 Okay, I'm gonna call the finance committee meeting of May 28 2019 to order at 20 after 23 after one o'clock and start with an apology that I had erred on my Misremembering that we changed the time of today's meeting to one o'clock. So I really apologize for that The agenda Okay, you want to call yeah, and I'm going to call Seeing that we have a quorum of the council. I'm gonna call the meeting of the council to order at 124 so we have You know principally two items that are on the agenda though there is a third that is a part That sort of flows from it one is that we need to talk about and vote the Required submission to the town council on the budget for FY 20 and that is required action the charter indicates that once it is referred to the finance committee that the finance committee has 30 days to review the Budget for the next fiscal year and to make its report to the council and We have been in a series of meetings that have been bi-weekly And in that process, I think of the thorough understanding of the budget except for one piece which I'll have to ask Sonya To explain to us and that is the actual What are referred to in our new form of government the orders that will be required to be passed by the council Which we need to incorporate into our recommendation so we'll get to that first the second thing is that We did put on the agenda in an amended agenda the further discussion of the Community Preservation Act proposals that were referred to the finance committee That is an important discussion for us to have The committee is not mandated to take action on that today. We are mandated to take action on the FY 20 budget and then the third item that I was referring to is that out of that we have to Decide on content of the report that we're submitting to the council So those are the three items Sonya Can you explain the What is required in our new form of government for What are referred to as orders that would have to be passed by the council? Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, so this is all new to me So Margaret and I work together to put on these sample orders to put these draft orders For the operating budget. Are we going in order of the operating budget first or are we skipping around? If you could just explain the orders that are required for the operating budget, I think that would be a Good place to just start so that everybody understands what the orders are Well, the order the orders take the place of the town meeting warrant articles that we used to have that would be for the general fund budgets and all of our assessments and our water and enterprise fund budgets debt, I think that's all of them for the general fund operating budget and the enterprise funds and then any capital would have been voted in a separate article What we tried to do with the orders here. We looked at some sample Samples some other towns and a lot of them had grouped all of these into one number with just Detail of what is in that one number. So that's what we tried to do. So you'd only have one vote that doesn't preclude you from Discussing each of these individually. We we went with the one number for the operating budgets and one for capital CPA is broken out because there is the cash Which is just a majority vote and then there's the land purchases, which is a two-thirds vote and a borrowing is two-thirds So those are broken out The capital is one vote for building Equipment and facilities where it used to be broken up into two votes. We just Grouped it together with the funding sources and The grade tells you the difference I guess that's pretty much it. I don't really In the bond authorization votes to which you referred that require separate orders Is there one for the capital program and a Second one that would be proposed For the Community Preservation Act, there's a separate one for the Community Preservation Act because it's community preservation and not part of the general Bond authorizations if you look on the last page of the order page seven We put this order together and we grouped all the bonds Together that are being voted under section seven and it's okay to group these however They'll probably show up as separate orders when we're ready to vote those authorizations This is here for you to see so you have a sample in front of you But this one I don't we're not expecting you to make any recommendations or votes on today because we don't really have Solid numbers on what we're going to actually Authorize for borrowing. These are just our best guests through the capital program for the public works design fire station design and new school design and I net loop Those are the numbers that were in the capital plan, but until we get closer to those projects starting Then we'll bring those borrowing authorizations to you But I just thought it was kind of neat that we could group them all together and town council was okay with that And I guess the only question that I would have and then I want to see if there's any members of the committee or the council of other questions regarding the orders right now but my question is Under the Charter We are required to make a recommendation on the operating budget for By Monday's meeting and The capital program is a part of the operating budget Is it an interpretation that since the? Payment of On these would not come from operating funds that we can vote that separately because they're bar the sources borrowing Yes The capital the capital article is in here separately for the cash capital So that's here. It's all set ready for you to make your recommendation today if you wish Okay The bar and I'm just talking about borrowing articles the authorization Correct actually spending money and the proposed orders for the Or is it proposed order for the operating budget? Actually, it's two because the capital is separate correct correct so there There would be two There would be required as part of the operating budget one for operate or for the for the general budget one for operating one for capital Correct those are part of the recommendation that we need to make for Monday's meeting for council action and the council has to act on that before the end of June and It I don't know if the president anticipates action on June 3rd or June 17th on that if if the council is prepared on June 3rd to Vote the operating budget appropriation part B Then that is on the budge on the agenda for June 3rd. However, we have delayed Till the 17th on that agenda the capital program appropriations because we have the hearing Right on June 10th, right? So my question would be should the finance committee also delay until after June 10th on its recommendation It's really a question more for the chair And the on the general budget I Would think that to be consistent with the charter requirement. We probably would need to Make a recommendation on anything on the pieces that are FY 20 For certain and there's no reason why we wouldn't go forward with the At least make some statement in explanation even recommendation on the borrowing But the borrowing would not need to be voted on Until we have actual numbers and that's not known at this point, right? The key here is anything that and if there's if it involves an appropriation then it needs to be voted Before July 1st if it's an authorization to borrow it can be it can happen after July 1st So let me turn to other members of the council including the committee is to whether there are questions that they want to ask about The required orders that Need to be approved to complete the budget process so Seeing that nobody has indicated But they have any you have one so I You know in trying to look back and forth. It's staying on the capital budget. Um, we're Do we have to? We're allocating nine and a half percent of the tax revenues to capital Is there a point where I can see that nine and a half percent? So if I took one of these that we're we're getting up to that amount of money I'm just cross-looking at it with a table because you've broken it up to pieces So that's the total, you know rather than the pieces of it Andy So and just I'm as you know, we just got these orders. So would that be in the second order? Would I see it? That going back and looking at my it's it's a total of five point Zero one four million, you know, so that's the part we're taking of the leap I'm just yeah, I think I so you would take the debt service total subtract the CPA funding source and then take the capital total and subtract the 40,000 from repurposed capital and you should have your You should have that number close to it if I forgot something But I can tie that into you if you want to meet with me later. I can that can be explained in a follow-up memo the Process that is being described by Ms. Aldrich For the proposed orders does map with what town meeting previously did Because while the policy town policy is to measure a percentage of the general tax revenue the property that Is then allocated to capital that includes park expenditures bond Repayment and that was always included as an operating expense and in the operating budget for debt payment and then the capital expenditures were voted and separate Actually separate articles within the town meeting warrant and so the splitting of these orders In this fashion is consistent with prior policy Right, and if you look at the capital The capital plan that was published if you look at the summary page, you'll see the numbers that you'll see in these orders The only reason I was asking I can see that match up But since we're having the discussion of the capital plan on June 10th I thought you know there would be one to save the total amount of money going to capital and then another Discussion about the pieces of it, but we're doing both here as I look at these orders The pieces are also in here of the cash part It's just a quite you know, it's that's what these orders do it. Yeah, I'm just right Okay, it's a little confusion because confusing because the debt service is part of the capital But it's really it's really part of the general fund budget. So That's where the funding source comes from the capital and we and we show it in the capital plan And it's part of that five million that you're talking about, but it's really part of the operating budget to pay debt service so Like I said, welcome to municipal accounting and I think that This is actually helpful because in June 10th we can make that explanation at the beginning and point out that the Part of the capital nine and a half percent that has been allocated goes to repayment of prior debt Which is actually in the operating budget we can explain that so that One of the things in the draft That I did I haven't had a chance to get to my fellow committee members of the proposed language for the Report to town meeting that deals with capital It gets to the identification of the amount of cash capital for the year Because that's what JCPC was working with not the larger amount And so when you look at the JCPC reported matches what Ms. Aldrich is referring to So so that we can go on to community preservation act The Indicated that there would be two separate orders that would be recommended for community preservation act and wanted Maybe it'd be helpful for Since there's a lot of people who are interested in that There's actually four separate orders for separate orders, and this is one and this is all the categories all the cash Capital that's going for all the projects You can look at the list and you can see what they are so I'm not going to read them out to you But this is a two-thirds, but I mean this is a majority vote So it's all grouped as one number Doesn't stop you from discussing each a line item or Changing the line items you can change them you can Decide not to Vote for one portion of it the bottom line gets adjusted That's the that's the main part of the CPA votes That's for a total of 839,040 dollars And then there's land acquisitions so the land acquisitions which have to do with the Zala property in the Keep saskins property Because there's so much happening here, they're purchasing the land they're transferring deeds they're doing a lot of things in one article So it needs to be a two-thirds vote So it has to be separate, okay? but because the Order Encompasses the allocation of funds from FY 20 Community Preservation Act funds We do need to vote on that before the end of June right the grid the order before this one and the two lands Because they are using cash funds They have to be appropriated before June 30th Okay, so then that gets to the final order that would be under the Community Preservation Act And that happens to be the one for the Valley CDC proposal Correct, and it is also borrowing Correct because it's a borrowing authorization and not an actual appropriation to pay any bills Then you can that can go beyond June 30th I mean, yeah, June 30th. It requires two-thirds as to the two that involve land acquisition Because those are the two things for people who are familiar with town meeting Those were the two things that also by state law required two-thirds anything that involved borrowing or Land purchasing And So the final question I have and then I'm going to go back and ask My fellow counselors as to whether they have questions on the proposed orders The date by which action would be required by the council on The Valley CDC that does not involve that's all borrowing Is detached a little bit from the dates of the other correct But that What we would Want to do is make is ask the council to consider it in a time that if the council voted to Go forward with this particular Borrowing authorization that would be in time that Valley CDC Would then be able to effectively utilize the borrowing authorization for its Application for state funding Yes, yes, is there anything you want to add? At the point in time I Do but we can continue reviewing the orders, okay so now Again opening to count full council for questions Andy, I'm wondering is there you're saying it the Valley CDC vote can Wouldn't have to come until before they could use it or but you have an idea When that date would be like we know we have a deadline of June 30th. Do we have one of? 715 what's Let me just go ahead and make my statement we talked before about creating a Discussion with a facilitator and we have set a date for that. It is now on June 18th At 6 o'clock it will be at the banks center We hired a professional facilitator somebody that I have worked with on numerous occasions and it's very good at this Type of conversation her name is Nancy Taylor. She does not live in Amherst. In fact, she lives in New Hampshire So she's not personally wed to this but we have set that date Therefore, I will strongly be recommending that we do not take action on The Valley CDC funds until after that time the next two council meetings right after that or July 1st in July 22nd and at that point we And I have checked with Valley CDC and by delaying for that period of time does not and Really hurt their application. So it gives us time to have a community conversation about this George So this gathering is in addition to what they had promised they were going to do or in place of or do you know? This is in place of we negotiated the date with them. So good. Thank you Yes, okay. I have a question on Another a land purchase the Keith Keith hasken property the way they this is written as the town manager authorized to borrow another $400,000 and in what we Looked at there was an additional grant that would be matching our money So I'm just wondering why it's written that we would be borrowing in the 400,000 Okay, did you want me to go through each order and explain each one or I don't mean to jump around I just you said any questions on any of them and I that was the first one so I can I I'm perfectly willing to go through and Another order, but I it just caught my eye this Authorization to borrow and the description that I have from CPA is We put up. We're buying a piece and then there's a $400,000 This is correct. I put a little grid on the bottom so that you can kind of understand where the funding sources are coming from the total cost of that Keith Haskins is six hundred and thirty eight thousand dollars and CPA is giving two hundred and thirty eight towards that and then there is a land grant for four hundred thousand what this borrowing Authorization is just saying we can borrow four hundred thousand in anticipation of the grant coming in and 99.9% of the time we don't end up borrowing that money. It's just there in case of timing when the When the deal happens if it's too close to the fiscal year, sometimes we it's a cash flow issue and that's all this is Would we be at risk of? $400,000 if we did not get the land grant having authorized this money Normally, they don't do the purchase until the land grant is received Or we have a contract a signed contract from the state We are just purely looking at the languages this is written because it wasn't what we were originally looking at so You know, it's Well, this is the legal language. Yeah, so it's like so if for example the land grant didn't come through does our whole purchase and So we were willing to do this if there were a land grant But they would have to not we were only we wouldn't even spend it they would have to come back to the council for another source of appropriation if they wanted to continue and Would that include that we wouldn't even pay the 238,000 right that happens at the closing all the money gets put together We don't release that 238,000 until we have a sales agreement in front of us So what you're saying is there is no risk? No risk I'm looking at the very last one and Where we would do bond authorization requiring two-thirds vote and you said we would delay that until such time as We were ready to move on those so we're not going to vote on those in this June period right right, okay, and when we do vote on them, can we separate this? Yes, we can and the reason they're like this is because with the new form of government We have more flexibility and timing We would probably be asking you to vote for these numbers if we were at town meeting because we only met twice a year got it so Thank you. So additional questions on the orders that are proposed if not I'm gonna ask if Whether it's the interest of the group to Come talk now about the Community Preservation Act proposals because of the I'm assuming Excuse me if I'm wrong that's the principal interest of a lot of the people who are here, so I don't want to Further delay if there's no reason I would definitely support that especially since we had our late start so I think we can actually go for with the We've had some valuable information on the Valley Community Development Corporation proposal first And the question of whether the finance committee will even make a recommendation until after the forum that Was referred to I think is a question that we'll have to get to there's any reason Lynn if you'd like that in a motion, I'd like to move that we delay any action regarding the Valley CDC Project until after the forum has occurred on June 18th, and we have an opportunity to meet again. I Would second that Been a motion that's been made in second and so it's on the floor To delay consideration of this particular proposal any discussion on the The motion on the floor in particular I Just want to stress that this is a finance committee motion not a full town council motion We're the town council is not voting today. Yes So I'm not a member of finance committee But I want to speak just as a colleague who serves on other committees You know Pat and George and I serve on GL and GL has been having a lot of discussion of What's our appropriate role and what did the council? Originally envisioned for GL and trying to make sure that we're not exceeding that original vision and I think that One of my concerns has been the discussion over this proposal in the context of finance because my understanding of finance committee Is to advise the town council on financial matters such as borrowing and Authorization expenditures and all of that and so my hope has been that Consideration of this by the finance committee would be limited to the financial implications of that And what I've seen has been not that and I understand that it's hard in public comment To necessarily keep a conversation restrained But my hope was that consideration and a vote would be limited on the financial implications My understanding of that June 18th community meeting is that that would be focused not on Whether or not that meets our debt limit or any of that but these broader community conversations Which are really outside the purview of finance committee And so unless finance expects to learn anything additional on the financial implications per their charge between now and June 18th I'm not quite sure what the purpose is other than to delay for delay's sake And so I guess my my thought is a lot of the concerns we've heard from The neighborhood have not been on That authorization has not been on expenditure by the town. It's been on public safety concerns. It's been on loss of access to a private field that Elite college it's it's not been stuff that really matters to this committee And so I'm not quite sure and I'd love to hear from the committee and I think Kathy's wearing to go What the purpose of I could understand delaying the council vote and it seems like that's going to happen It would make sense. I absolutely don't think the council should vote on this before that June 18th meeting I don't see any reason for this committee to be delaying their recommendation I Did raise some questions when we were listening to this and I tried to do just what you said that suggests stay on finance I have some questions about the total cost to the town and sustainability of the project and I Got an assurance not to worry, but those are additional questions So I had a public impact will we have to do any road work? Opening up a new bus station do will we have to do any supplemental? help on Social services and support and longer term is the budget as envisioned Adequate to keep up maintenance of the building long term So there's some money put aside in maintenance. So I I would like to get more answers to those I mean they may be good solid answers and just to point out I got a better understanding of some of the debt that the Community Preservation Act is paying off is for properties that we Had for a while in Whalen and that was for rehabilitation of those So we have gone back, you know, which I think is appropriate if we committed to affordable housing were committed to keeping it it at well maintained levels so Properties have come back over time to ask for more money. So that was rehab rehabbing units I just want to understand the the larger picture not Questioning the content of the proposal Yes So I think I understand that although I do think and Whalen as Amherst housing authority property would be treated differently than this project I'm sorry Dorothy, I was saying first that I understand Kathy's concerns my concern is The motion was made to delay until after the community meeting You're asking my instructions from the email from our president was that we are to attend the community meeting as listeners only Much in the way we did at the schools, which I mean those questions probably wouldn't be answered at the community meeting So the rationale of tying this vote to that community meeting seems to suggest that the outcome of that community meeting would have Some bearing on the vote of finance committee and that to me seems to broaden the scope of the finance committee beyond what the council Intended and I worry that there is some perception in the council and in the public That the finance committee on this proposal could be viewed as a gatekeeper, which I don't think was ever the intention That's certainly not my intention But I share some of the same issues and concerns that Kathy has already voiced and I've I You noticed I said until we also have time to meet again And it is very possible that in our meeting again We might ask Valley CDC or others to come forward and provide us with additional information that has financial bearing on our decision Yes, I just wanted to answer one of Kathy's question Which was that Valley CDC would own the building and the property and they would be responsible for maintenance Not the town Unless I'm wrong Once CPA has invested money in it You can come back So even if it's not public you can come back and be asked, you know, so it's And I wouldn't I wouldn't want to preclude it to say that we would have this and make it available in town And watch it deteriorate. I would want to make sure we had budget that they had budgeted for it So it wouldn't ever happen. I Think that your concern is misplaced. I Think that it's sort of projecting out to a well What if this happened because if we applied that logic, we wouldn't be voting on hardly anything unless we knew Exactly what was going to happen in the future and I really trust from my visits to Valley CDC the quality of the buildings How they're maintained and things like that. So that's the thing I'm addressing right now is maintenance of the building I think to get back to Evan's question that and I appreciate the point that you're making I Had also been of the View that finance committee needed to define its role in that this was actually a proposal that needed to go before several committees and I think the other one I thought about was the community resources committee because and wanting to limit the role of the finance committee to the financial implications, which is what the charge in the charter or the charge It's been adopted by the Council is for the finance committee There Issues that you know, I have identified and I've said them in other places is that There's a request for an amount of money and Is there a financial structure that is possible as an alternative that would require A different sum of money obviously The lower sum of money would be what we would be asking And but would still permit this to go forward. So that's one financial piece to this a second financial piece is That we need to at least Consider as a council and probably as a finance committee point this out to the council that We're making a long-term commitment of funds for Community preservation act that don't become available for future years and So that the choices that will be available in future years Will be affected and that that we just need to understand That that's an appropriate choice and that we're making that choice Knowledgeably It is not different. However from and I'll use the direct analogy of rolling green We borrowed a fairly large sum of money for There was also a CPA proposal That had exactly the effect that I described in order to keep rolling green from being sold and to a developer that would remove its Income low-income Housing restrictions on a portion of the units That's what we were bargaining for. That's what the CPA funds were being used for so that there is a direct analogy for this and One that needs to be considered so I think that those were the principal ones that I had thought about that I think that the Commit finance committee and the council do need to consider that a direct financial implications but Emotional on the floor is just a postponed finance committee consideration And I assume that we would be taking it up before the end of month of June but looking but not to broaden the Scope of our inquiry Said answer your question. It does and I guess my point is in the When finance considered a station road I felt like there was a lot of focus on how this affects free cash how this affects and the conversation around this project Just hasn't felt that way. We have this letter in front of us today That has nothing to do with finance. I'm not quite sure why it was put in front of me for this meeting and so My hope is that in the in the Andy and Kathy boasteries very good financial concerns that I think Should be part of the conversation and and my hope as a colleague is that it will because as Andy said This was a project that should be considered by multiple committees The aspects that are in this letter I think would be better served in community resources community resources already discussed and recommended this project And so my hope is that going forward finance will have a narrow discussion around this and the financial implications and Will ignore some of these other aspects until the full council, which is the more appropriate venue for such discussions so is Yes, learn. I'm just gonna add one other thing one of my Total and complete perspectives on any borrowing is our debt limit and when I look at the last page seven of seven here and I add up the other projects that we Would be kicking off With some of these things such as the public works design fire station design new school design It goes kaching kaching kaching and debt limit To these projects alone is the half million dollars asked for so I want to take it all into consideration It's not a no It's a financial issue Yes. Oh, thank you It seems to me taking that philosophy Lynn then we shouldn't do anything about the key Property we shouldn't do anything about the solace property because we don't know how it's going to affect us down the road I think that the CDC project is being singled out in a very different way because the intensity of The opposition and of the support for the project I think like Evan that we've been mixing apples and oranges and calling them fruit But the finance committee is more limited in its charge than it's willing to accept and I hear a lot of Pushing to lower maybe how much we get maybe or we give them and I'm concerned about that I'm concerned that that's playing Not just with finances, but with people's lives both the neighbors and the potential occupants Yes, I guess I'm confused about I thought in the discussion of the Keith Haskins property that there was no financial risk Beyond the fact CPA money is in fact our taxpayer money that we do as an added percentage But beyond that which we have agreed to do I Didn't thought that you said there was no Way in which we were going to lose money on that The Keith Haskins the bar on that is just a great anticipation note because granting authorities I always want you to appropriate the full amount of the of the acquisition of the property So because we don't have 400,000 extra dollars to appropriate We are just using a grant Anticipation note, so it's just a short-term borrowing authorization in which we won't use and we'll go away as soon as the grant comes in So there's no risk But that I don't think that's the context of what that was Was discussed Could you also speak to the Zala property since that has been raised the Zala property is just a purchase of 188,000 it's with see with existing CPA funds or Estimated revenues for fiscal year 20. There's no borrowing. There's no borrowing. Thank you so anything else that I the the question of The town's borrowing capacity Really falls into several different pieces that we've talked about in trying to sort of plan ahead for all of the major projects and One of them has to do with the Question of what is the total amount of indebtedness that any community is willing to take on which is limited by State law to what is it 5% of the EQV EQV, which is the total essentially the total of all of the property value in the town That does not appear to be now an issue because Bond council has advised us that The an MSBA funded proposal is distinct But then there's a second question of what is wise amount of indebtedness to take on for a community Both for its ability to repay its effect on taxpayers limitations on future uses for Funds that are being used to repay or for future borrowing possibilities and That's kind of a different set of issues that We very much do need to talk about however CPA because it's a separate bucket of money Doesn't have any the direct effect because it's Really being done with different source of funds So when I which is why I characterized it as an effect on future CPA use is not the rest So that's the distinction I would make think George did you Said thank you for that clarification And George did you have something I just I want for my own sake to be clear that what I'm hearing seems to be that this committee has some concerns about the financial implications of this borrowing for this particular CPA project and They want to look more at it in detail and then they're going to get back to the full council with their recommendations on this and I'm hoping that it will give us some clear sense of what these concerns are if they are and What the financial implications are because at the moment it does seem very vague to me Obviously you have questions, so you're looking for answers I assume that you'll get those answers soon and you'll get back to us in the full council with your sense of How you see the financial implications of this borrowing for the town that's what you're looking into at the moment. Is that correct? That's correct, and I appreciate the Observation I think that what has happened those is that we did not receive a presentation of the Community Preservation Act proposals from the Community Preservation Act Committee at a finance committee meeting until late in May just a couple of weeks ago and So we really have not had an opportunity to talk about it. It's Not that we necessarily have a concern, but we just haven't had an opportunity to even have the discussion as of yet In Part of it is we recognize that there's this whole other grouping of issues that has been raised by both proponents of the proposal and people who are expressing concerns about the proposal and We sort of recognize that they're out there as that separate bucket of issues and Yes Is it possible that I could mention something about the report you're working on or should I not be able to do that Which reporter you're referring to the town council finance committee report on fiscal year 2020 budget That's a question about a statement you made in there Is it directly related to CPA if it's well, it's It said that our it's the way I'm reading this is that the town is only managing to balance its budget by having Large amounts of growth and projecting large amounts of growth into the future So it didn't sound as solid as I thought it would I Guess again, the reason that I was trying to distinguish that is that Our future budget Questions that are related to the operating budget are distinct from the community preservation act budget because that's a separate source of Taxation it's a separate piece of taxation that is for a dedicated purpose and so I was trying to keep the focus right now on the motion on the floor which has to do with CPA and What you were reading does not actually reflect on the CPA discussion So having said that I think we could probably take a vote on the motion on the floor to postpone consideration of the CPA proposal for on the Valley CDC to a later meeting This is a finance committee motion The Timeline for the council has been previously explained in a separate So finance committee members present therefore of us present all in favor of the motion Please indicate by raising hand So it's four so I can just notice four zero with one member absent And other CPA proposed orders Actually, that's a the president suggested that We see if there's any public comment that wants to be offered on what is Actually, I'll take public comment on anything at this point because then we can Buy you're here. Did you just say public comment? It seems to me that public comment should be listed limited to financial issues only Since this is a finance committee meeting Yeah Yeah it The reason that I have been cautious about that with both counselors and with members of the public is because If it goes on for a long period of time, I'm comfortable making that call But I don't want to limit people's ability to say what they wish to say so that It's a question of That balance But I would is there anybody from public who wishes to make comment Well, why don't you come on up to the microphone so that please identify yourself so that the minute taker can Good afternoon. My name is Tim Adderidge. I live at 143 Northampton Road in Amherst and I want to speak specifically About financial Recommendations that you may consider I Am a Long-time town resident 51 years and have lived at my residence for 47 on Northampton Road And I want to speak about against the borrowing of $500,000 for the CPA Project at 132 Northampton Road as a taxpayer. I think this is a Very questionable expenditure of town funds that taxpayers in the town of Amherst will have to Burden and now I have a question about The postponement of the finance committee Meeting To June the 18th at the banks community center you mentioned that there is a facilitator What does the facilitator do? Yes, first of all, it's not a finance committee meeting on the 18th It's a public discussion public discussion And what and the facilitator will facilitate the conversation which we assume will include people from the neighborhood People from CDC people who are public housing advocates and affordable housing advocates It may also include factual information from the town When is the Next time that the finance committee is going to Vote on this specific $500,000 borrowing That's up to the chair to determine when we meet next But I would hope it would be in time to advance the recommendation to the council by for its July 1st meeting That's what I anticipation would be it would be later in the month of June Is there anything else that you want to say? Yes, I you all have a packet that I have Put together and given to you and there are numerous reasons but because this is specifically a financial a finance committee meeting the Opportunity to speak against the $500,000 for CPA is What I'm here to speak about I I would strongly recommend that the finance committee not recommend the Forwarding of this proposal Okay, thank you. Thank you Anybody else in the public wishing to comment? Yes? Thank you. Kate sim 77 Dana Street. First, let me thank the committee and counselor grease mar for the plan to move forward with a Facilitated public conversation. I think that's really a step in the right direction and I thank you very much for That openness to meaningful input by neighbors Since this is the finance committee, I have two comments that I would like to make The first is about the cost effectiveness of the project and the second is about the unbudgeted costs of the project So hopefully you will find those to be on point for the finance committee so The cost effectiveness of this project the cost effectiveness of any development Matters because lower per unit costs would mean that more people could be helped for the same budget This project doesn't seem particularly cost-effective because the construction costs are very high Compared to other structures in the town of Amherst the total budget for the project is four point eight million dollars or approximately 172 dollar $172,000 per unit for just 240 square feet of apartment space That's a seven hundred and sixteen per Seven hundred and sixteen dollar per square foot cost The median list price per square foot in Amherst as a whole according to Zillow is two hundred and nineteen dollars The median list price per square foot in the Boston Cambridge Newton area is three hundred dollars per square foot Valley CDC maintained at their last meeting that these costs are high Because of the high cost of kitchens and bathrooms And I think that this claim really should be investigated by the counselors to see whether or not there are comparable new construction There is comparable new construction within the town of Amherst that truly does have comparable costs or not I'm not sure that that has yet been investigated Second project cost is important because So as I mentioned project cost is important because more people could be assisted if the per unit project costs were lowered Another way to do this might be taking advantage of existing structures to house people in need at the meeting last Thursday Valley CDC stated that they will be allowed to give preference For up to seventy percent of the ten units reserved for homeless people to be people from Amherst So I think that means that for the five hundred thousand dollar borrowing price tag to the town The development will provide housing for at most seven homeless people from Amherst at best two to three years in the future Yet Amherst Craig Storrs Shelter said that during the 2017 2018 fall and winter They served 172 individuals Finally project cost is important because of the town of Amherst's relationship with the state Again at the May 23rd meeting of the town finance committee Valley CDC said that the per unit cost of the town of Amherst is low Because they will leverage funds from state and federal sources to pay for the project I have trouble with this argument because first of all we all pay state and federal taxes as well So we should be motivated to be responsible for their wise use And a reputation of being careful stewards of state and federal funds should be important to all town counselors So that we can seek matching funds for other projects that we would might want to do Second and this was referenced in councillor shone's comments We haven't really seen any estimate of the associated unbudgeted costs for the town This development does seem likely to entail substantial extra costs including needs for better traffic management and lighting in the area as Well as additional resources devoted to social support Finally the general public currently enjoys access to Amherst College's Pratt field a large recreational open space immediately adjacent to the area Amherst College however has a legal responsibility to mitigate safety risks to their students and the college has confirmed to neighbors As read in a statement by Stephen George in public comment I think two weeks ago before the council that in the event of problematic interactions with students the field would close to those without college ID cards To my knowledge this has never happened before in the ten years that I've lived in that neighborhood So if the project does indeed result in the closure of Pratt field to public access That is a very real and currently unaccounted for cost to the town in terms of lost use value of an open space At the last meeting the town manager noted the difficulty of maintaining all of the great trails and open spaces that we currently have in town Because it's expensive to maintain that that use value At Pratt field you currently have an open space That creates great use value for the town and the maintenance is being paid for by Amherst College So I'm not aware of any accounting yet of those possible costs of lost use value to the town I believe it's the responsibility of the finance committee and the town counselors to make a full accounting of the cost effectiveness of the project And these unbudgeted costs before making recommendations on this project. Thank you Thank you Anything else in public comment? Seeing none that I will close the cut public comment. Wait, is there one in the way back to I'm sorry I didn't see his Yeah Thanks for the opportunity Johanna Newman 137 Stanley Street resident of district 2 I'm dismayed to see this project delayed and to see the vote on this project delayed I think there were a number of committees that have Reviewed this project and there are a number of committees that will review this project moving forward and I think that this project is consistent with our values as a community and I think that by delaying it kind of puts a wet rag on Continuing to move forward a really important affordable housing project for our town. So thank you for the opportunity Yes Hallie Hughes orchard Street I just wanted to make two quick points first councilman Ross reference the CRC as an Opportunity for community members to share their opinions as a better venue. Just want to remind the whole town council that the community was not informed of the project scale or given a chance to meet with Valley CDC until April 24th the CRC met and made their Confirmation or their recommendation on the CPA funds on April 23rd So there was no way there was that was an open opportunity for people to use the CRC Second of all, I believe it was Counselor Kathy not good at last names who asked about What happened at our lot at the last meeting what happens if you can't fill the eight units for the 50% AMI or the eight units for the 80% I or maybe it was Dorothy Pam and Valley CDC said they would fill them with Incomes with the lower AMI or those off of homeless And I was wondering if you could ask Valley CDC how Any sort of fluctuation in those ratios would change their operating costs and support Services that they would be able to offer because it seems to me that the 50% and 80% of the AMI residents will be subsidizing The rent and the property management and the social services being offered That's all. Thank you Amanda Robertson 39 North Hampton Road I am asking for a study of the cost associated with the increased police and fire calls That it's hard to project that but the reason that you have that letter in front of you is because Dr. Hornick actually asked my husband to research this statistic and he stated that he did not think we would find anything In his question so my husband did not do that, but other community members did and found an alarming and unusual proportion of police calls that we think should be looked at in terms of many aspects, but financially The cost of the town because as we know The police department and the fire deport department are frequently considered to be understaffed and overtaxed due to the universities So I would like to look at that also another question. I have in general task Valley CDC financially is It is my understanding that they build These properties but do not manage them themselves. They outsource that so in that case with that Financially, I know we don't want to maybe always look to the future and problems that happen into the future However, I do think that that is something we have to consider When making financial recommendations, especially in something of this magnitude so Valley CDC were to go under or to lose Budget within their own organization and have budget cuts Would they cut the services that they are offering to the people in the SRO and who would pick up those costs? Would it be the town? Would we have to hire another management company? Would we just let it go when we all agree even Valley CDC that this vulnerable community needs support? so that's a concern I have in terms of You know, I do think there should be financial fail safes to try to figure out how to make this the best SRO It can be considering this is the town's first one and Valley CDC is largest to date Yes Lorca source on Dana Street Thank you so much for the opportunity to have a community-wide forum to discuss this issue We really appreciate that and we look forward to engaging in discussion and debate at requiring sharing more information I just wanted to mention in reference to the letter that you received yesterday just so that everyone knows that the letter was signed by more than 56 or no 56 people residents neighbors And Sorry Oh, I'm sorry Yes, so the letter was signed The letter that you received yesterday and that you have a knowledge already was signed by 56 neighbors and residents within less than 21 hours So I just wanted to point this out It's and it was a letter and no address through your committee to the finance committee But I'm not here to talk about numbers but about except the number of residents who You know subscribe to the point of view addressed in the letter. Thank you. Thank you Anything else? I'm gonna make sure that I don't make the same mistake twice and miss anybody the second time okay, so Appreciate the Comments that would be very helpful for our consideration The one thing that I just want to reiterate and then move forward So because we do need to get back to the question of the recommendation on the budget itself is that As we consider the Community Preservation Act Whether it be done with funds that have already been raised or By borrowing which is future it is actually as I said before a very separate piece so that when we look at the question of Borrowing it's not that it's going to have any direct effect on the taxation for any individual because the repayment would come out of money that has already been within the the CPA Taxation portion of the tax it is a separate amount and But the effect is on Future council opportunities to fund other projects because it's using a part of that future CPA tax to repay a debt and The CPA is limited to very specific uses having to do with affordable housing Open space and recreation and historic preservation So Anything else Subject Otherwise we have to get back to the question as to whether we want to take action. I think on other CPA proposals today is if not Those as noted are not part of don't have to be part of the budget that We need to report back to the council on so I really need to focus on what we are Required by the Charter to do by June 3 Which is to make recommendations on the budget itself the operating and actual cash the capital portion of the budget that is a part of the FY 20 budget and We have been given proposed orders for that we would need to Enact that they are all consistent with Budget that has been presented to us and that we have been discussing they're just the legal language that goes with it so And I guess it gets back Dorothy did you had raised started to raise a question? I don't know if there's still a general question that you wanted You're asking or is was it specific to the CPA? It was it was a general a question about the general budget Question on How how how how safe we are how how well we are financed? if we are contingent if Paying our bills is contingent on continuing to grow and getting larger tax assessments. I don't find that a great situation it is Really a advisory from That I'm offering In suggesting that we offer to the council For future consideration. It is not directly related to FY 20 because we are for FY 20 in very solid shape for being able to Continue current services Without asking for an override and without implicating any other significant decisions However As you look at the budget and understand the income revenue sources That the two and a half percent general solicitation on property taxes Without new growth Would pose a challenge and that we just need to understand that there isn't really anything else we can say about it but it is a fact and It's really for Just future your consideration. There are other things that could happen too as I pointed out if there was significant inflation On costs we couldn't maintain level services And that is an additional unrelated question it's on the Right now there are areas in town where we're not actually maintaining services at the desired level where there have been cutbacks and Yeah, it's just it seems to me that you we should be able to maintain Stasis without having to grow it's like that little animal that has to eat twice its weight body weight every day in order to survive Because then you can end up with just you know eating anything and just Accepting growth of any kind in order to maintain yourself, and I don't think why we want to be in that position so if you want a sense of control then we'd want to be thinking about um Reducing some of our expenses and right now we're about to enter a huge capital where with all these capital projects I just feel like we have so many balls in the air that It's it's I'm feeling very unsettled about it now where we keep saying we're gonna build a new DPW We're gonna do a new fire station. We're gonna redo the library. We're gonna build a new school At the same time that we are not able to fund some things adequately so It's just a question of the statement of concern then I Looked at this as something that I know I heard regularly during my campaign and that is Needing to find a better balance between the tax burden on individual homeowners In a way in a way that we have diversified our economy By having commercial space whether they be retail You know light manufacturing Additional Apartments or whatever it may be So as we go into the upcoming capital plan We can also be looking at how do we better distribute the tax burden To others than our individual homeowners the new growth Can come in many forms a lot of new growth that has happened in Amherst over the course of the many years that I've lived here has been in construction of new housing and It's not all been of a One particular type of new growth, but we still have had the same effect over a course of a long period of time since the voters past proposition to in 1980 which is that property tax is the largest portion of Town revenue and it can only grow by two and a half percent per year except for override or New growth and because we've been very cautious about not asking for overrides And property tax is 60% of the revenue It's just an arithmetic problem that we're always going to have to deal with Well, I'll tell you what is particularly worrying me is the new headline that there's more demolition going on in the town center and The sense that there's no there there. There's no organization I think that we need to instead of letting things just happen as they will when they will Because it is private property that somehow the property owners all of them should be called together in the town should have a Discussion of what do we want that part of town? East of Kendrick Park to look like so that if we get new development it be something that is thoughtful I Just have a sense of of not enough order right now I'm not But I guess I'm back to the basic question that I have is Just making the observation for on behalf of the council so that they're aware of the Effect of limited growth in property taxes without some action is A financial statement and it's limited as to whether we provide the financial advice what lessons you draw from it With lessons the entire council draws from it is a really a separate question You know we we just have the draft report right now, but I think one of the things we can do to Strengthen the what does this look like out five or ten years or what could it look like is the observation that state money has been shrinking as a share and has not kept up and That is affected by things that happen in Boston. It's not in our immediate control, but that's One of the reasons we're in the box we're in And this is not unique to Amherst. It's also Northampton is facing overrides to maintain their operating budget You know let alone to think of how they want to grow and Having spent years in New York City Watching New York City grow to try to get out of its financial Problems municipal they they haven't got out of them and the most recent story was a really scary one of authorizing Rehabilitation of a public park Doing it and then ripping out the public park because they needed to build a building to support another you know So it's it is a it's a dilemma that I think we face That's not just an Amherst dilemma, so we probably can't we can't solve it now And we can't sell it for FY 20 for sure, but but that's the pressure. We're facing Internally, I mean when you look at the school budget the amount they were supposed to get From various state sources versus they actually got the promises that weren't met would make a huge difference If it was fully funded for our town and that's not just an Amherst statement, but it's other town So the interrelatedness is affecting us in a fairly major way I think that the question for the finance committee is the suggestion of course Maybe I take it back one the charter provides that we have several options as a council and What's the finance committee recommending that the council do? The options are to do nothing. Let the charter just take its course we can vote affirmatively to Approve the budget as opposed to just letting it take effect And the third is we could actually vote to reduce a program we cannot increase a program In this budget that we're now considering I Have put forth a suggestion that we make an affirmative statement to the council that the council Endors the budget that was proposed by the town manager Not propose any reductions or deletions of programs And I think that's really the only thing that we have is a policy matter on the that that we can consider and it's Is there you know, I that's my recommendation and I'll make maybe turn that into a motion that we make that recommendation to the council Would you please repeat the motion? the motion is that the finance committee Recommends to the council that it approve the town manager's operating budget as recommended second, I have one sentence of discussion I Agree with that and I will vote for that We've had much discussion on different aspects of the town's operating budget and whenever we've questioned a specific some And wanted to know exactly what it covered We've we've were brought to the truth that a budget has to include Certain vague pieces of money for things that are going to happen. You know will happen But you don't know exactly when or how much so I think that we felt Pretty secure in the explanations that we were given as to these different numbers that were put down there So I would vote to support the budget For the discussion. Yes, I'm just trying to follow along just for clarification. You're essentially talking about this first order. Oh, yes And that that was the question I was going to ask India I've no problem with the motion as it was proposed But do we also need to come into this specific wording of orders or do we as we're sending it back to the council say these Orders go with that recommendation I think I was going to take that as a separate matter But I think because these orders directly track the budget. It's the line items in the budget So but but they're worded in a way that goes back into the specifics of the budget rather than the general motion So I'm just do we are we taking a motion on we're approving the budget as recommended and then specifically appropriate as Sonia's written out to appropriate this to do this I'm Do we need to do both? I Don't think I understand your question the first order that's up there You would vote that bottom line that the bottom line number of 68 million And so we do need to take it specifically rather than the general motion of approving the budget That's that was exactly what I'm asking that we need to get down to that next level I'm not sure if the finance committee needs to take it to that level, but definitely Yeah, but the town council would have to so we're I think that would at the second motion that I would make I don't want to get mixed up by having two motions on the floor at the same time because it's not good process But a subsequent motion would be to recommend the order as proposed And I think it has been reviewed by our town attorney That was my it wasn't it That's fun. I just didn't know we needed to do both or by doing the first it subsumed this Yes, it's been reviewed by the attorney. It doesn't the only thing the numbers are in here the budget numbers are correct all the Sources of funding are in here what it doesn't have is all the wearer as is in their force I kept it simple so everybody could see what it's actually saying So when you get the council orders, then there'll be some more of that other language But the numbers won't change So the first action is whether we are recommending the budget As it has been recommended to us by the town manager. It's any further discussion on that And then the members of the committee we're supporting raise hands So it's four to zero one member absent I Have a clarifying question that relates to our June 3rd meeting Margaret do we need to vote the water and sewer rates before we vote this? Thank you because the We're not gonna if we move along to the No, I'm gonna but let's Take care of the first order implements what we just talked about which was the Part B operating budget appropriations That is the specific order that we would that the council would need to pass correct and so the next It's recommending that order which just is the implementation of But we just voted correct So I'll make that as a second motion to recommend Order part B having For the operating budget Second me for the discussion seeing none all favorize hands so it's four to zero with one member absent then capital Budget is the next Matter and So let me open it for discussion first as to whether there's anything that members of the Committee or the council want to discuss regarding the proposed capital budget which was Recommended by the joint capital planning committee, but has been Adopted by the town manager as part of his budget recommendation around seeing none Then I think that the and I want to make it very clear that When I am moving has to do with the proposed capital creations for FY 20 It is not having to do with the ten-year plan correct So with that the motion would be That the finance committee recommend to the council The adoption of the town manager's recommendations to Fund capital Appropriations for FY 20 for equipment buildings and facilities as recommended by the joint capital planning committee This is the capital program as opposed to capital projects Which it took me a while to get straight, but this is we've gone over every one of these items in detail in past meetings Correct, but this is only is as I've it is only the portion of the Joint capital planning committee report That makes recommendations for FY 20 it is not the ten-year plan so Any further discussion? Seeing that all in favor raise hands so it's again for zero and When member absent and then the last piece on that is that There's a specific order that has been Recommended to us as the order that would be passed by the council in order to Complete the to fund the capital projects as we have just recommended is there I will make that as some as a motion. I second It's this part C. Yes, it's it's labeled as part C capital program appropriations and This sonia says totally accurate which we'd expect anyway I've matched it back to the once you subtract out all the other pieces you get those three So any further discussion questions? All in favor raise hands So again, it's four zero Remember absent we have one additional Order, I think we should be voting today and that is a Going to explain it gives me the recision back under the capital party There is another order underneath there And this is a housekeeping order that we haven't really talked about yet It was supposed to happen during the fall town meeting which we didn't have But it is basically just cleaning up our our bond authorization. This is back from the Wildwood school Visibility study we ought the town meeting authorized a million dollars to borrow to have this study done but MSBA also was Reimbursing us so the milk we ended up only having to borrow 317 thousand dollars of that one million so we need to rescind 683 so we can be added back to our debt capacity So it's just a house cleaning Yes, I recommend that we I Move that we recommend to town council that they rescind the 683 thousand dollars an issued amount that was authorized to be borrowed by the vote of the town of our town at the annual town meeting held on May 7th 2014 for the Wildwood school feasibility study I second this and just want to clarify this is not money. This is just rescinding an authorization Exactly. Yes Any further discussion questions? All in favor indicate by raising hands So again, it's four zero one-member absent I Do you have a general question when we send our recommendation to the council the actual Budget the total budget has a regional school Numbers in it if you go back and look at the managers will we write this in a way to make it clear we've already voted on that You know as the regional because that that's Otherwise the numbers don't add up to the total but then if they do add up to the total because we've done the separate part separately All right, good point and what I'll do is There's that section that's not written yet that I said I would write after today's meeting having to do with the follow-up on today's process in a specifically going to incorporate and explain the orders and That will be a good place to make that explanation and just so anyone reading the whole thing will be able to get back to the total Something less than it. Yes for those who get into that level of detail. Yes So I think the only thing Remaining is whether we want to go ahead Do anything more on community preservation act the parts that are other than what we put deliberately postponed I would recommend that we try to do that Today There's just so many things that we keep kicking down the road and We have had a lot of discussion on these items and meeting after meeting So Are there any questions about other? CPA proposals And my I mean by other other than Valley CDC Yes, just a clarification question. So Keith Haskins and the Solid property our acquisitions have to be voted separately Hickory Ridge is not an acquisition. Well, it is it's an acquisition, but we don't have a Purchase sales agreement in place yet. This is just setting aside the partial funding from CPA So this is to purchase the open space portion of it But when they have the whole the whole Agreement together, they'll bring to you in an order just like the Keith Haskins with everything in there And this is just going to show up as a funding source for that 200,000 Yes Sonia do we have to borrow to buy Hickory Ridge? Not Not it not that I know of at the moment I'm not sure what the other funding sources are going to be yet since we don't have a an agreement or a number yet great Okay, I'm not anticipating that we will be thank you But it will require a separate vote because it requires land acquisition So which is why I've been doing two motions and I'm going to do two motions again because In this circumstance what we would be doing is I would be making a motion to approve all CPA recommendations that are other than Valley CDC which has been postponed to a future meeting and then I will ask for Recommendations on the orders that have been provided to us which cover the two acquisitions Salah and Keith Haskins and All other expenditures other than the one we postponed So that would be the two So I'll start with a I just Just following up an Evans question because Hickory Ridge is under the cash outlay so If if we move forward just as you've suggested and we go forward on this then when we when Hickory Ridge becomes Real in that there's now position you'll have to come back and get another vote because then it will be land Yes, okay this time around it's money and they'll be more fun Sources next time there will be something we're buying with the money Buying with this money and additional money. I believe okay Money and of course the reality is that money is not going to be spent Even if it's approved by the council is Because it can't be spent on it without the two-thirds vote and an order specific To the purpose correct. This is just appropriating the money for a funding source So the motion is That the finance committee recommend to the council all community preservation act recommendations from the committee With the exception of the valley CDC Proposal which we postpone our record on which we postpone our recommendation Yeah, I second that I think we've exhaustively discussed it But is there any further if you're not all raising favor raise hands? so again, it's 4-0 with one member absent and And The second I Think I'm going to try lumping them if they're if somebody moves to divide so be it but I'm going to try it as one motion that Yes, you're going to lump the the total 839 is that what you're suggesting or just the total in the grid, right? Are you talking about adding the land acquisitions to? We're only talking about the total on the grid, okay, because that that was meant to be one number Let me go back and look a second Valley CDC is not in that number Now I'm more looking at the open space one We do have to actually That's why there's this oddity with hickory ridges there, but the other two aren't because they Buying land. This is not buying land yet. Yeah, it's not. Yes, so it's so it's part of the grid So the the three orders together Let's get this we just voted that were we're recommending all CPA proposals Except one which we have not taken a position on at this time Which is not an indication of where we're going with it by any means and the second motion there are three separate orders and one order deals with everything except for the one we just put aside anyway and Two that involve land acquisition and there are two separate ones each floor Land acquisition one for the Zala property and one for the Keith Haskins property And as noted the net effect is that we will have recommended the money For the hickory Ridge, but we will not have recommended the final action Correct that will come as a separate motion that will so that so later time a separate order Assuming it's an order that counts forward Would have to deal with The land acquisition portion not the appropriation portion correct so the motion would be that the committee recommend to the town council Three orders under the Community Preservation Act appropriation one relating to all projects of funding except for The three that have been accepted Yes, it's This portion here for 839 is a majority vote the other two are Two-thirds vote and I think they should be done separately because they are land purchases So I would caution on the okay So you would recommend the committee because it will be separate actions at the Council. Oh, this is true This is only our recommendation to the council. Thank you at the council. It does have to be separate votes You are at the council We are the council, but but We're only a committee of the council for this I had the council hat Yes It might work if you just clarify in your motion that it's understood that the council will have to treat these as separate as Separate motions because of the quantum vote Requirements under each Thanks Thanks Margaret Seven Okay, I don't think we have a motion on the floor at this point Let's just be done with it. So I'm gonna what I'm gonna do is and is split it. I'm gonna move that we Prove the Proposed order for community preservation act appropriations With that cover all subjects accept Valley CDC and the acquisitions of the Keith Haskins and solid properties Second any further discussion all in favor indicate by raising hands Okay, so it's four zero one number absent Then the next motion would be to that the finance committee recommend to the town council To orders which will require separate votes Attaining two-thirds One relating to the Zala property and the other relating to the Keith Haskins property You second okay, so it's motion made second and any further discussion Yes So I just want to make a brief point about This but in the context of the future discussion about Valley CDC So these are two We're appropriating a decent amount of money right the Keith Haskins is six hundred thirty eight thousand dollars I believe the questions that came up last time were about, you know Assessed value of the land and pretty limited to that which seemed appropriate Given this I'm reading this and I'm thinking about the discussions We've been hearing around Valley CDC and what we're calling financial impacts, right? So no one is asking for a traffic study for these even though perhaps more people will visit these properties And there'll be more traffic in these rural areas of northeast Amherst, right? No one is asking about the amount of money we have to spend on Trails and infrastructure no one's asking about unbudgeted costs from perhaps more use of these properties No one's asking these questions, right? And yet that extra scrutiny seems to be applied to the Valley CDC project And so, you know Dorothy made a statement earlier that these have been talked about at length I don't know if that's true. My understanding was CPAC first presented their recommendations This has been talked about at length at meetings now. That's true. I go to a lot of meetings Three a week, but we've asked all of those questions in great detail and they were answered We have actually covered these discussions The two land acquisitions there is No plan that is being put forward by the conservation department to add trails But in the future and so my point I'm not arguing against my point is I hope when the Valley CDC project comes The finance could I worry that there is additional scrutiny being put on the project beyond just the bonding I think the bonding merits additional scrutiny But beyond that some of these questions of traffic concerns and infrastructure We don't seem to be applying to some of these other projects And I hope don't necessarily become huge focal points in the discussion of of the Valley project Thank you. I can just leave I'd like to just clarify With Margaret what constitutes a two-thirds vote so it's not two-thirds of five Okay. Thank you. No, this is a this does not require two-thirds. This is a committee recommendation This only requires a majority vote within the finance committee we will require two-thirds vote of the council and and so we can make that recommendation but Madam president will have to determine whether we have attained two-thirds vote if she Madam president will rely on our town clerk So motion on the floor has to do with the two Council recommend the two separate orders that will be required for the Zala property and the Keith Haskins property All in favor indicate by raising hands We're just doing the one vote for both all in favor indicate by raising hands So it's four to zero one member absence. I think that that takes care of there's one more order. Yes 2011 I I just want to Be very clear on the record that on Personally, I have questioned the Zala property So they find me I guess for financial reasons, but I don't question the other because it's our watershed. I Have I have a problem with that one? Because of the scrutiny that's going to Valley CDC if you have concerns for this other issue Why aren't you bringing them up? Really Confuses me. They've been brought up in other discussions. I Mean, and my only question frankly was whether or not we truly needed to buy this land It's kind of an important question this last time when we all met Can I just ask clarifying? Are you talking about the question that Mandy Joe kind of put forward of if yeah This is probably not going to be developed. Do we need to yes exactly? Yeah those points We have voted Is the finance committee to recommend? So yeah So the last order So the last order number 2011. This is to vote the this has to happen every year and it It's to authorize the town It's allowing the town to grant a higher real estate exemption to qualifying property owners than the base level set by the state and This is David Burgess sent me a letter this morning telling me that for fiscal year 19 our exemptions totaled $94,550 and the state reimbursed us 31,700 in the cost of the town for this for fiscal year 19 was about $35,000 and this gets paid out of the Provision for abatements and exemptions or otherwise called the overlay account So 1% of the tax rate gets a get set aside for any abatements that need to happen on the tax bills So this is where this money comes from and we vote this every year at town meet We hadn't voted this every year at town meeting So what were the numbers you can for mr. Burgess? There's no there's no appropriation here. It's just authorizing the town to no, but he gave for prior year The prior year number was an I'll send you the memo I'll send you all the memo that David Burgess sent me first thing this morning on that but with the exact numbers But it was about 94,500 was the total 317 was reimbursed by the state in 35 it cost the town 35 I The reason I paused is because 31 and 35 don't equal 94. I know I don't have the memo in front of me either But I promise you when you get it, it'll make sense and it doesn't have to be a part of this order Does everybody understand what the order is about? I do not do you want to Explain how the Taxation the exemption works How about I call David to come on up he's downstairs. He said he would come up and explain this to you Okay And basically this is something that is who's has been done every year by town meeting and I understand that I just don't understand what it is. And so I'm trying to Obviously, I don't either just be responsible in terms of Understanding it. I think you're starting with what is the exemption correct, right? That would be correct Yeah, I mean the piece that David Probably need to explain is if we didn't authorize it What's the person would see how is the exemption determined? Then because what we're essentially been doing is giving a greater exemption than The state minimum. I'm sure when David gets up here. I love making so while we're waiting for David to come Let me just turn to the report quickly from the committee to Council I sent draft Invited for invited comments if I receive any Additional comments will do my best to incorporate it I Don't think that I have I tried to not state policy Okay, sorry But I tried not to state policy Other than what I thought was obvious committee discussion already But if there are any concerns about any thing that people think that I stated that is policy I want to get that into the report the Capital piece is consistent with what we have Written that I and I wrote that and I've in Kathy's review did I assume and but not thoroughly yet and so that in the in attracts very clearly because it points out that the 10-year projections are not part of what the recommendation is and the Last piece that I was going to talk about was Paula the the the committee intends to come together as a committee And I guess I should wait for Dorothy to come back to that I'd like to make sure I understand our dates from here on dates and times because I know we flip those as well so but the Unfortunately, I get it that mr. Burgess is not available with Dorothy's return. Maybe we can just review our dates Yeah, so the last piece of the report what I was about to say when you Left for a moment Dorothy was that the last part of the report is going to talk about recommendations for The next fiscal year process But basically what I was going to be saying in in that section is that the committee is going to Come together In a future meeting and make recommendations for either June or July about fiscal About the planning process and the finance process for the next fiscal year That I'm not going to make Recommendations the other thing that I was going to point out is that the finance committee Will need to make a recommendation about if We go forward as a council With a participatory budgeting process that we will have to Consider an amount an appropriate amount of money that might be available for that process But I was going to write it in a way to point out that we will have to have the discussion not any Thing to indicate where we would come on the discussion and that money wouldn't be until FY 21 that that would be correct because participatory budgeting Would be no earlier than 21. Okay, so We review our dates going forward including making sure we've set a date after June 18th so This is the last finance committee That's been posted We're not meeting on the 30th. Is that correct? The fourth we are I Had penciled in the force as 930 and penciled in the 11th just as holding them so but then we were going to decide One issue was revisiting the tool now we've got a couple remaining issues There's also the budget amendments for fiscal year 19, right? That I just didn't know whether we had Confirmed either the fourth or the 11th when we when do we have to do the budget amendments by Sonia? Paul's got it scheduled for June 4th by its committee meeting. That's why I'm confirming that we are having that at 930 930 or 9 says 930 and so that will be budget amendments Then Do we need one on the 11th? I guess is the question where the 18 if we're going to deal with the tool then Unless the only issue I have our concern I have is whether Sean has any time to really focus on that at that point, okay? I'll check We are not meeting on the 6th No, and then the 18th Do we want to hold that as a? Tentative date pending Whether mr. Mengana says he's available or are we meeting on the 11th? It says if needed We your meeting with JCPC is on the 6th where it's talking about the potential way of thinking about the process for next year Yes, and so one question would be is if we can should Finance people come to that meeting should it be jointly posted or do we follow up with a discussion either on the 11th or the 18th of That and I I had a Similar question with the CPA Cycle I think was started late this year is what I was told and if they were starting earlier So we knew what was Coming down the pipeline earlier Some of the questions on how would we get questions in if we even knew about the projects earlier? So it's just a that's a question Andy just on if you're meeting on JCPC on the 6th Do we have a follow-up meeting? Do we meet with them doing on the 18th to talk about? I don't think we'll have follow-up meeting with JCPC But we will have a follow-up meeting because and I think that will that is part of the overall Budget process for FY 21 and it will include the capital and it will include I think we needed to include CPA Everything needs to be in a consolidated budget process calendar and It needs to be a process. It's all encompassing and I'm just wondering if we just need a little bit of a break and do it on the 18th Yeah, because that could be on the 18th If you want my opinion a little later is it better for us here because we still have to Close out a fiscal year and open a new fiscal year and there's a lot of work going on So we're not really spending a whole lot of time thinking of the next year's budget cycle right at the moment So if it was even later, it would be fine It would probably be better It would be another advantage to doing it in July and that is if you we have new members who are Our citizen members and we want to get them involved and in part of our discussion for the process To do it on July 2nd. That's a Tuesday It's possible. They may not Get appointed to July 1 Am I correct in that Evan? I? I believe OCA's plan is a is for the council to vote to appoint them July 1 correct Yeah, so we need to give them a little more time to assemble. I would regard July 2nd as part of the July 4th weekend, which nobody knows where it is It's not a really a business day so the We're talking about whether we're meeting on June 18th and what Sonia is suggesting is Finance could use a little more time before we meet Correct, okay. I don't think that there's a reason to meet We need to meet on the CPA. Yeah, I guess we yeah, maybe we should okay good point and From 930 to 1130 June 25th is a 930 it is So June 25th, so we're meeting on June 4th to consider budget amendments and June 25th and June 11th if Sean is a PA is available So June 4th for budget amendments June 11th on the model if Sean is available And June 25th on CPA. Yes And then I would I would like to recommend But see what this is a test July 16th to talk about the Process for the Fy 21 July 16 I won't be sure But you can talk about it Well, but you have very strong feelings on I do but I will be on a river in Idaho So I can't even call in For that meeting. I will really not be here Are you back on the 23rd? Yes Yep Okay, so let's let's try for the 23rd Are we doing morning or afternoon? My my jillot June job is over so you can to be in the afternoon again, okay, two o'clock So we've penciled in three meetings and with that we can get back to we have this Proposed order which you probably are familiar with mr. Burgess. Thank you for coming and There were questions that were being asked to Explain it Please There's a button the buttons down on David Okay, that better. Yes, what we're voting on is the optional additional exemption and this has been in place I believe since 1994 And what it does is Every community in the state has exemptions for surviving spouses military blind and elderly They are the state's voter demands indeed you can get There's different a Changes that can be made to them to allow more for the people in the communities such as the What do you call it when they change every year cost of living We can just know for the cost of living a couple percent to the base state ones and that's what we give Then I'm her so I think was in 1984 decided first off to make an exemption and increase that by 12 It was 40% the first year And then the second year of a second or third year we went to a hundred percent So that's and that is the maximum you can do is increase that amount by a hundred percent And that's what you're looking at in column 2. That's what the cost is it It doesn't all increase at the same time as your taxes go up Say hit $500 exemption this year Your taxes went up by six of our hundred dollars next year. We make it six hundred not a thousand It gradually gets up to a thousand from the base year So that's what the additional is. That's why it's not going to be double all the time Basically, that's what this and the state reimburses us a certain amount of money on the number of exemptions we had based on the state amount So that thirty one thousand seven hundred and nineteen comes back against the fifty nine thousand four hundred and thirty nine So we get that on the cherry sheet This has been in place as I say, I believe it was night before when Barry del Castillo asked me to put in place and It's been has to be voted every year This is one thing that's going to come before you every year the same way as time meeting had it And it was actually in the consent calendar by the time for the last five or six years of town meeting So that's why some of you probably didn't see too much about it Yeah, it's covered in the finance committee reports each of those years, but never discussed a town meeting so Now are there additional questions Yeah, so Once you give us the list of who the people who are exempt Now I get the exemptions. Thank you. We do have some other exemptions, but they do not fall on there being doubled just just these the personal exemptions in the Cost that comes out of the overlay account is apparently about thirty one thousand No, the cost of coming out of the overlay account is the ninety four thousand five hundred forty nine dollars And we get reimbursed by thirty one thousand dollars from the state. Okay, so We are we are Amherst is on the line for the thirty five thousand dollars, which is the difference between the base amount and the optional amount this year and that varies from year to year It's actually gone down a little bit. We have lost many exemptions We had over a hundred and twenty at one stage and You can see it the minute we're down to ninety two or ninety three There's not too many But this has nothing to do with the program for where people can Provide services to the town in lieu of taxes. This is separate That's a separate program the tax work-off program and that's been very very successful For both us and the people So is there a motion to recommend this order? I move that we recommend this order to the town council Sir second I'll second it Okay Motion's been made in second at all in favor indicate by raising hands Any opposed? Then the passes for zero with one member absent. Is there any other business that people want to raise at this point? I will Consider any written comments I received from members of the committee about the draft report to the Council I will draft those two sections that are not included So you get chance to see them, but my goal is that I Have something to Margaret for Thursday that she can send to the council Is that I think we can do a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn second all favor And you went did you adjourn the? Is there a motion to adjourn the full council meeting is there a second All those in favor Thank you