16 2011 $304.85 $2.37 $46.90 $255.58 $192.16 $1.35 $29.69 $161.12 2012 $304.85 $2.99 $15.14 $286.72 $192.16 $1.71 $9.58 $180.87 2013 $304.85 $3.34 $2.81 $298.71 $192.16 $1.91 $1.78 $188.48 2014 $304.85 $3.53 $1.68 $299.65 $192.16 $2.01 $1.06 $189.09 2015 $304.85 $3.72 $0.83 $300.30 $192.16 $2.12 $0.53 $189.51 2016 $304.85 $3.91 $0.28 $300.66 $192.16 $2.23 $0.18 $189.75 FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES: NON-RESIDENTIAL TABLE FP-8 ESTIMATED POST-DEVELOPMENT VALUES PER SQUARE FOOT OF FLOOR SPACE Type of Use Type and Quality of Construction: Fireproofed Steel Skeleton or Reinforced Concrete Masonry or Concrete Bearing Wall Structure Wood Frame Structure Pre-Fabricated Steel Structure Industrial/Manufacturing $66 $49 $46 $45 Engineering & Research $88 $69 $65 $64 General Office $123 $96 $93 $88 Medical Office $133 $113 $110 $104 General Retail $84 $71 $69 $67 Auto Service Facility N/A $54 $51 $41 Elder Care Facility $102 $84 $81 $78 Motel N/A $74 $72 $72 Page 15 FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES: NON-RESIDENTIAL (continued) TABLE FP-9: NON-RESIDENTIAL FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR PAST TAX PAYMENTS Assume grand list has a 2006 value of $24,994,969, has grown at 3.0 %, and will continue to grow at 3.0% CONSTRUCTION YEAR ANNUAL EXPENSE TAX RATE NEEDED TAX ON $1000 VALUE CREDITS PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUE 2007 $23,000 0.000920 $0.01 $0.00 2008 $399,800 0.015529 $0.16 $0.01 2009 $396,000 0.014934 $0.15 $0.17 2010 $442,400 0.016198 $0.16 $0.34 2011 $303,700 0.010796 $0.11 $0.53 2012 $120,000 0.004141 $0.04 $0.67 2013 $12,000 0.000402 $0.00 $0.74 2014 $9,000 0.000293 $0.00 $0.78 2015 $6,000 0.000189 $0.00 $0.83 2016 $3,000 0.000092 $0.00 $0.87 TABLE FP-10: NON-RESIDENTIAL FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR FUTURE TAX PAYMENTS Assume grand list has a 2006 value of $24,994,969, has grown at 3.0 %, and will continue to grow at 3.0% CONSTRUCTION YEAR PAYMENT TAX RATE NEEDED TAX ON $1000 VALUE CREDITS PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUE 2007 $23,000 0.000920 $0.01 $0.53 2008 $399,800 0.015529 $0.16 $0.55 2009 $396,000 0.014934 $0.15 $0.42 2010 $442,400 0.016198 $0.16 $0.30 2011 $303,700 0.010796 $0.11 $0.15 2012 $120,000 0.004141 $0.04 $0.05 2013 $12,000 0.000402 $0.00 $0.01 2014 $9,000 0.000293 $0.00 $0.01 2015 $6,000 0.000189 $0.00 $0.00 2016 $3,000 0.000092 $0.00 $0.00 Page 16 TABLE PD-4 NET RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES, PER UNIT 1 THRU 3 UNIT STRUCTURES 4 + UNIT STRUCTURES DWELLING Base Credit for Credit for Net Base Credit for Credit for Net YEAR Fee Past taxes Future taxes Fee Fee Past taxes Future taxes Fee 2010 $503.88 $0.00 $158.93 $344.95 $352.72 $0.00 $99.90 $252.82 2011 $503.88 $0.20 $153.60 $350.08 $352.72 $0.10 $96.55 $256.07 2012 $503.88 $0.73 $126.81 $376.34 $352.72 $0.36 $79.71 $272.65 2013 $503.88 $1.26 $100.03 $402.59 $352.72 $0.63 $62.88 $289.21 2014 $503.88 $1.71 $79.39 $422.78 $352.72 $0.85 $49.90 $301.96 2015 $503.88 $2.02 $68.07 $433.79 $352.72 $1.01 $42.79 $308.92 2016 $503.88 $2.33 $57.49 $444.05 $352.72 $1.17 $36.14 $315.42 2017 $503.88 $2.64 $47.81 $453.43 $352.72 $1.32 $30.05 $321.35 2018 $503.88 $2.93 $39.20 $461.74 $352.72 $1.47 $24.64 $326.61 2019 $503.88 $3.22 $31.77 $468.89 $352.72 $1.61 $19.97 $331.14 2020 $503.88 $3.50 $25.58 $474.80 $352.72 $1.75 $16.08 $334.89 2021 $503.88 $3.93 $10.10 $489.86 $352.72 $1.96 $6.35 $344.41 2022 $503.88 $4.19 $6.09 $493.60 $352.72 $2.10 $3.83 $346.80 2023 $503.88 $4.44 $3.50 $495.94 $352.72 $2.22 $2.20 $348.30 2024 $503.88 $4.68 $2.39 $496.80 $352.72 $2.34 $1.50 $348.87 2025 $503.88 $4.92 $2.51 $496.45 $352.72 $2.46 $1.58 $348.68 2026 $503.88 $5.16 $2.64 $496.08 $352.72 $2.58 $1.66 $348.48 2027 $503.88 $5.42 $2.77 $495.69 $352.72 $2.71 $1.74 $348.27 2028 $503.88 $5.69 $2.91 $495.28 $352.72 $2.85 $1.83 $348.05 2029 $503.88 $5.98 $3.05 $494.85 $352.72 $2.99 $1.92 $347.81 2030 $503.88 $6.33 $0.00 $497.55 $352.72 $3.16 $0.00 $349.56 Page 17 TABLE PD-5 NON-RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR PAST TAX PAYMENTS ASSUME 2006 MUNICIPAL GRAND LIST EQUALS $24,994,969 Grand List will continue to grow at 2.0% per year CONS- CREDITS TRUCTION ANNUAL TAX RATE TAX ON PER $1,000 OF YEAR EXPENSE NEEDED $1000 VALUE ASSESSED VALUE 2010 $102,666 0.003795 $0.04 $0.00 2011 $271,764 0.009848 $0.10 $0.04 2012 $266,400 0.009464 $0.09 $0.15 2013 $210,316 0.007325 $0.07 $0.25 2014 $127,972 0.004370 $0.04 $0.34 2015 $119,296 0.003994 $0.04 $0.40 2016 $109,288 0.003587 $0.04 $0.47 2017 $97,696 0.003144 $0.03 $0.53 2018 $85,096 0.002684 $0.03 $0.59 2019 $71,848 0.002222 $0.02 $0.64 2020 $157,916 0.004788 $0.05 $0.70 2021 $43,372 0.001289 $0.01 $0.79 2022 $28,360 0.000827 $0.01 $0.84 2023 $12,844 0.000367 $0.00 $0.89 2024 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.94 2025 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.98 2026 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $1.03 2027 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $1.08 2028 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $1.14 2029 $36,108 0.000916 $0.01 $1.20 2030 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $1.27 Page 18 TABLE PD-6 NON-RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR FUTURE TAX PAYMENTS ASSUME 2003 MUNICIPAL GRAND LIST EQUALS $24,994,969 Grand List will continue to grow at 2.0% per year CONS- CREDITS TRUCTION ANNUAL TAX RATE TAX ON PER $1,000 OF YEAR EXPENSE NEEDED $1000 VALUE ASSESSED VALUE 2010 $102,666 0.003795 $0.04 $0.45 2011 $271,764 0.009848 $0.10 $0.44 2012 $266,400 0.009464 $0.09 $0.36 2013 $210,316 0.007325 $0.07 $0.29 2014 $127,972 0.004370 $0.04 $0.23 2015 $119,296 0.003994 $0.04 $0.19 2016 $109,288 0.003587 $0.04 $0.16 2017 $97,696 0.003144 $0.03 $0.14 2018 $85,096 0.002684 $0.03 $0.11 2019 $71,848 0.002222 $0.02 $0.09 2020 $157,916 0.004788 $0.05 $0.07 2021 $43,372 0.001289 $0.01 $0.03 2022 $28,360 0.000827 $0.01 $0.02 2023 $12,844 0.000367 $0.00 $0.01 2024 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.01 2025 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.01 2026 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.01 2027 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.01 2028 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.01 2029 $36,108 0.000916 $0.01 $0.01 2030 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.00 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: RESIDENTIAL TAX CREDIT APPLIED TO IMPACT FEE TABLE SC-2: 2023-2031 PAST TAX RATE FOR ZEM BOND PER $1,000 OF VALUATION DWELLING CONSTRUCTION YEAR [A] ANNUAL EXPENSE [B] TAX RATE NEEDED (PER $1,000 ASSESSMENT) [C] CUMULATIVE TAX RATE (PER $1,000 ASSESSMENT) [D] 2023 $250,000 0.120431 $0.00 2024 $250,000 0.118652 $0.12 2025 $250,000 0.116898 $0.25 2026 $250,000 0.115171 $0.38 2027 $250,000 0.113469 $0.51 2028 $250,000 0.111792 $0.64 2029 $250,000 0.110140 $0.77 2030 $250,000 0.108512 $0.91 2031 $250,000 0.106908 $1.05 Page 19 TABLE SC-3: 2023-2031 FUTURE TAX RATE PER BEDROOM DWELLING CONSTRUCTION YEAR [A] ANNUAL EXPENSE [B] TAX ASSESED PER BEDROOM [C] CUMULATIVE TAX PAID PER BEDROOM (NET PRESENT VALUE) [D] 2023 $250,000 $31.31 $230.55 2024 $250,000 $30.85 $206.15 2025 $250,000 $30.39 $181.49 2026 $250,000 $29.94 $156.54 2027 $250,000 $29.50 $131.29 2028 $250,000 $29.07 $105.73 2029 $250,000 $28.64 $79.83 2030 $250,000 $28.21 $53.59 2031 $250,000 $27.80 $26.99 Adopted at South Burlington, Vermont this _______day of ______, 2022, and to be effective upon adoption. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL _____________________________ ____________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair Matt Cota __________________________________ ______________________________ Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair Thomas Chittenden __________________________________ Tim Barritt, Clerk Received and recorded this ______ day of ________, 2022. ______________________________ Donna Kinville, City Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE STUDY November 9, 2022 South Burlington School District Cover Image Credit: City of South Burlington © 2022 RSG South Burlington School District SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE STUDY i CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1 1.1 LEGAL BACKGROUND ...........................................................................2 2.0 COMMUNITY CONTEXT .................................................................... 4 2.1 POPULATION ..........................................................................................4 2.2 HOUSEHOLDS ........................................................................................5 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD ..............................................................6 BEDROOMS PER HOUSEHOLD ...........................................................8 2.3 LAND USE FORECASTS ...................................................................... 10 COUNTYWIDE CONTEXT ................................................................... 11 FORECAST GROWTH IN HOUSING AND STUDENTS ...................... 12 3.0 SCHOOL DISTRICT FEE DEVELOPMENT .................................... 15 3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 15 3.2 SERVICE STANDARD ........................................................................... 16 3.3 STUDENTS PER HOUSEHOLD ............................................................ 18 4.0 BASE IMPACT FEE ......................................................................... 23 4.1 OPTION 1: DISTRICTWIDE IMPROVEMENT ....................................... 23 CAPITAL COSTS .................................................................................. 23 BASE FEE CALCULATION .................................................................. 24 4.2 OPTION 2: PK-8 ZERO-ENERGY MODULAR (ZEM) CLASSROOM FLEXIBLE SPACE ........................................................ 26 CAPITAL COSTS .................................................................................. 27 BASE FEE CALCULATION .................................................................. 27 4.3 IMPLEMENTATION AND EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS ....................... 29 5.0 CREDITS .......................................................................................... 30 5.1 CREDITS ............................................................................................... 30 INFRASTRUCTURE CREDITS ............................................................ 30 REVENUE CREDITS ............................................................................ 30 6.0 FINAL IMPACT FEE ......................................................................... 34 ii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: IMPACT FEE PROCESS ................................................................................. 1 FIGURE 2: SOUTH BURLINGTON POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................. 4 FIGURE 3: SOUTH BURLINGTON HOUSING PERMITS (HISTORICAL 1980 TO 2021) .................................................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 4: AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE (1940–2016) .................................................. 7 FIGURE 5: EXISTING BEDROOM MIX OF SOUTH BURLINGTON HOUSING UNITS ........................................................................................................................ 9 FIGURE 6: VERMONT PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY BEDROOM .......................... 10 FIGURE 7: CHITTENDEN COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONS .............................. 11 FIGURE 8: NEAR TERM HOUSING UNITS BY BEDROOM MIX .................................... 13 FIGURE 9: TOTAL ENROLLMENT FORECAST ............................................................. 14 FIGURE 10: VHFA PERCENT OF HOUSING TYPES WITH SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN ............................................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 11: SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN MULTIPLIERS (ECONSULT SOLUTIONS) ........................................................................................................... 20 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: AVERAGE PERSONS PER HOUSING UNIT .................................................... 8 TABLE 2: SOUTH BURLINGTON BEDROOMS, BY HOUSEHOLD UNIT (2020 5-YEAR ACS) ............................................................................................................ 8 TABLE 3: SOUTH BURLINGTON 2020 HOUSEHOLD MIX BY BEDROOM ..................... 9 TABLE 4: REGIONAL LAND USE HOUSING FORECASTS FOR SOUTH BURLINGTON ......................................................................................................... 12 TABLE 5: SQUARE FEET STANDARDS PER SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL .................................................................................................................. 17 TABLE 6: EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS IN SOUTH BURLINGTON ...................... 17 TABLE 7: ACS PUMS DATA ON STUDENTS PER HOUSE BY BEDROOM .................. 18 TABLE 8: NUMBER OF STUDENTS PER HOUSING UNIT IN SOUTH BURLINGTON (2022) .............................................................................................. 20 TABLE 9: STUDENT GROWTH BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE ............................................... 21 TABLE 10: CAPITAL COSTS FOR PREFERRED ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION OPTION ................................................................................................................... 24 TABLE 11: NET BASE IMPACT FEE COST PER HOUSING UNIT (2022 DOLLARS) ............................................................................................................... 25 TABLE 12: CAPITAL COSTS FOR THE ZEMS .............................................................. 27 TABLE 13: PK-8 STUDENTS PER HOUSEHOLD .......................................................... 28 TABLE 14: NET BASE IMPACT FEE COST PER HOUSING UNIT (2022 DOLLARS) ............................................................................................................... 29 TABLE 15: 2023-2031 PAST TAX RATE FOR ZEM BOND PER $1,000 OF VALUATION ............................................................................................................ 32 TABLE 16: 2023 – 2031 FUTURE TAX CREDIT PER BEDROOM .................................. 33 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACS American Community Survey CCI [ENR] Construction Cost Index CCRPC Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission GFA Gross floor area MSBA Massachusetts School Building Authority MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan PUMS Public Use Microdata Sample VHFA Vermont Housing Finance Agency ZEM Zero-Energy Module 1.0 INTRODUCTION This impact fee study report evaluates how residential land use development in the city of South Burlington places additional demands on the school district and on existing services and infrastructure. Impact fees are a type of land use regulation that local governments use to generate revenue to construct additional capacity to accommodate this demand. The School District retained RSG to develop this needs study to identify a fair and equitable impact fee structure for its capital expansion investments. This study presents the legal nexus between population growth and impacts on the education facilities managed by the South Burlington School District. The base fee derived in this study represents the legal maximum based on the expected capital costs to meet the growth in demand. The base fee and subsequent credits and final fee should be adjusted once the capital costs are agreed and the full mix of funding sources have been identified. Vermont statute authorizes municipalities to levy impact fees on new development. The purpose of these fees is to allocate the cost of new capital facilities to the development that will benefit from those facilities.1 This can include fees to offset the costs of facilities built in the past with excess capacity for anticipated future development, facilities planned to be built to accommodate future development, and marginal expansion of capacity in response to population growth and changes in community expectations. The statute states that the costs of such infrastructure should only include the portion associated with new capacity to accommodate the future land development’s demand. The process is visualized in Figure 1 below. FIGURE 1: IMPACT FEE PROCESS 1 24 V.S.A. § 5200 Source: RSG The methodology used in the School District Impact Fee Study follows a “consumption” or standards based approach by expanding marginal capacity based on incremental changes in demand (i.e., student population). The consumption based approach identifies the standards by which the services are currently provided, compares those to expected standards of service, and uses a change in base demand to forecast how much additional capacity may be necessary in the future. The plan based approach uses an established plan or vision to identify the necessary capital investments to meet the needs of the future population. 1.1 LEGAL BACKGROUND The American Planning Association, which is a national organization dedicated to supporting local communities and planning processes, has developed standards for impact fees. These standards are as follows:2 • The imposition of a fee must be rationally linked (the "rational nexus") to an impact created by a particular development and the demonstrated need for related capital improvements pursuant to a capital improvement plan and program. • Some benefit must accrue to the development as a result of the payment of a fee. • The amount of the fee must be a proportionate fair share of the costs of the improvements made necessary by the development and must not exceed the cost of the improvements. • A fee cannot be imposed to address existing deficiencies except where they are exacerbated by new development. • Funds received under such a program must be segregated from the general fund and used solely for the purposes for which the fee is established. • The fees collected must be encumbered or expended within a reasonable timeframe to ensure that needed improvements are implemented. Six years in Vermont. • The fee assessed cannot exceed the cost of the improvements, and credits must be given for outside funding sources (such as federal and state grants, developer initiated improvements for impacts related to new development, etc.) and local tax payments which fund capital improvements, for example. • The fee cannot be used to cover normal (day to day) operation and maintenance or personnel costs, but must be used for capital improvements, or under some linkage programs, affordable housing, job training, child care, transit operations, etc. This 2 American Planning Association. “APA Policy Guide on Impact Fees.” Available at: https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/impactfees.htm. expectation has to define costs attributed to mitigating the impacts associated with additional land use development. Typical management activities: • The fee established for specific capital improvements should be reviewed at least every two years to determine whether an adjustment is required, and similarly the capital improvement plan and budget should be reviewed at least every 5 to 8 years. • Provisions must be included in the ordinance to permit refunds for projects that are not constructed, since no benefit will have manifested. • Impact fee payments are typically required to be made as a condition of approval of the development, either at the time the building or occupancy permit is issued. Vermont’s impact fee statute does not preclude using funds for administrative duties associated with the management of the impact fee program. Nationally, it is common practice to collect and expend impact fees to cover time and expenses associated with the creation, management, and administration of the impact fee program. These funds often cover the salary portion of the impact fee administrator, staff time in the preparation and review of impact fee studies, consultant or staff time preparing impact fee needs reports, and ordinance support. Any administrative fee would be specified in the applicable city impact fee ordinance. 2.0 COMMUNITY CONTEXT South Burlington has played an important role in the growth and development of the greater Burlington region in northwestern Vermont. The city is located at the junction of three critical roadways (I-89, I-189, US2, US 7), traversed by the western railway line, is the home of the Burlington International Airport, and surrounds Vermont’s largest municipality, the City of Burlington. South Burlington covers approximately 16.5 square miles and is a regional employment, trade, housing, and transportation center. South Burlington is one of the fastest growing municipalities in Chittenden County and is poised to add more residents and businesses over the coming decades. The city has taken a proactive approach to planning and has been working with the school district, residents, businesses, and other stakeholders as the city refines, updates, and revisits these plans to remain valuable and insightful guides to the regulatory land use development process. 2.1 POPULATION The city of South Burlington is the third most populous municipality after Burlington and Essex (counting Essex Junction and Town) in Chittenden County, with an estimated population of 20,292 as of the 2020 Decennial Census. The city has experienced a sustained growth trajectory since 1940 as supported by population and housing data visualized in Figure 2. FIGURE 2: SOUTH BURLINGTON POPULATION AND HOUSING source: US Census Bureau and 2016 Comprehensive Plan 2.2 HOUSEHOLDS To minimize adverse effects on housing affordability and build a strong nexus between the need for services and growth in the town, it is important to understand the actual number of people occupying the land uses being developed. Households is an accessible and commonly used term for forecasting growth and one of the few units of growth that is specifically used in the permitting process. Between 2000 and 2020 the city of South Bulington resident population grew by 36.4% while occupied housing stock increased by 46.2%. This aligns with long-term trends of decreasing household size. The land use based approach is informed by the use of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission’s (CCRPC), which is the regions Federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization, long-range population, employment, and housing unit projections for use in regional planning efforts. The most recent comprehensive review of future growth trends occurred during the 2017 update to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The CCRPC projections suggest an additional 719 housing units in South Burlington between 2020 and 2030, an 8% change. The city of South Burlington planning department has maintained that the regional forecasts are too low given the rate of residential construction anticipated over the next twenty years. City planning staff have indicated that annual changes of around 140 housing units is more realistic and consistent with past land use permits and growth patterns as shown in Figure 3. FIGURE 3: SOUTH BURLINGTON HOUSING PERMITS (HISTORICAL 1980 TO 2021) Bedrooms however is also a frequently used metric, guiding the size requirements for waste water and raw water as well as other land development permits. Both the number of households and the number of bedrooms in those households are known entities at the time a building permit is obtained prior to construction. The number of occupants, however, are not – which is the true source of demand for city services such as educational facilities. While we cannot assess the impact fee on the actual number of occupants, we have sufficient data to associate a correlation between the size of the household and number of bedrooms to the number of occupants. Persons per Household The American Community Survey estimates that as of 2020, there were 9,087 housing units.3 This is an increase of over 2,586 housing units since the 2000 Census and over 1,453 more than the 2010 census. Most of the housing units are owner occupied (59%) with an average of 3 The ACS is an estimate based on a sampling of data. The City maintains a detailed record of housing permits and overall housing units. However, it is valuable to compare housing and population using a consistent dataset (i.e., ACS). 2.32 persons per household. The remaining 41% of households are renter occupied with 2.00 persons per household4.The citywide average is 2.19 persons per household. There have been attempts nationally to reduce the effect that impact fees may have on housing costs, and especially, “affordable housing.” Changing the assessment on the size of the home or on the number of bedrooms provides a stronger relationship to the number of occupants and the likely impact on the school district. Nationally, over the past half century the average size (number of persons) of the household has dropped from 3.67 persons per household in 1940 to 2.53 in 2016 as shown in Figure 4. FIGURE 4: AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE (1940–2016) Source: US Census Bureau5 The number of occupants per household influences the number of housing units necessary to house the population and may also influence the degree to which any household may impact 4 2020 American Community Survey 5-year estimates (Table B25010) 5 US Census Bureau. “Historical Households Tables.” December 2020. Available at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/households.html. the needs for goods and services. Specifically, as it pertains to the school district, if there are fewer occupants, there may be a reduction in likely number of students that may be living in the household. Traditionally, impact fee studies often separated the fees based on ownership status or other proxies for ownership. Rightly or wrongly, the ownership may been an easier way to capture anticipated or degree of impact on the system. However, as shown in Table 1 there has been a trend toward convergence between owner occupied housing sizes and renter occupied housing sizes. Since 2000 the city has seen a decline in average persons per owner occupied unit, and from 2010 to today an increase in the overall household size of rented units. TABLE 1: AVERAGE PERSONS PER HOUSING UNIT AVG. PERSONS PER OWNER OCCUPIED UNIT AVG. PERSONS PER RENTER OCCUPIED UNIT 2000 Census 2.44 2.02 2010 Census 2.50 1.75 2015 ACS 2.38 1.84 2020 ACS 2.32 2.00 Source: US Census Data (Table B25010) To move away from ownership status, it is important to acknowledge that the simple metric of household is too gross of a measure. There is wide variation in the number of occupants and the behaviors of those occupants that should be better accounted for. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan reinforces the notion that policies such as impact fees, should be designed to be avoid unintentional adverse impacts on affordable housing policies. Bedrooms per Household The 2020 breakdown of households and the number bedrooms is shown in Table 2. Note that the total number of housing units estimated by the ACS is slightly different than what the City Planning office considers to be an accurate count of housing units. The ACS aides in the understanding of the relative makeup of each of the units in the city. TABLE 2: SOUTH BURLINGTON BEDROOMS, BY HOUSEHOLD UNIT (2020 5-YEAR ACS) HOUSEHOLD BEDROOM COUNT COUNT PERCENT No Bedroom (i.e., studio or efficiency unit) 202 2% 1 Bedroom 1,137 13% 2 Bedrooms 3,360 37% 3 Bedrooms 2,807 31% 4 Bedrooms 1,340 15% 5 or More Bedrooms 241 3% Total Housing Units 9,087 100% The weighted average number of bedrooms per unit is 2.5. Aggregated into three levels (0 to 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, 3 bedroom, and 4+ bedroom) units can be helpful and easier for practical applications. The percentage as a share of the overall housing mix is shown in Figure 5. FIGURE 5: EXISTING BEDROOM MIX OF SOUTH BURLINGTON HOUSING UNITS Source: American Community Survey (2020 5-year. Table B250401) The planning department at the city of South Burlington maintains a robust record of the housing permits and based on the local data there are 9,500 housing units as of 2020. Using the ACS percentage of households by the number of bedrooms the 2020 share of households by bedrooms is shown in Table 3. TABLE 3: SOUTH BURLINGTON 2020 HOUSEHOLD MIX BY BEDROOM TOTAL 0-1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4+ BR Units 9,500 1,400 3,513 2,935 1,653 Percent 15% 37% 31% 17% Source: City of South Burlington records using ACS percentages Lastly, the U.S. Census Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) regularly surveys around 1% of the U.S. population each year across the full set of variables surveyed in the ACS. The 2019 five-year PUMS data was downloaded using the statistical software R and exported for the state of Vermont geography, providing occupancy data on 32,056 households. The data accessed compares persons per household and the number of bedrooms in that household. The relationship is visualized in Figure 6 below. FIGURE 6: VERMONT PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY BEDROOM Source: Census PUMS data analyzed by RSG A strong linear relationship exists between the number of bedrooms a household has and the number of persons in that household. This is a helpful check to confirm that bedroom count can be a reliable measure of the number of occupants, and therefore, the impact on the city of South Burlington facilities, including schools. 2.3 LAND USE FORECASTS The Comprehensive Plan supports the city’s vision for robust and significant growth in both population and employment. The city is expected to remain one of the faster growing communities in Vermont and in Chittenden County. The 2020 Census data indicates the state population grew 2.8%, or 0.28% annually between 2010 and 2020, while South Burlington grew 13.34%, or 1.25% annually6, from 17,904 to 20,292 residents between 2010 and 2020. Countywide Context The 2018 ECOS Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) produced by the CCRPC developed countywide and municipal forecasts out to 2050. The 2018 projections have countywide population projected to increase from 165,000 in 20207 to 183,000 in 2050. The population is anticipated to slow in annual growth rates through the 2020s and then increase again starting in the 2030s as the ‘millennials’ fully enter an age typical of household formation. Figure 7 shows the chart for the projected countywide population growth through year 2050. The chart indicates that annual growth rates between 2010 and 2020 are around 0.56% and forecast between 2020 and 2030 at 0.4%. South Burlington data indicates that the city is adding residents faster than the Chittenden County average. FIGURE 7: CHITTENDEN COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONS Source: CCRPC 2018 ECOS MTP (developed by Economic Policy Resources, Inc. and RSG) 6 Using a natural log growth equation with US Census 2010 and 2020 population estimates 7 The 2019 ACS data indicates Chittenden County has a population of 163,774 165,803 172,596 174,764 183,129 155,000 160,000 165,000 170,000 175,000 180,000 185,000 190,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050 Forecast Growth in Housing and Students The city of South Burlington is forecast to see an increase in employment and population over the coming decades. By 2030 regional growth forecasts8 suggest South Burlington could see an increase in over 2,000 residents and 3,400 jobs from 2015. These forecasts were developed as part of a regional effort in 2017 by the CCRPC to account for New England wide trends in a Vermont context and then work with local agencies and governments to refine forecasts for each community within Chittenden County. The forecasts were completed going out to the future year 2050, the current planning horizon for the regional long-range planning efforts. The growth anticipated for South Burlington in the regional planning effort (shown in Table 4) shows a significantly slower rate of growth than the historical average of 140 units per year shown in Figure 3. If the 140 units per year remains a long run average, the city could reasonably expect nearly 11,000 housing units by the year 2030. This comparison between the different forecasts is only helpful to provide a perspective on the amount of growth and development expected in the city. TABLE 4: REGIONAL LAND USE HOUSING FORECASTS FOR SOUTH BURLINGTON HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLDS ANNUALIZED GROWTH RATE 2020 9,500 2025 9,793 0.62% 2030 10,219 0.87% 2035 10,644 0.83% 2040 11,069 0.80% 2045 11,495 0.77% 2050 11,920 0.74% Source: CCRP 2018 MTP Forecasts (pivoted using actual 2020 housing units) However, the overall number of housing units is only part of the story. The City Planning Department identified a near term growth projection using an identified list of known or likely land use development projects to occur within the next decade, by 2030. The size, scale, and bedroom composition of these units are expected to be markedly different than what has been the recent historical housing type within South Burlington. Figure 8 shows the existing mix of housing units by bedroom count along with the type of housing unit anticipated over the next few years in the city. The figure shows a clear shift in the composition of the housing units. This will likely affect the anticipated number of students residing in these units. 8 CCRPC MTP Forecasts for year 2030. FIGURE 8: NEAR TERM HOUSING UNITS BY BEDROOM MIX Source: City of South Burlington Planning Department (May 2022) The number of students residing and enrolled in South Burlington schools has traditionally been based on forecasts from McKibben Demographics to inform key inputs such as school by school enrollment by year. The analysis uses a range of demographic factors such as migration (in and out), births and deaths, and historical data that is used to inform the future rate of change in the student populations by grade. At an aggregate level, the October 20, 2021 McKibben report indicates 2,349 resident students in 2020 and forecasts 2,604 in 2030 (and 2,635 by 2032). This is a 10.8% change over the next 10 years, with an annual average increase of nearly 26 students per year. In addition to simply resident students, there are nearly 200 tuition students from nearby communities who attend school in South Burlington. These numbers are expected to remain stable. It is both a service to the wider community in northwestern Vermont but also a benefit for the additional revenue that can offset local education costs. Figure 9 shows the McKibben total school district enrollment forecast out ten years to year 2032. FIGURE 9: TOTAL ENROLLMENT FORECAST Source: McKibben Demographics (October 20, 2021) A detailed methodology and assumptions of McKibben’s work is included in the appendix of the May 2019 Phase 2 Master Planning & Visioning report, titled Demographic Study Report 2019 from McKibben Demographics. The analysis is detailed with the many assumptions that are critical to understanding the future forecasts that were made. Foremost among them is the assumed number of new housing units constructed. The 2019 report states an assumed 500 new units by 2028. This is well short of the amount the City Planning Department has indicated based on historical averages (~140 units per year) as well as near term growth expectations. It will be important for city and school district staff to monitor the changes in enrollment as it relates to housing growth and development. The following chapters rely on the attributes of the housing being constructed in the city as well as the demands on the school facility to accommodate the future growth in student enrollment. 3.0 SCHOOL DISTRICT FEE DEVELOPMENT 3.1 INTRODUCTION The school district has been proactive in developing plans for additional school capacity. Over the past decade a handful of options have been identified such as consolidation at the K-5 level, rebuilding schools, or building anew. This impact fee study report supports the Master Planning Process that continues today to identify pathways forward to maximize student performance by improving the educational capital facilities. Impact fees can support the expansion of the schools within the district as long as there is a sound nexus between the growth in the community, a unit of growth – being households, the demand for additional school space as a result of that growth, and a capital plan to build the additional capacity. This chapter sets out the necessary components of an impact fee including developing the service standard, developing a cost per unit of growth, and including mechanisms for credits and avoiding issues of double payment. The district has a long-term vision of high-quality facilities that are flexible, adaptable and resilient to the inevitable changes in instructional format. The Master Planning Process has included numerous studies and evaluations of the facilities as well as public engagement activities to educate the community on the conditions and capacity challenges at the schools.9 The Master Planning documents along with others including demographic projections were reviewed and informed this impact fee study report, including the following: • Phase 1 - Master Planning and Visioning Process: Site & Building Assessments, Dore and Whittier. April 24, 2018. • South Burlington School District, Redistricting Study Option Statistics, Cropper GIS. May 2, 2019. • Phase 2 – Master Planning and Visioning Process: Educational Component, Dore and Whittier. May 31, 2019. • School District Enrollment Projections. Cropper GIS/McKibben Demographics. September 23, 2019. • Population and enrollment Forecasts: 2021 Series, McKibben Demographics. October 20, 2021. 9 Master Planning and Visioning site. https://www.sbschools.net/Page/736 • Elementary School Building Assessment: Programming Update, Dore and Whittier. November 30, 2021. • Elementary School Building Assessment: Options Analysis, Dore and Whittier. April 26, 2022. 3.2 SERVICE STANDARD Schools are dynamic and flexible spaces within a rigid structural shell. They must respond to evolving educational practices and year to year variations in enrollment. These challenges are among the hundreds of others that have been considered in the Master Planning and Visioning process that the school district organized over the past few years. The process convened working groups and committees to determine the preferred configuration and size of the future schools within South Burlington to meet the expected student population. Vermont has historically used a blanket, one size fits all, 160 square feet of gross square feet per student as the service standard that applies for all schools across all ages in Vermont. The standard has not changed for several decades and is considered inadequate to reflect the changing demands on the educational facilities. Alternatively, Massachusetts provides a current set of design standards that have been identified by the district’s architects as superior to Vermont’s standard and more accurately reflect the desired conditions. The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) Regulations apply to all public schools and communities that receive state funding assistance in Massachusetts.10 The architects for the South Burlington school district have pointed out that the Massachusetts standards should not be followed indiscriminately and require context and consideration of the local South Burlington situation. However, they do provide a helpful and powerful source of information for the purposes of establishing impact fees by providing a straightforward rubric as to the amount of space a pupil requires. The MSBA square footage standards per student vary by the age of the students (i.e., different standards for elementary vs. high school) and the total enrollment of the school. Table 5 shows the MSBA standard square feet per student standards for the five schools within South Burlington as well as the weighted average for the elementary schools and the overall weighted average. 10 Massachusetts School Grant Building Program. https://www.mass.gov/regulations/963-CMR-200-school-building-grant-program TABLE 5: SQUARE FEET STANDARDS PER SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL SCHOOL SERVICE STANDARD SQUARE FEET PER STUDENT (USING THE MSBA STANDARDS) Average (weighted by size of student population) 180 PK-5 Elementary 173 Rick Marcotte School 165 Chamberlin School 178 Orchard School 162 6-8 Tuttle Middle School 173 9-12 High School 200 Source: RSG analysis of the MSBA Standards The service standards for any future condition are compared to the existing condition to understand whether any deficiency exists today. Existing deficiencies are not eligible for funding through impact fees and must be funded with other sources. The existing enrollment and size of each school and resulting square feet per student is shown in Table 6. The MSBA standards and resulting size of each school and the resulting deficiency is included. TABLE 6: EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS IN SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL CURRENT TOTAL ENROLLMENT (2022) EXISTING SQUARE FEET OF SCHOOL EXISTING SQUARE FEET PER STUDENT MSBA REQUIREMENTS (SQUARE FEET) MSBA SQ FT PER STUDENT EXISTING CURRENT SPACE DEFICIENCY PER STUDENT Total 2,536 446,534 176 498,892 180 4 PK-5 1,125 167,440 149 194,540 173 24 RMCS 415 55,526 134 68,299 165 31 CS 269 54,792 204 54,792 178 0 OS 441 57,122 130 71,449 162 32 6-8 492 120,552 245 120,552 173 0 9-12 919 158,542 173 183,800 200 27 Source: RSG The analysis indicates that existing deficiencies are particularly acute at the high school and two of the elementary schools. Interim plans include adding temporary classrooms as well as shifting some of the districts to shift students from one school to another. However, as indicated by the overall deficiency of 4 square feet per student, the entire district is space deficient per the MSBA standards. This is the deficiency at the time of this impact fee study and it is expected to increase if capital investments are not made. 3.3 STUDENTS PER HOUSEHOLD Section 2.3 summarized the expectation that South Burlington and the school district is expected to add over 1,000 housing units (up to 1,400 if long-term trends continue) over the next ten years. A portion of those households and the residents living in them are likely to, or at some point in the future, house school-age children, adding to the overall demand for educational facilities in the school district. This chapter sets out the methodology for estimating the number of students that any housing unit in the city may generate, and subsequently, demand for additional capital infrastructure. The McKibben Demographics report indicated a total of 2,349 resident students were enrolled in 2020. The City Planning Department has indicated that there were 9,500 housing units in 2020. This produces an average of 0.247 students per housing unit across the entire city. The ACS also estimates that only 23.3% of households in the city have one or more resident under the age of 18. Roughly, these two numbers indicate that 1 in 4 households has a student in the district. These numbers are citywide averages that could be further divided into the types of housing units being occupied. Recognizing that the city is changing and the demand for smaller housing units is also growing as household size has reduced over the last few decades (see Figure 4). The U.S. Census PUMS regularly surveys around 1% of the U.S. population each year across the full set of variables surveyed in the ACS. The 2020 five-year PUMS data was downloaded using the statistical software R and exported for state of Vermont, providing data on students per household for 13,452 households in the study area.11 The PUMS data shows trend of higher numbers of students residing per unit as the number of bedrooms increases. For instance, single family homes with 4 bedrooms include an average of 0.73 students compared to 3 bedroom units having 0.52 students, and 2 bedroom units having 0.27 students. The data is statewide, and obviously a limited dataset, but provides a local sample to inform this process. TABLE 7: ACS PUMS DATA ON STUDENTS PER HOUSE BY BEDROOM BEDROOMS PER UNIT STUDENTS PER HOUSEHOLD 0 – 1 0.16 2 0.27 3 0.52 11 Total households in the PUMS data is 15,584. However, 2,132 had a bedroom count of (-1) which were removed from the data 4 0.73 Source: RSG analysis of statewide Vermont households PUMS data (2020 5-year) The 2020 PUMS analysis is juxtaposed against an alternative picture of historical data using the 2000 Census data analyzed by the Vermont Housing Finance Agency (VHFA) shown in Figure 10. The VHFA analysis suggests the current overall average within South Burlington (0.247) is reasonable, albeit lower than historical Vermont averages. FIGURE 10: VHFA PERCENT OF HOUSING TYPES WITH SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN Source: VHFA: Housing and Vermont’s School Enrollment. January 2007. A more recent analysis of 2015 data (2011-2015 ACS data) prepared by Econsult Solutions titled “Who Moves into Vermont Housing” completed in November 2017 shows an extensive breakdown of school-age children by housing unit by bedroom count. The report states that these are derived from national sample and then further filtered to represent Vermont and not sensitive to specific community conditions. The data analyzes households moving into Vermont within four years of the ACS sample (in this case, the earliest move in date is 2008). The Econsult Solutions analysis aligns well with the 2020 PUMS data, with the one change that suggests that more recently there are higher numbers of students in 0 and 1 bedroom units relative to the 2011-2015 analysis. FIGURE 11: SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN MULTIPLIERS (ECONSULT SOLUTIONS) Source: Econsult Solutions. November 2017. The data sources (citywide average students per housing unit, the PUMS data for Vermont, and the two reports) are used to estimate the current South Burlington specific rates of students per housing unit by number of bedrooms shown in Table 8. TABLE 8: NUMBER OF STUDENTS PER HOUSING UNIT IN SOUTH BURLINGTON (2022) 0-1 BEDROOM UNITS 2 BEDROOM UNITS 3 BEDROOM UNITS 4+ BEDROOM UNITS WEIGHTED AVERAGE STUDENTS PER UNIT Total district students per housing unit 0.096 0.162 0.312 0.438 0.248 PK-5 Grades (~46% of students) 0.044 0.075 0.144 0.202 0.114 Grades 6,7,8 (~23% of students) 0.022 0.037 0.072 0.101 0.057 Grades 9-12 (~31% of students) 0.030 0.050 0.096 0.135 0.076 Source: RSG The number of students by grade cohort are based on the proportional share of each grade. For example, K-5 grades, are 6 years out of 13 (~46%) in which the district operates. Over the long run, every home in South Burlington has a probability to generate a student in proportion with these shares. The number of students generated per housing unit is used to relate the necessary amount of school facility space needed in the district to accommodate for additional housing units being constructed. The ratios for South Burlington appear to be lower than the recent PUMS data for statewide Vermont and lower than the averages analyzed by VHFA and Econsult. The actual number of students added to the district over the coming years will be a function of the number of housing units and the composition of those units. For example, the next few years could look something similar what is shown below in Table 9 based on the expected number of housing units by bedroom type and the number of students per household type. TABLE 9: STUDENT GROWTH BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE YEAR TOTAL HH PER YEAR ANNUAL HOUSING SHARE BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY BEDROOM (STUDENTS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE) ANNUAL ADDITIONAL STUDENTS TOTAL NEW STUDENTS 0-1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4+ BR 0-1 BR (.096) 2 BR (.162) 3 BR (.312) 4+ BR (.438) 2022 169 52% 21% 21% 7% 88.0 35.0 35.0 11.0 21 38 2023 336 51% 29% 14% 7% 170.0 96.0 47.0 23.0 39 77 2024 284 58% 24% 12% 7% 164.0 67.0 34.0 19.0 32 109 2025 142 46% 37% 10% 7% 65.5 52.4 14.1 10.1 16 125 2026 140 52% 26% 15% 7% 72.8 36.4 21.0 9.8 16 141 2027 140 52% 26% 15% 7% 72.8 36.4 21.0 9.8 16 158 2028 140 52% 26% 15% 7% 72.8 36.4 21.0 9.8 16 174 2029 140 52% 26% 15% 7% 72.8 36.4 21.0 9.8 16 191 2030 140 52% 26% 15% 7% 72.8 36.4 21.0 9.8 16 207 This possible configuration generally aligns with the forecasts that were prepared by McKibben Demographics (see Figure 9), however, derived from different data and methodology. Future planning between the school district and the city should seek to monitor the housing units, the type of unit, and ideally the numbers of students based on the housing type. This data can be important to monitor and can identify and possibly predict of enrollment pressures before they occur. Further, comments from the City Council suggested an interest in moving beyond bedrooms and creating a square footage based fee. If there is any survey of student enrollment, connecting that enrollment data to housing type, bedrooms, and square footage would be ideal. 4.0 BASE IMPACT FEE 4.1 OPTION 1: DISTRICTWIDE IMPROVEMENT The base impact fee has been designed to encompass the entire school district, with improvements to each of the three elementary schools, the middle school, and the high school. The base fee is designed for the option to reconstruct, improve, and expand each of the school facilities in the district. Alternatively, a renovation and expansion option was subsequently considered and dismissed by the school board. The basic formula for the impact fee assessment is: Square Foot per student x Cost per square foot x Students per housing unit = Base capital cost per housing unit (-) subtract cost per feet for existing deficiencies = Base impact fee per housing (-) subtract for property taxes that may be paid on future debt for school (see Chapter 5.0 for Credits) = Final impact fee per housing unit This impact fee approach uses the consumption or ratio method as the fee is assessed on the marginal basis of expansion. Each unit of growth (student per household) is associated with a specific amount of additional capacity (square feet of space per student). The school district can collect annual impact fees as the means to pay for the new capacity while using more traditional funding sources such as bonds and grants, to pay for the overall project. Any impact fee revenue from annual housing permits will offset the annual bond payments. Capital Costs The capital costs in 2022 dollars for replacing and expanding each of the five schools are shown in Table 10. The capital costs are estimated after a rigorous and comprehensive process to analyze the various options for shifting students within schools, replacing and consolidating schools, as well as the preferred configuration of rebuilding and expanding each of the schools in the district. The values in this table reflect recommendations from an ad-hoc enrollment committee facilitated and organized by the school district. The preferred option for all new construction treats the overall district as one entity rather than fees for specific schools or grade levels. Developing a school impact fee at the district level that uses a districtwide average cost per foot also provides greater flexibility as to the use and spending of the impact fees to pursue any and all opportunities for capital expansion throughout the district. The overall weighted average cost of the new construction option is $587.21 in 2022 dollars. TABLE 10: CAPITAL COSTS FOR PREFERRED ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION OPTION SCHOOL EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE FINAL CONSTRUCTED SQUARE FOOTAGE ALL NEW PROJECT COST (MILLION) COST PER SQ FOOT (DOLLARS) NEW CAPACITY COST (MILLION) - 2022 DOLLARS % OF COST OF NEW CAPACITY Total 446,534 571,681 $ 335.70 $ 587.21 $ 67.61 20% PK-5 167,440 206,681 $ 134.34 $ 650.00 $ 7.89 6% RMCS 55,526 75,384 $ 49.00 $ 650.06 $ 4.61 9% CS 54,792 55,153 $ 35.85 $ 649.94 $ 0.23 1% OS 57,122 76,144 $ 49.49 $ 649.97 $ 3.05 6% 6-8 120,552 130,000 $ 71.98 $ 553.68 $ 5.23 7% 9-12 158,542 235,000 $ 130.11 $ 553.65 $ 28.35 22% Source: Dore and Whittier (May 2022 estimates) Table 10 shows the existing and proposed square footage anticipated to be constructed for each of the facilities. Overall, an estimated 20% of the total new square footage is expected to be additional space over and above the space in existing facilities. The total cost of $335.70 million includes $5.88 million to address existing deficiencies, $262.21 million to replace the existing capacity, and $67.61 million to increase the capacity of the system. Important to note – at the time of this study preparation – the total cost excludes any financing costs such as interest. Base Fee Calculation The base impact fee is a result of the additional square feet of space needed to accommodate additional students as a result of new students occupying an increasing number of housing units in South Burlington. a) Space per student: The overall average space per student required in the district is 180 square feet. This standard is based on the MSBA given the typical enrollment of the school and the grade levels of students in the school. b) Cost per square foot: The overall average cost per square foot of educational space in the district is $587.21 in 2022 dollars. c) Number of students per housing unit: The number of students that may occupy any housing unit in the city does vary by the size of the unit, typically aligned with the number of bedrooms. The overall average of 0.248 students per household or per Table 8 by bedroom count. 0-1 BEDROOM UNIT 2 BEDROOM UNITS 3 BEDROOM UNITS 4+ BEDROOM UNITS WEIGHTED AVERAGE STUDENTS PER UNIT Students per housing unit 0.096 0.162 0.312 0.438 0.248 d) Existing deficiency: The district currently has an average deficiency of 4 square feet of education space per student. This is calculated using the existing square footage (446,534 square feet) divided by the current enrollment (2,536 students) = 176 square feet per student. The MSBA weighted average for the district is 180 square feet per student. The current cost per square foot estimates ($587.21) includes costs to rebuild existing capacity, address the deficiency, and expand the facility. Therefore, the cost of addressing the existing deficiency is removed from the cost per square foot that is embedded in the overall project cost estimates. The net base impact fee cost per housing unit is shown for housing units by bedroom or by the citywide average in Table 11. The fee can be established on either a bedroom bases or on a straight average which would assess each housing unit the same fee regardless of bedroom count. TABLE 11: NET BASE IMPACT FEE COST PER HOUSING UNIT (2022 DOLLARS) 0-1 BEDROOM UNIT 2 BEDROOM UNITS 3 BEDROOM UNITS 4+ BEDROOM UNITS Students per unit 0.096 0.162 0.312 0.438 Sq feet of School Required per housing unit (180 square feet per student x no of students) 17.3 29.2 56.2 78.9 Cost per square foot: $587.21 Base impact fee cost per housing unit $10,148.46 $17,125.52 $32,982.48 $46,302.33 Deficiency (4 sq ft per student x no. students x cost per square foot) ($2,348.84) ($2,348.84) ($2,348.84) ($2,348.84) Net base impact fee cost per unit (Base impact fee - Deficiency) $7,799.62 $14,776.68 $30,633.64 $43,953.49 4.2 OPTION 2: PK-8 ZERO-ENERGY MODULAR (ZEM) CLASSROOM FLEXIBLE SPACE This second capital enhancement option will consist of using semipermanent modular structures to accommodate an additional 140 students using an average of 17.5 students per module. The capacity of the units reflects an average number of students given the variety of uses and needs of different classes and activities that could occur within the modules. The number is viewed as a conservatively low value, with higher numbers providing only greater overall capacity to accommodate more students. The district will purchase eight zero-energy modular (ZEM) structures for use within the PK-8 grade facilities – serving as flexible space where acute student capacity constraints are particularly challenging. The eight modules are expected to have a lifespan of ten or more years and can be moved within the district to meet the changing capacity needs of specific community schools. The base impact fee for the ZEM option has been designed to account for added capacity for the PK through 8 grade education facilities. The basic formula for the impact fee assessment is: Cost per new student capacity x Students per housing unit = Base capital cost per housing unit (-) subtract cost per feet for existing deficiencies = Base impact fee per housing (-) subtract for property taxes that may be paid on future debt for school (see future Chapter 5.0 for Credits) = Final impact fee per housing unit This impact fee approach uses the consumption or ratio method as the fee is assessed on the marginal basis of expansion. Each unit of growth (student per household) is associated with a specific amount of additional capacity. The school district can collect annual impact fees as the means to pay for the new capacity while using more traditional funding sources such as bonds and grants, to pay for the overall project. Any impact fee revenue from annual housing permits will offset the annual bond payments and reduce the net burden on the existing tax base. 91.5% of the ZEMs capacity is a net addition to the school facilities and therefore eligible to be paid for through the collection of impact fees. Capital Costs The capital costs for the eight ZEMs are summarized in the table below. The District has retained architects and engineers to design the integration of the ZEMs into the existing school facilities. The costs are inclusive of the full cost to purchase, setup, and prepare the ZEMs for use as shown in Table 12. TABLE 12: CAPITAL COSTS FOR THE ZEMS Construction Cost $ 5,332,722 Soft Costs (20%) $ 955,978.20 Implementation Costs (excluding custodial staff) $ 100,050.00 Project Costs (excluding financing) $ 6,388,750.20 Unit cost per ZEM installed (8 units) $798,593.78 Source: DEW Construction 8 November 2022 Important to note, the total cost excludes any financing costs such as interest. The financing costs can be integrated into the impact fee as a necessary cost line item to implement the new capacity and then use impact fees to return revenue to the district as growth occurs. Base Fee Calculation The base impact fee accounts for the costs of providing additional square feet of space needed to accommodate additional students as a result of land use development generating additional students in the South Burlington School District. The base fee is derived using the following steps: a) Space per student: The ZEMs are self-contained units with a different standard of space than the overall school, which includes common areas, hallways, gyms, cafeterias, etc. The ZEMs are essentially additional core classroom space. It has been identified by the district that each ZEM can accommodate 17.5 students, using an average daily estimate across the various classes and anticipated uses.12 b) Cost per Student: The average installed cost per ZEM is $798,593.78.13 Using the average of 17.5 students per ZEM, the average cost per additional student capacity is $ $45,633.93. This is the base cost of installing additional school capacity (using the ZEMs 12 Number of students is estimated based on their expected use across the different class types and activities. 13 Cost excludes staff costs such as custodial time and excludes financing. as the benchmark basis) for each additional student being added to the district each year. c) Number of students per housing unit: The number of students that may occupy any housing unit in the city is shown to correlated with the number of bedrooms in the unit. The overall weighted average of 0.128 PK-8 grade students per household reflects the near term expected changes citywide based on expected bedroom counts within new construction over the next 5 years that anticipates the majority being 1 and 2 bedroom units (see Figure 8 for the changing housing types). The number of students by housing type is summarized in Table 13. TABLE 13: PK-8 STUDENTS PER HOUSEHOLD 0-1 BEDROOM UNITS 2 BEDROOM UNITS 3 BEDROOM UNITS 4+ BEDROOM UNITS PK-8 students per housing unit 0.066 0.112 0.216 0.303 d) Existing deficiency: The district currently provides 287,992 square feet for the PK-8 programs. Per the MSBA standards the PK – 8 program requires 315,092 square feet. This represents a deficiency of approximately 9.5%. This represents approximately 17 additional square feet per student to attain the MSBA standards. Because the ZEMs are a more focused unit of expansion (classrooms vs common area space), it is not appropriate to use that strict definition of deficiency. Rather, discounting the base impact fee by 9.5% to acknowledge that the addition of the ZEMs is not only serving new growth in students, but also existing capacity challenges. The net base impact fee cost per housing unit is shown for housing units by bedroom or by the citywide average in Table 14. TABLE 14: NET BASE IMPACT FEE COST PER HOUSING UNIT (2022 DOLLARS) 0-1 BR [A] 2 BR [B] 3 BR [C] 4+ BR [D] PK – 8 grade students per unit 0.066 0.112 0.216 0.303 ZEM Cost per additional student capacity $ 45,633.93 Base impact fee cost per housing unit $ 3,033 $ 5,118 $ 9,857 $13,838 Deficiency (current 9.5% space deficiency in PK-8 grade facilities) $ (285) $ (482) $ (928) $ (1,302) Net base impact fee cost per unit (Base impact fee - Deficiency) $ 2,748 $4,636 $8,929 $12,535 4.3 IMPLEMENTATION AND EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS The fee would also be assessed on housing expansions that add bedrooms. If a two-bedroom unit were to be expanded to add another bedroom, it is logical to assess a fee that reflects the greater likelihood that the house will have a student residing in it. The difference between the existing number of bedrooms and the future number of bedrooms could be a reasonable method to calculate the assessed fee. Any building permit which constructs an additional bedroom would be expected to pay the difference in fee between the original number of bedrooms and the new number of bedrooms. The impact fee based on the number of bedrooms reflects the data that smaller housing units are more likely to house fewer students compared to larger homes or those with more bedrooms. The fee is structured to recognize the smaller degree of impact on the school system that houses with fewer bedrooms have, by assessing a lower fee per household. The impact is that the houses with 3 or more bedrooms are faced with a substantially higher burden per household. While this may be equitable from the standpoint of impact to the school system, it may create a financial burden by increasing the overall cost of housing for larger families. The cost of new homes will likely increase as a result of internalizing the wider community costs (schools, transportation, water, recreation, library, police, fire, etc.) of new housing through impact fees. 5.0 CREDITS 5.1 CREDITS Credits are adjustments to the base impact fee that a land use would be assessed. Credits are applicable for the school district impact fee developed in Chapter 4.0. The credits in this impact fee study report have not calculated because the final fee value and the final mix of funding for the capital expenditure items have not been finalized. This chapter will be expanded once the final capital fees and mix of funding is agreed. A final fee would adjust the base fee based on the credits. Two credits are used to offset impact fees: infrastructure credit and revenue credits. The credits are applied after the base impact fee is calculated, as per equation: Infrastructure Credits A land use development applicant that constructs or directly funds any of the capital items funded through impact fees. In the case of the school district, it is unlikely that a private entity may construct additional education capacity and be eligible for an infrastructure impact fee credit. Revenue Credits Revenue credits discount the base impact fee to reduce the chance that a land use development in South Burlington would fund the same capital improvement through two different funds. This frequently occurs when the developer pays property taxes (prior to the development of the land and after the development) and a portion of which goes to fund the capital project that the impact fee contributed toward. In this situation, it is necessary to offset the impact fee by a credit value to eliminate the double payment toward the same capacity. Property tax is paid by a parcel owner on undeveloped land prior to a land use development and future taxes once the land is developed. The taxes on the undeveloped land that contribute to paying the school district bond debt is referred to as the “past tax payments.” The property tax payments on the developed land that will contribute to district debt is referred to as “future tax payments.” The streams of past and future tax payments are translated into net present values using an assumed 3% discount rate. Impact Fee = (Cost per Unit of Growth x New Units of Growth) – (Applicable Credits) The ZEMs are to be funded through impact fees and property taxes which are collected to pay off the construction bond. The revenue credit is necessary to offset the possibility of a parcel owner paying both the property taxes that will be used for the bond debt and the impact fee. Approximately $850,000 per year is required to satisfy the amortization schedule of the $6.8 million dollar bond to cover the ZEMs. The first full year of payment will conclude June 2024 and the last full year of payment will conclude June 2031. It is estimated that approximately $600,000 per year can be collected through impact fees, leaving an estimated $250,000 of property tax revenue to fund the ZEM bond debt. The impact fee revenue is estimated using a forecast of housing unit growth, the type of housing units by bedroom, and the net impact fee (see Table 14). Property Valuation Approach The strongest nexus between the amount of property tax paid and the development is the value of the property, prior to development and after development. The city of South Burlington’s 2021 residential Grand List taxable valuation is $20,149,679 (total assessed value of $2,014,967,880). The assumption is that the grand list will continue to grow by 1.5% per year, a tax rate is estimated per $1,000 of assessed value of the property to generate the annual expenses required. As the grand list grows, the tax rate will decrease (the absolute dollars needed per year is fixed and the tax base to raise those dollars grows). The combined tax rate of past years and future years are brought to net present valuations depending on the year the parcel is developed. Past Tax Revenue Credit Tax is calculated on the value of the land prior to the development or redevelopment. The share of taxes paid that were used to fund the school district ZEMs would be discounted off of the impact fee paid. The past tax credit is only applied to the entity who has the impact fee liability. For example: • If a parcel is developed in 2025, the credit shall apply for the taxes paid in 2023, 2024, and 2025. • If a parcel is developed in 2025, but was sold in 2024 to the current owner, the credit shall only apply for the taxes paid in 2024 and 2025. Table 15 shows the annual tax rate per $1,000 valuation of the grand list to achieve the annual revenue to pay for the ZEM debt for properties that will pay property tax between 2023 and 2031. The past taxes are credited against any impact fee liability. TABLE 15: 2023-2031 PAST TAX RATE FOR ZEM BOND PER $1,000 OF VALUATION DWELLING CONSTRUCTION YEAR [A] ANNUAL EXPENSE [B] TAX RATE NEEDED (PER $1,000 ASSESSMENT) [C] CUMULATIVE TAX RATE (PER $1,000 ASSESSMENT) [D] 2023 $250,000 0.120431 $0.00 2024 $250,000 0.118652 $0.12 2025 $250,000 0.116898 $0.25 2026 $250,000 0.115171 $0.38 2027 $250,000 0.113469 $0.51 2028 $250,000 0.111792 $0.64 2029 $250,000 0.110140 $0.77 2030 $250,000 0.108512 $0.91 2031 $250,000 0.106908 $1.05 Table 15 column [D] shows past taxes for the year of development for properties that paid tax from 2023 onwards that is the sum of previous tax rates (using a 3% discount rate) that are applied for each $1,000 of valuation. For example, an undeveloped property that is undergoing development in 2027 that is assessed at $500,000 would have a past tax credit of $253.92 [($500,000/$1,000)*0.51]. It is noted that the average assessed value of undeveloped land per acre of $58,433 in South Burlington.14 The credit should be calculated from the most current assessment of the property, either raw land if it is undeveloped, or if it is a redevelopment, the total value of the property (land and structures) pre-redevelopment should be used. Future Tax Revenue Credit A portion of property taxes paid on the value of the developed parcel will fund the ZEM debt service is calculated for the year of development in Table 16. The post-development future credit is calculated based on the total development value of the parcel including the structure and land value. The tax paid per bedroom is a conservative value based on the average U.S. Census data includes sales prices for new residential construction by region.15 The data includes sales price by improved square foot that include finished basements and livable space that are heated or cooled. This would exclude garages, porches, or other external spaces. The data indicates a range in housing values with an approximate average of $650,000 in current 2022 dollars in the northeast US. 14 2021 Grand List weighted average by acres empty (undeveloped) land value per acre for land uses codes R2. 15 US Census. Characteristics of New Housing. https://www.census.gov/construction/chars/ The future taxes assessed on the developed house can be estimated using the average new home sales price and the average number of bedrooms per unit. TABLE 16: 2023 – 2031 FUTURE TAX CREDIT PER BEDROOM DWELLING CONSTRUCTION YEAR [A] ANNUAL EXPENSE [B] TAX ASSESSED PER BEDROOM [C] CUMULATIVE TAX PAID PER BEDROOM (NET PRESENT VALUE) [D] 2023 $250,000 $31.31 $230.55 2024 $250,000 $30.85 $206.15 2025 $250,000 $30.39 $181.49 2026 $250,000 $29.94 $156.54 2027 $250,000 $29.50 $131.29 2028 $250,000 $29.07 $105.73 2029 $250,000 $28.64 $79.83 2030 $250,000 $28.21 $53.59 2031 $250,000 $27.80 $26.99 Table 16 column [D] shows future taxes for the year of development that the property may pay that is the net present value of future tax payments (using a 3% discount rate) that are applied for when the fee is paid. For example, a new 3-bedroom unit in 2026 would have a future tax credit of $469.62 ($156.54 per bedroom * 3 bedroom). This is the 2026 value of all future taxes paid that might contribute to the ZEMs debt service and would reduce the impact fee. Total Revenue Credits The total revenue credit is the sum of the past tax (pre-development) and the future tax (post- development) that is estimated to be used to pay the debt service for the ZEMs. The past tax uses the property value to estimate the amount of taxes assessed on that property while the future tax uses the number of bedrooms in the residential unit. 6.0 FINAL IMPACT FEE The final impact fee uses the base impact fee derived in Chapter 4.0 and the credits calculated in Chapter 5.0 to determine a final impact fee that would be assessed on residential developments in South Burlington. The final impact fee uses the following formula: The final impact fee is calculated using the following steps: 1. Determine the final number of bedrooms in the residential unit that requires the zoning permit 2. Look up the net base impact fee in Table 14 based on the number of bedrooms. 3. Determine the current assessed value of the property. 4. Based on the year of the zoning permit, look up the past tax paid per $1,000 of assessed value using Column [D] in Table 15. Divide the assessed value of the property by 1,000 and multiply by this value. This is the revenue credit for past taxes. 5. Given the year of the zoning permit, look for the future tax payments after the development or redevelopment takes place using Column [D] in Table 16. Multiply this value by the final number of bedrooms in the unit. The final impact fee is the result of: Impact Fee = (Net Base Fee Calculation) - (Credits) Impact Fee = (Cost per Unit of Growth x New Units of Growth) – (Revenue Credits) Impact Fee = (Net Base Fee Calculation) - (Credits) Impact Fee = (Cost per Unit of Growth x New Units of Growth) – (Revenue Credits) Impact Fee = Step 2 - (Step 4 – Step 5) Example Fee Derivations The following are hypothetical scenarios which are intended to illustrate how the fees are calculated. 3 bedroom unit - new development on private lot 3 Bedroom House on private lot $ 8,929.39 Net Base Fee for 3 bedroom unit (see Table 14) 2025 Zoning Permit Year $80,000 pre-development value 80 credit tax value (per $1,000 of assessed value) $20.00 ZEM Past Tax Credit (see Table 15) $544.46 Post Development Tax Credit (see Table 16) $564.46 Total Credit $ 8,364.93 Final Impact Fee 2 bedroom unit - new development in a larger, 30 unit multifamily structure 2 Bedroom unit $ 4,636.42 Net Base Fee for 2 bedroom unit (see Table 14) 2027 Zoning Permit Year $16,667 pre-development value ($500k of assessed value divided by number of units on parcel) $16.67 credit tax value (per $1,000 of assessed value) $8.46 ZEM Past Tax Credit (see Table 15) $262.58 Post Development Tax Credit (see Table 16) $271.04 Total Credit $ 4,365.37 Final Impact Fee SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT FY24 Proposed Budget Presentation to Steering Committee January 23, 2023 We inspire all learners to make a difference in the world Overview of Presentation 2 •Proposed FY24 Budget Spending Summary •Factors Impacting FY24 Budget Approach and Proposal •Projected Changes in Expenditure, Revenue and State-imposed Factors •SBSD Enrollment and Staff Level Trends •Comparative Tax Rates for Neighboring School Districts •Highlights from Tax Commissioner’s Letter 12/1/22 •FY24 Budget Priorities and Approach •Budget Worksheet •Capital Requirements and FY24 Proposed Bonds •Upcoming Events •Discussion and Questions •Glossary 3 PROPOSED FY24 BUDGET SPENDING SUMMARY + 7.17% Proposed increase for SBSD Expense Budget from FY23 approved budget to FY24 proposed budget +11.23% Proposed increase for SBSD Net Educational Spending Per Equalized Pupil FY2024 Proposed SBSD Expense Budget 4 Breakdown of Employee Salaries as a Percent of Total Salaries 5 6 FACTORS IMPACTING THE FY24 BUDGET APPROACH AND PROPOSAL Projected Changes in Expenditures, Revenues, State-Imposed Factors Expenditures ●Significant increase (6.5% over 12 months as of December 2022) in consumer price index, causing upward pressure on all supplies, professional services, and equipment. This is down from 8.2% as of October 2022. ●All unions are negotiating, with contingency funds reflective of a different economic climate ●12.7% Estimated Health Insurance Increase ●Ongoing labor shortage requiring significant market adjustments to attract and retain employees ●Deferred maintenance of facilities, furniture replacements, no maintenance reserve fund ●First year debt associated with bond for capital facility improvements and bonding for ZEMs* *If bond is approved by voters Revenues ●Surplus likely not available to offset the FY24 budget (versus $2 million surplus leveraged to help fund the FY23 budget) ●ESSER funding to offset pandemic related expenditures and support education recovery efforts will be largely utilized and funding significantly reduced in FY24 State Factors ●Statewide average Education Spending is anticipated to rise by over 8.5% ●The recently announced Yield increased by an additional 16.2% for FY24 ●Equalized Pupil count is 2,559.93 ●Common Level of Appraisal announced at 92.97 down from 100.99 in FY23 7 Student Enrollment History/Projections (Includes tuition students) 8 School FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 (current) FY24 (Projected)FY25 (Projected0 FY26 (Projected) FY27 (Projected) GCS (PK - 5)285 275 282 269 262 270 273 285 294 RMCS (PK - 5)358 376 398 415 437 449 457 465 456 ORCH (PK - 5)406 433 415 441 451 475 488 491 485 Elementary (PK - 5)1,049 1,084 1,095 1,125 1150 1,194 1,218 1,241 1,235 FHTMS 575 564 506 492 516 556 593 587 617 SBHS 921 919 907 919 849 814 759 774 812 Total Enrollment (PK - 12) 2,545 2,567 2,508 2,536 2,515 2,564 2,570 2,602 2,664 Projected enrollment from McKibben Demographic Research, Inc Population and Enrollment Forecasts, November 2022 9 *FY24 enrollment is forecast from McKibben study Enrollment includes PreK and tuition students FTEs include unfilled and ESSER positions Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Enrollment 2,545 2,567 2,508 2,536 2,515 2,564 FTEs 492.00 496.20 486.86 493.35 532.54 508.79 Student / FTE Ratio 5.17 5.17 5.15 5.14 4.72 5.04 Staff Level Trends 10 District Cost Per Pupil FY23 Homestead Education Tax Rate State Rank (of 259) (1= Highest Tax Rate, 259 = Lowest Tax Rate) Winooski $19,829 $1.969 4th highest Burlington $19,311 $1.389 185th highest Champlain Valley School District $18,454 $1.6359 59th highest Essex/ Westford $18,146 $1.602/$1.593 74th highest/78th highest South Burlington $17,419 $1.295 216th highest or 44th lowest in state (17th percentile) Colchester $16,456 $1.539 110th highest Comparative Tax Rate Information for 2023 FY23 Homestead Tax Rate Comparisons with Neighboring Districts 11 Highlights from Tax Commissioner’s Letter 12 Homestead Property Yield increases from $13,314 to $15,479 or 16.2% FY2023 (for comparison)FY24 Average Homestead Rate (VT)$1.50 $1.57 So Burlington Homestead Rate (proposed for FY24) $1.295 $1.3468 13 FY24 BUDGET PRIORITIES AND APPROACH Budget Priorities and Approach ●Develop a fiscally responsible budget in our current economic climate that meets students’ needs ●Ensure student-facing positions, aligned with Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) & Act 173 requirements, are prioritized ●Address chronic capacity issues in elementary schools via installation of ZEMs ●Prioritize and protect the Facilities Stewardship Plan to address deferred maintenance 14 Budget Priorities and Approach (cont.) ●Total staff FTEs reduced by 23.75 ●Proposed ESSER-funded positions for FY24: ○1.0 Student Engagement Coordinator (SBHS) ○1.0 Math Interventionist (RMCS) ○0.4 FTE Art SBHS ●Proposed additions to local budget: ○0.5 FTE Communications Coordinator (District) ○3.0 FTE Math Interventionist: 1 at Orchard, Chamberlain and FHTMS (shifted from ESSER) ○1.0 FTE Special Education Coordinator: 0.5 FHTMS, 0.5 elementary (FY22 FHTMS Special Education Building Coordinator/Special Educator) 15 Budget Priorities and Approach (cont.) ●5% reduction in overall operating budgets in each school and central office ($50,759 savings from current run-rate) ●Reduction of proposed facilities operating budget ($265K in various projects to be deferred) ●Included cost-neutral and cost-saving positions ●Closed 8 of the 28 open requisitions currently unfilled ($412,670 savings from current run-rate) ●Each year, through attrition, we are able to maintain valued staff 16 17 BUDGET WORKSHEET SBSD Budget Worksheet for Proposed FY24 Budget 18 FY24 Proposed Budget $62,528,029 Less Offsetting Local, State and Federal Revenues $12,911,955 =Education Spending $49,616,074 Equalized Pupils 2,559.93 Cost per Equalized Pupil (Ed Spending/Equalized Pupil)$19,381.81 Yield (set by the Legislature)$15,479 Equalized Tax Rate (Cost Per EP/Yield)$1.2521 Common Level of Appraisal (CLA)92.97% = Actual Residential Tax Rate (Equalized Tax Rate divided by the CLA)$1.3468 Residential Education Tax Rate 19 Year Trend 195 Yr Avg FY 2019-2023: $1.4815 10 Yr Avg FY 2014-2023: $1.5352 15 Yr Avg FY 2009-2023: $1.4860 Proposed 2024 Rate: $1.3468 20Approximately $350,000 needed for $0.01 change in tax rate 21 FY2024FY2023 22 CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS AND FY24 PROPOSED BONDS Current Capital Debt Outstanding 23 Voter Approved Amount Current Principal Balance FY23 Annual Principal and Interest Payment 2005 General Obligation Bond $2,795,000 $575,450 $161,920 2016 General Obligation Bond $2,000,000 $1,750,000 $174,212 2018 General Obligation Bond $950,500 $599,950 $73,750 2022 General Obligation Bond $2,500,000 $2,275,000 $170,745 Total $5,200,400 $580,627 Proposed New Capital Debt 24 ●Total Bond Request: $14,550,000 ●$6 Million for Classroom ZEMs (Zero Energy Modular Classrooms)* *If implemented, impact fees will cover an estimated 91% of cost of ZEMs, excluding financing VT Bond Bank Quote (12/19/22): Net Interest Cost of 3.07%, 9-year term amortized over 8 years. Total principal and interest payments estimated at $6,887,446 ($6,000,000 principal plus $887,446 interest) FY24 budget would have interest-only payment of $150,891(no principal payment until FY25) ●$8.55 Million for various capital improvement items in the Stewardship Plan: •Roofing ($2.35 million) •HVAC/Plumbing/AHU ($422.9 thousand) •Window Replacement ($1 million) •Bathrooms ($1.425 million) •Parking Lot/Sidewalk ($1.85 million) •Kitchens ($1.5 million) VT Bond Bank Quote (12/19/22): Net Interest Cost of 4.08%, 21-year term, over 20 years. Total principal and interest payments estimated at $12,324,471 ($8,550,000 principal plus $3,774,471 interest) FY24 budget would have interest-only payment of $285,871 (no principal payment until FY25) Bond Amortization Schedule & Impact Fee Revenues (Illustrative) 25 UPCOMING EVENTS: FY24 BUDGET 26 January 24-February 14, 2023- Presentations on budget to community members, school staff, PTOs and via Channel 17 March 7, 2023 - City vote on budget and bond DISCUSSION & QUESTIONS Thank you! 27 Glossary: 28 Average Daily Membership (ADM): is a count of resident and state-placed students who receive an elementary or secondary education at public expense. This census data is collected between the 11th and 30th days of the new school year and is used in calculating the number of equalized pupils. Common Level of Appraisal (CLA): is the ratio of a town’s grand list property values to actual homestead market values. This is based on an equalization study performed by the VT Tax Department every year that reviews home sales prices for all the arms-length sales in a town over the prior three year period. The study considers recent sales price (and not the assessed value on the grand list) as the best measure of current market value. For a given level of budgeted Expenditures, changes in the CLA alone can have a significant impact on residential property taxes, especially if home values are generally rising and the town’s assessed grand list values are stale (eg no recent reappraisal). Typically, if a CLA decreases then property taxes will increase, and vice versa. Education Spending: is the amount that needs to be raised by education property taxes, augmented by the Education Fund. This is a calculation of a town’s voted and approved budgeted expenditures minus local revenues. Equalized Pupil: is a calculation that leverages the Average Daily Membership along with other demographic weighted factors in each district (such as distribution of students by grade, poverty levels, students for whom English is not their primary language, etc). A two-year average is used to smooth out annual student population fluctuations in school districts. The objective of calculating equalized pupils is to create an “average” student in terms of assumed costs for a given district. The current formula will be significantly updated for FY25. Glossary (Continued): 29 Equalized Homestead Tax Rate: is a calculation of Education Spending per equalized pupil divided by the Property Tax Yield. Expenditures: are the total dollars a school district intends to spend in a given Fiscal Year (July 1- June 30). Income Sensitivity: refers to a test in the tax code that allows certain homestead owners who meet designated criteria to have their total property tax bill reduced by a property tax credit based on income. Local Revenues: are money the district has or is owed (e.g. grants, federal dollars, state aid for special education, tuitions, surplus,etc.). Residential Tax Rate (or Homestead Actual Residential Tax Rate): is a calculation that divides the Equalized Homestead Tax Rate by the Common Level of Appraisal (CLA). This rate is then multiplied by the assessed value of your homestead and divided by 100. The resulting education tax is added to the municipal tax to calculate your total property tax due (before any tax credits from the Income Sensitivity test). Glossary (Continued): 30 Yield (or Property Tax Yield): is set by the Legislature annually and is the amount equivalent to a $1 homestead tax rate. The Yield is difficult to estimate prior to the VT Tax Commissioners recommendation on December 1st as it is driven by the financial status of the state’s education fund and other political factors. The final Yield is not typically finalized by the Legislature until the end of the session (i.e. after school budgets have been voted on). For more detailed information, please visit Vermont Agency of Education Tax Rate Calculations/Frequently Asked Questions: https://tax.vermont.gov/property/education-property-tax-rates/faqs Report # 118442 Statement Code: BUD24ONEYRFY24 BUDGET South Burlington School District 1 Year Prior Adopted Budget Total Diff Fy23 & FY24 Percent change 7/1/2022 - 6/30/2023 7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024 Account Number / Description 50110 Teacher Salaries 3.03%$678,169.05 $23,088,952.55 $22,410,783.50 50111 Co-Curricular Salaries (9.41)%$(58,969.50)$567,617.40 $626,586.90 50112 Adminstrator Salaries 4.10%$88,052.47 $2,238,022.27 $2,149,969.80 50113 Supervisor Salaries 10.75%$43,200.95 $445,089.92 $401,888.97 50114 Secretarial Salaries 13.26%$192,084.50 $1,640,998.74 $1,448,914.24 50115 Aide Salaries 14.75%$407,553.92 $3,170,029.87 $2,762,475.95 50117 Recess Aide Salaries 18.68%$9,929.15 $63,074.10 $53,144.95 50118 Office Aide Salaries - Sub Salaries (0.25)%$(509.72)$206,943.88 $207,453.60 50119 Lunchroom Aide Salaries 9.75%$7,822.09 $88,070.91 $80,248.82 50120 Substitute Teacher Salaries 3.24%$12,460.00 $397,460.00 $385,000.00 50121 Business Office Salaries 14.93%$53,466.48 $411,653.28 $358,186.80 50122 Maintenance Salaries 14.06%$123,456.28 $1,001,592.12 $878,135.84 50123 Custodian Salaries 19.16%$171,266.08 $1,065,067.68 $893,801.60 50124 Building Security Salaries (38.42)%$(23,144.41)$37,093.77 $60,238.18 50126 Long-Term Sub. Teacher Salaries 17.54%$45,959.55 $308,000.00 $262,040.45 50130 Overtime Salaries 11.56%$12,280.00 $118,550.00 $106,270.00 50132 Bus Driver Salaries (2.99)%$(17,314.56)$562,316.17 $579,630.73 50133 Bus Monitor Salaries (25.30)%$(34,091.59)$100,653.18 $134,744.77 50211 Health Insurance 13.17%$482,234.36 $4,145,180.37 $3,662,946.01 50212 Health Insurance 57.43%$74,670.64 $204,682.83 $130,012.19 50213 Health Insurance 18.28%$467,999.06 $3,027,903.22 $2,559,904.16 50214 Health Reimbursement Arrangement 2.82%$31,506.90 $1,147,374.90 $1,115,868.00 50215 Catamount Health Program 0.00%$0.00 $7,679.00 $7,679.00 50217 Health Savings Account HSA 9.89%$1,800.00 $20,000.00 $18,200.00 50220 Social Security 0.92%$16,054.89 $1,760,470.55 $1,744,415.66 1/17/2023 12:49:49PM Page 1 of 5 Report # 118442 FY24 BUDGET South Burlington School District 1 Year Prior Adopted Budget Total Diff Fy23 & FY24 Percent change 7/1/2022 - 6/30/2023 7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024 Account Number / Description 50221 Social Security (1.95)%$(1,471.18)$73,867.32 $75,338.50 50222 Social Security 6.81%$18,142.86 $284,585.14 $266,442.28 50223 Social Security 10.49%$12,025.23 $126,675.52 $114,650.29 50224 Social Security 14.86%$16,330.75 $126,245.69 $109,914.94 50225 Social Security 15.62%$32,765.32 $242,507.95 $209,742.63 50226 Social Security $17,900.00 $17,900.00 $0.00 --- 50227 Social Security 18.68%$759.56 $4,825.15 $4,065.59 50228 Social Security (83.16)%$(4,246.49)$860.16 $5,106.65 50229 Social Security 9.75%$598.37 $6,737.44 $6,139.07 50230 Admin. Life Insurance 10.70%$160.25 $1,658.45 $1,498.20 50231 Life Insurance (2.05)%$(1,912.94)$91,572.18 $93,485.12 50232 OPEB State Teachers Retirement 4.30%$4,537.84 $109,992.02 $105,454.18 50233 Life Insurance (3.69)%$(747.24)$19,484.52 $20,231.76 50243 Employee Retirement 4.00%$34,427.00 $895,106.00 $860,679.00 50251 Workers' Compensation (14.97)%$(29,414.36)$167,130.64 $196,545.00 50252 Workers' Compensation (8.48)%$(1,445.53)$15,592.47 $17,038.00 50253 Workers' Compensation (8.46)%$(16,987.81)$183,730.19 $200,718.00 50260 Unemployment Compensation 292.86%$49,200.00 $66,000.00 $16,800.00 50281 Dental Insurance 14.92%$46,963.12 $361,694.91 $314,731.79 50282 Dental Insurance 0.62%$32.74 $5,280.34 $5,247.60 50283 Dental Insurance (1.00)%$(1,634.68)$162,374.40 $164,009.08 50286 Tuition Reimbursement 0.00%$0.00 $117,777.00 $117,777.00 50287 Tuition Reimbursement (1.19)%$(72.00)$6,000.00 $6,072.00 50288 Tuition Reimbursement (1.19)%$(348.00)$29,000.00 $29,348.00 50291 Disability Insurance (27.94)%$(14,001.62)$36,110.08 $50,111.70 1/17/2023 12:49:53PM Page 2 of 5 Report # 118442 FY24 BUDGET South Burlington School District 1 Year Prior Adopted Budget Total Diff Fy23 & FY24 Percent change 7/1/2022 - 6/30/2023 7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024 Account Number / Description 50292 Disability Insurance 0.81%$25.53 $3,193.53 $3,168.00 50330 Purchased Services 4.36%$91,171.43 $2,183,001.73 $2,091,830.30 50331 Benefit Plan Administration 12.20%$10,000.00 $92,000.00 $82,000.00 50334 Principal Search Services 8.70%$600.00 $7,500.00 $6,900.00 50335 Legal Services 0.00%$0.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 50336 Negotiations Services 0.00%$0.00 $55,000.00 $55,000.00 50337 Audit Services 0.00%$0.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 50340 Equipment Repair/Maintenance 52.03%$69,608.53 $203,390.53 $133,782.00 50341 Technical Services 0.00%$0.00 $11,950.00 $11,950.00 50343 Homebound Tutoring (38.94)%$(5,740.00)$9,000.00 $14,740.00 50344 Preschool Expenses 2.03%$16,448.00 $828,080.00 $811,632.00 50411 Water & Sewer 12.61%$7,750.00 $69,228.00 $61,478.00 50421 Refuse Removal 4.65%$2,500.00 $56,300.00 $53,800.00 50422 Snow Removal 59.09%$26,000.00 $70,000.00 $44,000.00 50430 Plant Repair Services 722.53%$509,384.00 $579,884.00 $70,500.00 50441 Rental of Land/Buildings 0.00%$0.00 $21,200.00 $21,200.00 50442 Equipment Rental 30.20%$2,702.00 $11,648.00 $8,946.00 50443 Copier Usage (3.40)%$(3,714.00)$105,649.00 $109,363.00 50445 Leases (76.80)%$(30,346.50)$9,168.50 $39,515.00 50475 Uniforms 45.51%$8,444.00 $27,000.00 $18,556.00 50485 Fire Alarm Service 0.00%$0.00 $16,650.00 $16,650.00 50490 Vehicle Operation 0.00%$0.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 50513 Student Transportation (29.92)%$(13,364.00)$31,301.00 $44,665.00 50520 City Bus Transportation 0.00%$0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 50521 Property Insurance 2.83%$2,603.00 $94,499.00 $91,896.00 1/17/2023 12:49:53PM Page 3 of 5 Report # 118442 FY24 BUDGET South Burlington School District 1 Year Prior Adopted Budget Total Diff Fy23 & FY24 Percent change 7/1/2022 - 6/30/2023 7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024 Account Number / Description 50522 Liability Insurance 19.39%$22,029.00 $135,639.00 $113,610.00 50524 Vehicle Insurance (0.57)%$(94.00)$16,308.00 $16,402.00 50530 Telephone 2.84%$3,577.75 $129,684.75 $126,107.00 50531 Postage 4.30%$740.00 $17,947.00 $17,207.00 50532 Telecommunications 4.82%$46.00 $1,000.00 $954.00 50540 Advertising/Marketing 1.81%$389.00 $21,928.00 $21,539.00 50543 Recruit & Retain Non Resident Students 0.00%$0.00 $750.00 $750.00 50550 Printing 63.74%$8,700.00 $22,350.00 $13,650.00 50560 Tuition (13.06)%$(234,953.00)$1,563,474.00 $1,798,427.00 50568 Tech Center - State Distribution 3.63%$9,759.00 $278,292.00 $268,533.00 50580 Travel (16.15)%$(3,973.00)$20,633.00 $24,606.00 50585 Conferences 2.89%$4,984.00 $177,238.00 $172,254.00 50586 Conferences 163.75%$13,100.00 $21,100.00 $8,000.00 50587 Conference Account 5.00%$200.00 $4,200.00 $4,000.00 50588 Distrist Professional Development (51.09)%$(15,666.00)$15,000.00 $30,666.00 50610 Program Supplies (10.43)%$(56,151.00)$482,245.00 $538,396.00 50611 504 /ESS Program Supplies (50.00)%$(4,500.00)$4,500.00 $9,000.00 50612 General Supplies 8.58%$17,803.00 $225,361.00 $207,558.00 50613 Field Trips 0.00%$0.00 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 50614 Focus Supplies 0.00%$0.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 50615 Repair Supplies 10.43%$9,900.00 $104,800.00 $94,900.00 50616 Grounds Supplies 32.82%$6,400.00 $25,900.00 $19,500.00 50622 Electricity 17.89%$60,156.00 $396,458.00 $336,302.00 50623 Gas 3.51%$5,117.50 $150,971.50 $145,854.00 50624 Oil 30.77%$2,000.00 $8,500.00 $6,500.00 1/17/2023 12:49:53PM Page 4 of 5 Report # 118442 FY24 BUDGET South Burlington School District 1 Year Prior Adopted Budget Total Diff Fy23 & FY24 Percent change 7/1/2022 - 6/30/2023 7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024 Account Number / Description 50626 Vehicle Fuel 17.24%$20,760.00 $141,200.00 $120,440.00 50640 Books & Periodicals 6.04%$7,614.80 $133,762.80 $126,148.00 50650 Audio/Visual Materials 11.20%$1,133.00 $11,250.00 $10,117.00 50670 Software 81.43%$117,201.75 $261,125.75 $143,924.00 50675 Software Maintenance Agreements 29.93%$106,000.00 $460,160.00 $354,160.00 50733 Furniture 123.08%$16,000.00 $29,000.00 $13,000.00 50734 Equipment (1.77)%$(3,609.00)$199,832.00 $203,441.00 50735 Computers 12.62%$80,190.31 $715,630.30 $635,439.99 50740 Equipment 19.18%$85,864.06 $533,604.06 $447,740.00 50810 Dues 2.64%$1,000.00 $38,950.00 $37,950.00 50811 Dues (1.30)%$(150.00)$11,400.00 $11,550.00 50812 Dues 16.35%$850.00 $6,050.00 $5,200.00 50830 Interest 214.11%$382,071.57 $560,520.90 $178,449.33 50831 Interest TAN (100.00)%$(14,000.00)$0.00 $14,000.00 50840 Contingency 0.00%$0.00 $90,000.00 $90,000.00 50841 Contingency (7.37)%$(98,505.00)$1,238,043.00 $1,336,548.00 50842 Contingency 59.36%$59,022.00 $158,445.00 $99,423.00 50890 Miscellaneous 8.09%$4,430.00 $59,210.00 $54,780.00 50891 Miscellaneous 195.07%$1,463.00 $2,213.00 $750.00 50892 Program Evaluation 3.07%$2,100.00 $70,600.00 $68,500.00 50893 Miscellaneous Functions 0.00%$0.00 $15,300.00 $15,300.00 50910 Principle on loans 0.00%$0.00 $437,525.00 $437,525.00 50998 Transfers In/Out School's Out 0.00%$0.00 $(60,000.00)$(60,000.00) GRAND TOTAL 7.31%$4,260,570.51 $62,528,028.63 $58,267,458.12 1/17/2023 12:49:53PM Page 5 of 5 FY24 City Budget:Approved by City CouncilJessie Baker, City ManagerMartha Machar, Finance DirectorLeadership Team Steering CommitteeJanuary 23, 2023 Overview•FY24 Budget─Budget Challenges and Assumptions─FY24 Budget Goals─ARPA Allocations─Utility Rates•Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements Bond Vote•Tax Increment Financing Bond Vote•Community Engagement2All Proposed FY24 Budget documents available here:https://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/departments/finance/fy_24_budget_(7_1_23_‐_6_30_24)_proposed_budget.php FY24 Budget: Challenges3•Multi‐year high inflation rates for goods and services•COLA currently at 6.4%•Continued need to incrementally recover from lean COVID budget years•Maintaining community’s service expectations and standards as the City grows•Need to smooth General Fund allocation to the Capital Improvement Plan to increase capacity345678Northeast Region CPI‐U FY24 Budget: Assumptions4•Contractual COLA and step increases per the Collective Bargaining Agreements•Grand List Growth of 1.75% (9.6% growth in TIF, 1% in City‐wide GL)•Increases in cost of goods and services (gas and diesel, supplies and repairs, materials, etc.)•ARPA salary and CIP step down•Health insurance increase of 6%•Casualty and workers comp savings of $110,000•Green Mountain Transit increase of 9.8%($53k) FY24 Budget Goals5Ensure we are meeting the community’s service expectations as we grow•Address rising inflation rates and cost of living adjustments•Address sensitivity towards tax rate increase by presenting a two‐year budget•Increase capacity to maintain our Parks •Restore a Police Officer position and Deputy Chief position•Restore a Firefighter/EMT position and establish a second ambulance beginning January 1, 2024•Incrementally invest in our Capital Improvement Plan to ensure we maintain our infrastructure•Restore GIS/Analyst staff capacity to inform data driven decision making FY24 Budget Goals: Public Works6Add Parks maintenance capacity in FY24 to address community needs.In the last 22 years, South Burlington added 20 new miles of road without adding a new position in the Highway Division. This capacity will be added in FY25. FY24 Budget Goals – Police 7Restore two Police Officers over the next two years and reestablish the Deputy Chief position to meet the community’s expectation on response, restore specialized assignments, and do adequate succession planning for the future. In 2020 an analysis was done of our public safety needs •Result: 40 sworn officers and 10 civilians (including dispatch) are needed•Currently we have:CivilianFilled 9Vacant 1Total 10SwornFilled 32Vacant 5Proposed in FY24 2Total 39 FY24 Budget Goals –Fire8Restore a Firefighter/EMT position to meet minimum staffing of 8 Firefighters per shift. Establish a second ambulance starting January 2024 to address that currently, with a single ambulance, 23% of our medical calls are responded to by professionals from other agencies. FY24 Budget Goals – Capital Improvement Plan9 $‐ $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY 23 FY 24Property Tax ‐CIP FundingFY23FY24 $ change % changeGF Tax Capacity*$2,688,000 $3,118,000 $430,000 16.0%ARPA$672,000 $541,500 ($130,500)‐19.4%Total $3,360,000 $3,659,500 $299,500 8.9%Add incremental investment to sustain tax capacity for infrastructure maintenance and projects.*Includes projects, City Center Reserve, and bond payments FY24 General Fund Budget10•Fully fund current operations•Restore previous cuts and incrementally keep up with growth•Maintain $800k funding for TIF Capital Reserve•Two‐year plan•Focus on core municipal government•Future ability to be data driven FY24 Budget: ARPA11Continue to step‐down ARPA General Fund and CIP spending from FY22 & FY23 Possible future ARPA: Climate Action Plan12NEW: Climate Action Plan Implementation FY24 FY25 FY26STAFF: Climate Director / Technical Planner (implementation strategy, ordinance research and drafting, data collection and reporting, recommendation on financing plan)$119,700 $124,488 $129,468STAFF: Sustainability community engagement manager and analyst (engagement, researcher grants opportunity, relationship, planner)$86,450 $89,908 $93,504Consultant (planning & design of city projects, experts to advise)$100,000 $104,000 $108,160Public outreach funding (meetings, stipends, events by sectors or interest groups, materials)$100,000 $104,000 $108,160Enforcement Team (~3 FTEs: Inspector for single family homes, additional Inspector, Administrative support, 2 vehicles, materials)$500,000 $400,000CIP Additional Investment (City vehicle charging stations, expanded bike/ped facilities, etc)*** TBD TBDTOTAL $406,150 $922,396 $839,292pennies $0.01 $0.02 $0.02percent 2.13% 4.83% 4.39%*** FY24 Proposed CIP includes investment in paths, charging stations at DPW, East‐West bridge, weatherization of Wheeler House, hybrid police cruisers, and upgrade to Airport Parkway and Bartlett Bay Treatment Facilities Penny for Paths13FY24 CIP ProjectsDorset Street Shared Use Path• Final Design and Construction ($510k)• $500k is grant funded, $10k from Penny for PathsSpear Street Shared Use Path• Design and ROW ($100k)• Penny for Path funded in FY24• Grants, Penny for Paths, and Highway Impact Fees for FY25 and FY26Mary Street Sidewalk• Design and Construction ($90k)• Highway Impact Fee fundedSwift Street Shared Use Path Connection (From Spear Meadows)• Design ($20k)• Penny for Paths fundedCrosswalks (Dorset/Songbird, Spear/Pheasant, Hinesburg/Dubois)• Design ($15k)• Penny for Paths funded86.4% of residential buildings are within 0.1 miles of a shared use path!3.2 miles of shared use path is under design or planned for design within 5 yearsThe Penny for Paths stencil on the Upper Allen Road shared use path. Penny for Open Space14FY24 CIP ProjectsHubbard Recreation and Natural Area• Final Design and Construction of path, parking area, viewing area, and stormwater infrastructure ($240k)• Grant ($100k), Recreation Impact Fee ($70k), and Penny for Paths ($70k)Red Rocks• Design and Construction for parking area, erosion repairs, and trail improvements ($70k)• Open Space Debt fundedWheeler Homestead and Natural Area• Construction of elements in Management Plan and OSNAP Priority List ($80k)• Open Space Debt fundedRecent trail reconstruction in Wheeler Recreation and Natural Area68% of residential buildings within 0.25 miles of an open space area and/or park!A new Project Manager will be starting in FY23 who will take on Open Space Projects to see them through completion. FY24 Utility Rates15UtilityExisting Fiscal Year 2023 RateFiscal Year 2023 Annual Fee for the Average Home‐Owner*Proposed Fiscal Year 2024 Rate% Increase from FY’23 to FY’24Annual Increase for South Burlington Home‐OwnerStormwater$7.32 per month for residential units$87.84$7.44 per month for residential units1.64%$1.44Sewer$44.49 per 1,000 cubic feet$356.82$48.20 per 1,000 cubic feet8.34%$29.75Water$33.37 per 1,000 cubic feet$267.63$36.21 per 1,000 cubic feet8.51%$22.78Total increase to average homeowner for South Burlington FY’24 utility fees: $53.97Sewer and Water rate increases driven by Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements and anticipated 2024 Water storage bond vote.Sewer and Water rates are the lowest compared to similar Vermont communities. Emerging Issues16•Two‐year operations proposal •Requires another increase in FY25 to add staff capacity, incrementally invest in the CIP, and step‐down ARPA funding•Significant Executive Team transitions•Future for Regional Dispatch•2024 Bond Vote on Water storage capacity•No funding allocated for Recreation Center planning•Fire collective bargaining agreement expires at the end of FY24•Wage pressure in surrounding municipalities – especially in public safety 17Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements Bond Vote Bartlett Bay WWTF –Age Related Needs1) Wear on interior of secondary clarifier, 2) Leaking ceiling in Pump Building, 3) Sludge storage blowers installed 1987, 4) Hole above ladder in sludge storage tank Critical Age‐Related Needs•Headworks –Grit removal is original (1973) and obsolete. Screening (1999) is ineffective leading to issues downstream.•UV disinfection system (1999) is no longer supported by the manufacturer.•Sludge Storage Tank –Leaking and can only be filled below holes New Headworks BuildingNew Operations Building and Maintenance GarageAeration Tank, Blowers & Intermediate Pump RefurbishmentClarifier, RAS, WAS RefurbishmentNew Culvert & Security FenceNew Filter Building Addition, Filter Refurbishment & New UV SystemNew OutfallNew Sludge Handling Tanks, Solids Handling & Chemical Storage FacilitiesProposed Site Plan Airport Parkway Solids Handling Overview•Bartlett Bay WWTF solids trucked to Airport Parkway WWTF•Airport Parkway processes solids from both facilities to Class A Biosolids using a 2 Phase Anaerobic Digestion (2PAD) process•2PAD system currently limited by volatile solids reduction (VSR)•VTDEC requiring the City to document plan for how APWWTF can consistently achieve required VSR•System needs balance of volatile solids from primary sludge blended with waste activated sludge (WAS) Airport Parkway Solids Handling Improvements – Primary Clarifier•History ‐4thprimary clarifier was value engineered out of 2009 upgrade•Why needed?•Cannot take primary clarifier down for cleaning/maintenance or in emergency•No operational flexibility/buffer•Improve capture of primary solids = increase volatile solids to 2PAD Airport Parkway Improvements – Sludge Storage•BBWWTF WAS Storage Tank at the APWWTF was taken out of service due to solids accumulation/solids impairment of downstream processes due to inadequate screening at BBWWTF •BBWWTF WAS storagetank at APWWTF needs cleaning and minor repairs to put back in service •Need this sludge storage capacity for operational flexibility •Allows a more balanced blend of WAS and Primary Sludge to the 2PAD system •Experience hauling to Burlington while addressing replacement of required digester instrumentation Refurbishment of Wastewater Pump Stations in the Bartlett Bay WWTF Sewershed•The four pump stations and buried force mains are proposed for replacement•In service for over 50 years (pump station typical service life –25 years).•Pump station and force main failures and repair costs have been increasing in recent years.•All four pump stations are located within 40’ to 250’ of Lake Champlain.•Replacement is needed to prevent a raw wastewater spill into Shelburne Bay the location of the Champlain Water District raw water intake.•This project is needed to protect public health and the environment.25YEARSTypical service life of a pump station25YEARSTypical service life of a pump station Refurbishment of Wastewater Pump Stations in the Bartlett Bay WWTF Sewershed Bartlett Bay Pump StationRefurbishment of Wastewater Pump Stations in the Bartlett Bay WWTF Sewershed Refurbishment of Wastewater Pump Stations in the Bartlett Bay WWTF Sewershed•Existing Conditions•4 Pump Stations and Force Mains have exceeded their reliable service life•Queen City No. 2 Pump Station Force Main –2 Failures Winter 2022•Queen City No. 1 Pump Station Force Main – Failure May 2022 •Pump station force main failures resulted in releasing raw sewage onto public and private property•Existing buried steel pump vaults have exceeded reliable service life•Existing pump, control and communication equipment have exceeded reliable service life•High risk for a significant release of untreated sewage to surface waters of the state (Lake Champlain).•High risk for NPDES permit violation Total Project CostBBWWTF Construction $22,151,000BBWWTF Solids Handling at APWWTF Construction $1,823,000Refurbishment of Wastewater Pump Stations Construction $4,456,000Preliminary/Final Design/Construction Engineering Services $5,271,000Legal/Administration/Permitting (0.5%) $132,000Total $33,833,000 Estimated Impact on Rates•Historical annual rate increases of ~2.2% since FY13.•Currently working on a rate study that will include these project costs. The study will also incorporate other wastewater projects and program needs.•The proposed bond payment for the Bartlett Bay WWTF would increase annual sewer expenditures by ~40%.•This would result in an annual rate increase of ~6.75% in FY23, FY24, FY25, and FY26.•This results in ~$71.00 increase in annual cost to homeowner vs. a steady 2.2% increase (~19% higher annual cost to homeowner vs steady increase). Comparison of Local Sewer Fees$0.00$200.00$400.00$600.00$800.00$1,000.00$1,200.00Annual Sewer Fee for Single Family HomeCommunityAnnual FY22 Sewer Fee for Single Family Home BBWWTF Upgrade Schedule2022Prepare bond documents2023Bond vote2024Bidding2024Construction2023Public information meetings2023Final design to prepare contract documents (plans and specs for bidding)APRIL 2023 –APRIL 2024JUNE 2024 –JULY 2026NOV. 2022 –JAN. 2023FEBRUARY 2023MARCH 2023MAY –JUNE 2024First debt paymentJULY 2027 2027 Why now?•Anticipated need to upgrade•Established and documented critical needs and identified recommended plan•Currently observing operational issues anticipated with age•Bond authorization indicates support from the community and makes the City more competitive in pursuing additional grantsNote: Bond authorization doesn’t obligate the City to spend the full amount. 33Tax Increment Financing Bond Vote City Center TIF District(TIF = TAX INCREMENTFINANCING)•103 Acres TIF $ comes from growth in land value2012 Property Value2017 – 2037 GROWTH PROPERTY VALUETHE CITY KEEPS 75%TO PAY TIF BONDS.PROPERTY TAXES ON NEW DEVELOPMENT & some taxes on growth go to City & ED2012 Property Value2017 – 2037 GROWTH PROPERTY VALUETHE CITY KEEPS 75% OF TAXES ON NEW VALUE TO PAY TIF BONDS.25% goes to City and State as it would otherwiseTIFED &CITYPROPERTY TAXES ON NEW DEVELOPMENT Created1 Apr. 2012First year to incur debt2017First year to collect TIF increment (revenue) ‐Fiscal Year 2018FY 2018Last regularly scheduled election prior to last date to incur debt7 March 2023Last date to incur debt31 Mar. 2024Last fiscal year to collect TIF increment (revenue)2037TIF Timeline Est. TIF Bond $4.3MEast West CrossingWalk bike bridge over I‐89Est. TIF Bond $1.3MWilliston Rd Streetscape(south side)Est. TIF Bond $8.3MGarden Street(Williston Road Intersections)Est. TIF Bond $1.1MCity Center Park II4TIF Projects Project Amount/% TIF(TIF Financing Plan)Project Approved TIF Financing PlanGarden Street (mainly Phase II) $8,272,560 (100%)East West Crossing $4,367,400 (30%)Williston Road Streetscape $1,298,388 (50%)City Center Park Phase II $1,148,082 (100%)Total: $15,086,430 Garden StreetWilliston Road intersectionsDesign Level 60%Anticipated Year of construction 2024Budget $8.27 M% TIF District Eligible: 100%Funding Sources: 100% TIFFederal‐Aid Eligible?Project Extent:YesWhite St to Patchen Rd East‐West Crossing walk bike bridge over I‐89Design Level: 30%Anticipated Year of Construction:2025Budget: $14.55 M% TIF District Eligible: 30%Funding Sources: $4.3M TIF$9.8 M Federal$0.5 M to be identifiedFederal‐Aid Eligible?Project Extent:YesStaples Plaza to CVS edge Williston Road Streetscapesouth side shared‐use path & lightingDesign Level 60%Anticipated Year of construction 2024Budget $2.6 M% TIF District Eligible 50%Funding Sources $1.3M TIF$0.8 M Federal$0.5 M undesignatedFederal‐Aid Eligible?Project ExtentYesDorset to Midas Drive City Center Park –Phase IIboardwalk connectionDesign Level: 60%Anticipated Year of construction: 2023‐24Budget: $1.1 M% TIF District Eligible: 95% (5% expended prior phase)Funding Sources: $1.1M TIFFederal‐Aid Eligible?Project Extent:NoFrom Barrett Street to Market Street and Garden Street via shared use path Good to know:A yes vote will not increase the property tax rate. PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT•(Catamount Run) pipeline development Models TIF Increment (Income) through 2037 Please note:All TIF Debt is general obligation debt backed by the full faith and credit of the City; if increment is insufficient to service debt, the City is still required to make payments regardless. Overall Community Engagement 52•January 23rd– Steering Committee with School Board•January 31st–Town Meeting TV Presentation (5:25 pm and rebroadcast) •February 14th–#LoveyourCity Town Meeting Day informational meeting (6 to 7 pm)•February 28th–Town Meeting Day informational meeting (6 to 7 pm)•March 6th– Annual Meeting Presentation (6:30 pm)•March 7th–Town Meeting Day! Polls open 7:00 am to 7:00 pm