 We're recording now. Okay, thank you. Good evening. It is April 3rd, 2023. This is a public forum called as a special meeting of the town council. It's called for the purposes of having the public speak to appropriations outside the annual budget specifically the elementary school building project appropriation and debt authorization. This is the first of three meetings tonight, all will use the same zoom link. The governor recently signed an extension of the act that suspends certain provisions of the open meeting law. This allows us to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum the council physically present at a meeting location. However, I'd like to call to your attention in fact we have a quorum in the room. At the same time this meeting is accessible in real time by zoom by phone and as a live broadcast on Amherst media channel 17 or their live stream. I also want to note that we have six people in our audience tonight in the town room, as well as 13 people on zoom at this time. So I'm going to begin with calling the council to order, given that we have a quorum of the council present I'm calling the April 3rd 2023 town council meeting to order at 602. I'm going to call on each counselor please let me know you can hear us and we can hear you and then mute yourself again. The council's may just be joining. And so I may have to come back and do this as well. I also want to mention. Okay. Shalini Balmille. Present. Pat D'Angelis. Anna Devlin got here present Lynn Greece was present Mandy Jo Hanneke present. Anika Lopes. Present. Michelle Miller. Present. Dorothy Pam. I'm running. Present. Kathy Shane here. Andy Steinberg. Present. Jennifer Todd. Present. Alicia Walker. Okay, somebody else would keep an eye out. We'll, I think be ready to take the screen down. Okay. Andy Steinberg, please call the finance committee to order. I'm calling the finance committee to order at four minutes after 6pm. And note that we have a quorum present we have, I believe three members who are not in the room and we're not recognized previously because of the resident members of the committee. So I need to check with them that they can hear. We can hear them. Matt Holloway. Present. Bob Hegner. Present. And Bernie Koopiak. Present. Thank you. There's no chat room for this meeting. If you have technical issues, please let Athena and me know. If you want to ask a question or make a comment, please use the raised hand button. And if we have technical difficulties, we'll decide how to address those at the time. We have a brief presentation. The rules regarding public forums are that the audience has the opportunity to speak as long as the council does. So we'll time this and it's 50%. So with that, I'm calling on Sean. Who is going to make a brief presentation. Sean. Hi, everybody. So I'm going to share my screen. Hopefully you can see that. So tonight's forum is in regards to appropriation and borrowing authorization order FY 23-06C. This is the order appropriating 97 million dollars, 97 million $492,297 to build the new school. There's other funding sources that have already been approved. So I'll just focus on this table. So that appropriation is comprised of two different sources. 92 million $492,297 would be a borrowing authorization and $5 million would come from the town's capital stabilization fund. And so those two sources to combine give you the $97 million appropriation. Previously there have been three other sources that have been appropriated and they all have to be part of this order to arrive at the total project costs for the MSPA. This 92 million $492,297 borrowing authorization will be further reduced by any MSPA grant that we receive, which is estimated to be about $40 million. And it will also be reduced by any energy incentives we receive from ever source, which we anticipate about 1.6 million related to the geothermal component of the project. So I'm going to quickly switch to focus on a couple slides from the presentation, given last week. So this table sort of summarizes the various options that have been considered and the different sources that are part of the order. So the total project budget, there's the 99.2 million total project budget. We had the $40 million MSPA facility grant that brings us down to the estimated town share, then we reduce it for any other funding sources that we have. So we have the $1.6 million of energy incentives with ever source 700,000 that has been approved from the CPA grant. And then there was a million dollars that was part of the feasibility study that would not be part of the debt exclusion that was previously appropriated and would come out of the town's capital budget. So those three sources make up the 3.3 million that you see in the row labeled less other funding sources from there if there are any funds appropriated from capital stabilization they would be added on top of that. And so option two assumes $5 million from capital stabilization and option three assumes $10 million. And the order tonight that's under consideration is option two, it assumes $5 million from capital stabilization. The impact for that option is $451 and 42 cents from the debt exclusion on the taxes of the average single family home. So if your own value is valued lower than the average single family value which is about $460,000, then that impact would be lower. If your value is higher than the impact would be higher as well. And there is a tool that the town has put up on its webpage, where you can put in your address and estimate the impact on your, on your property. And we can send out the instructions how to get there. And then the last slide I wanted to just highlight quickly. We know that this is the price of the project is is high, mostly due to the construction industry and the escalation has gone on the last few years. So there have been tremendous efforts to try to reduce the cost of the project. And I just wanted to highlight a few of them. The first very early on, 8,000 square feet was removed from the space summary for the project. Originally we were looking at about 113,000 square foot building. That was reduced down to 105,000 square feet. And it may not seem like a lot but when you when we have construction costs per square foot at $800 right now in the market adds up to a lot of money when we remove those square feet. Next the school building committee. We looked at some value engineering options with our designer, which reduced the project by another $5 million, paying the feasibility study costs out of the capital budget instead of including it as part of the debt exclusion saves another $1 million. One of the things that happened in late 2022 as we we saw our effective reimbursement rate from the MSBA. We weren't very happy with it. And it was driven largely because the MSBA hasn't had updated their reimbursement formula and quite some time. So thanks to our elected officials and our local legislators. They acted very quickly and we're able to work with the MSBA in the state to increase the reimbursement formula. And that resulted in $3 million of additional grant funds coming to the town. Some residents submitted a Community Preservation Act request which was ultimately approved by the council which allocated $700,000 to support the field portion of the project. And then we have a memorandum of agreement with ever source for these energy efficiency incentives related to the geothermal for another 1.6. And then tonight will determine if there's any additional funds coming from the capital stabilization fund. So you can see there's been a lot, a lot done so far. And the other thing that's on the agenda for later tonight is that we're not done it if this project moves forward, the town is going to continue to try to identify alternative sources that can reduce the debt exclusion and reduce the impact for taxpayers. And with that, I will stop. Okay, thank you. Before we move on I want to make sure that counselor Dorothy Pam can hear us. Yes, I can. Thank you. And counselor Alicia Walker. Yes, I can thank you. Thank you. Okay. If you are in the room and you would like to make public comment please make sure you have signed up over with the town clerk. Okay. And at this point, I'm going to ask the town clerk how many people have signed up. If you're in the audience and you would like to make public comment about the authorization for the school funding. The general public comment will be later in the regular meeting, which will be another two meetings for now we have three meetings tonight. Tonight, this meeting is a public forum about the authorization for the elementary school. Okay, right now I see two people in the audience. I see three, four or five. Lynn before we start public comment can we confirm that Shalini can hear and be heard please. Please thank you Shalini make can you hear us. Yes. Thank you. I thought I had done that earlier. Yeah. Yeah, I did say present earlier. Thank you so much. Okay. Athena, do you want to start? Where do you want to start? Let's start here in the room. The first person on the list is Tim Neil. When I come up to the microphone here and make your comment. When you begin please say your name and where you live. Very good. My name is Tim Neil I live at 63 amity place. And before I make a comment I did have a question if that's possible I didn't write down. This is for Sean. Sean. He had his options 123 I wrote down to which is your preferred option and there was an option of three for the use of 5 million more in reserves. Could I ask him to cite those figures. Sean, would you like to put that up on the screen again and I just want to point out that during public forums. We do like and encourage if there's a two questions or dialogue so this is perfectly fine. Okay. So Sean, do you want to just explain the option one, two and three. Yeah, so the only difference between these three options is the amount of funding that's going to be applied from capital stabilization. So option one assumes no funding from capital stabilization. Option two assumes 5 million from capital stabilization and option three assumes 10 million. So the really, it's the bottom three rows that are different in this chart, the amount of other funding sources, the net amount that would be excluded, and then the impact of the debt exclusion on the ever single family home. Okay, great. I just hadn't recorded particularly option three versus option two. I wrote all of you and express my concern about using any more than 5 million in the capital stabilization. I am supportive of the 5 million, because that will be reimbursed through the energy efficiencies and so forth. I'm not an agreement for anything more. And I outlined my reasonings in my memo or email to you folks, but generally I feel that this town has kicked the can down the road for many many years on the other projects and I just don't think we should do that anymore. I think we should use the funds for the other projects. If we were to get another 5 million would reduce the impact on the taxpayer the debt exclusion, but we're looking at a difference of 400 for the average home now a difference of 451 versus 406 so round numbers let's talk about $50. And I think that is certainly a reasonable thing. I don't feel we should mortgage the future for the other projects. And basically I wanted to reiterate which I greater reiterate what I had indicated to the rest of you, back in the day I was on the finance committee and part of the financial committee for all these projects. And I think that's a sound methodology it was a sound business decision on the part of the town to establish a reserves, and it's a sound decision to use their reserves for all four projects, not just the schools, and that's repeating what I said to you in writing so that's all I wanted to say publicly so thank you very much. Thank you for joining us this evening. I'll remind you that public comment is limited to three minutes. And there is a timer on the screen. So, Athena, do you want to go to the audience. Yep, the next person on zoom is a caller ending in 0810. When you enter the room please state your name and where you live. My name is Vincent O'Connor. I live at 175 Summer Street and Amherst. And my comment is that I think the voters need to hear two things from our elected officials before May 2. The first is that the school project is the most important capital expenditure facing us. Not one of four, five or six equally important projects, but the most important capital project before us. Second is the voters know that talk is deep. If this is the community's most important capital project then comparable to a down payment from family savings to purchase a home or car. We need to see non reimbursable cash coming out of our reserves. The taxpayers reserves built up from overtaxing us in the past to reduce the cost of this school building to us in the future. Finally, my experience is that individual voters facing group spending decisions do not take the what's in it for me. Green eye shade approach I've heard from the finance committee. They ask how important is is this has everything been done to control costs and has every been done everything been done to reduce the financial impact on us. The school building committee has answered the second question by effectively writing heard on project costs. A council vote in favor of taking a non reimbursable 5 million or 9.2 or $3 million from reserves reduce tax taxpayer impact will answer. The question about how important this project is. And the and make a statement about reducing the impact on the voting taxpayers, and I am a tenant and every month. Part of my rent goes to taxes. So I am a taxpayer as are all other tenants in this town. Vince, thank you for your comment. We're going back to the audience. Next is Sarah. Please state your name and where you live. Good evening. My name is Sarah foresight. I am currently president of the Amherst firefighters local 1764. I am here tonight to express support from your Amherst firefighters for the financial order as written. Our house is not a typical workspace. It's not a place that employees report to to complete their Monday through Friday 9 to 5. Yes, it houses our fire trucks ambulances and gear, but it is much more to those who occupy it. We live there. It's our home away from home for 24 hours at a time, twice a week, sometimes more. This space for us to hone our skills through training and increase our proficiency. It's a place for us to share meals together, strengthen our bonds and trust in each other. And it is a place for us to decompress from one stressful call will also being ready to run right out the door to the next. Simply put, we take pride in our home. As most of you already know and likely have seen for yourselves, the central fire station is in a condition that's far below acceptable standards. Our fire station has long past being able to meet the needs of housing fire apparatus ambulances and personnel. The public frequently stop and watch as we back our trucks into the station, because it always looks like they won't fit. But they do with an inch or so to spare. This space for equipment such as spare hose turnout gear and medical equipment and tools are either non existent or incredibly limited. There is no potable water on the first floor unless it comes from a dispenser that was only installed in the last three years, paint peels and large patches off of the walls and ceilings, and we frequently find pieces of crumbling sheet rock fall into the ground. The multiple ceilings collapse, in part due to leaking from the roof, which persists despite multiple repair efforts by the town. Central fire station has one large unisex locker room, and only one restroom for both the woman and the men of the department to use the restroom only has one shower available the staff to use for decontamination after fires, or particularly hazardous EMS calls. And that our profession comes with inherent risks. However, some of the biggest risks are avoidable and come from our own station environment. I encourage all of you to educate yourselves on the common carcinogens found in and around fire stations, particularly ones that are 94 years old. Bunk rooms sit directly over where the exhaust fans vent carcinogenic exhaust from the trucks and years of carcinogenic residue buildup have left grime and permanent stains on the walls and the ceilings. There is also little to no energy efficiency in the building. During summer window AC units are installed to try and keep the building cool and space heaters are often used to keep the bunk rooms warm in the winter. As bluntly, we have significantly outgrown central station, the conditions of our workspace are unacceptable by any standards, let alone those set forth by OSHA and the NFPA. Borrowing additional money from the town reserves will continue to push back the funding of the fire station even further. For decades there has been conversation about the building of a new station, yet we always seem to be placed on the back burner. The postponement of this fire station has already and will continue to have a direct impact on recruitment, retention, health, safety and the overall morale of your firefighters. Additionally, this past week, our north fire station, which is now 50 years old, was found to have dangerously high levels of carbon monoxide present, resulting in the evacuation of on duty crews. The building's water heater was found to be at fault, and as a result will need to be replaced. In the meantime, north station crews are without any hot water for the foreseeable future. Ask yourselves, are these acceptable working conditions. As these finance discussions continue, we implore you to please consider the needs of your Amherst firefighters. If anyone has any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out to me. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Sarah. Going back to the audience to the zoom. Bertie, please enter the room, state your name and where you live. Hello, my name is Bertie Newman and I am from District three. I'm understanding that with the school project, there's this tricky balance to be struck between getting the school built and done, making sure to support taxpayers and particularly renters. And making sure that the budget decisions are sustainable and able to make the fire department and Department of Public Works projects happen in the future. So with all these issues at play and my current skill set. I don't feel like I can confidently support sort of one of the versions of this funding being brought forward but what I do want to say is that I'm worried that not enough. Attention and care is going toward the question of taxpayer burden and particularly for renters and people relying on section eight. I certainly think that Councillor Walker should get the chance to make a motion my understanding is there have been efforts to stop that discussion and prevent her motion from coming forward and I think there should be the opportunity to discuss and vote on that possibility. Thank you. Bertie thank you for joining us. Alicia Athena. Sorry, Ian come on up and make your comment. Okay, I'll keep you on for general public comment. Next is Peter. I'm Peter Demling at Water Circle. I'm a member of the Emmer School committee speaking for myself and not the committee. So, I just wanted to ask you tonight. After your reserves discussion and funding details when you get to your final borrowing authorization vote. I really hope that you can make it a unanimous vote. I think it will be really important to signal for the town three weeks out from the start of voting that the town council has gone through a complex discussion now over many years with other boards and committees and at the end of the day can express unified support. And it really would be in the spirit of what this project has been doing for years now. I just remember the failed project from six years ago and we applied to the MSBA once we were rejected. The second time the superintendent put forward a compromise proposal that didn't meet the preferences of all the supporters of the past project or opponents. But the town residents came together in public forums and supported that. So you know the theme here has been, you know, people disagreeing and then deciding and then expressing unified support and you know more more recently we've had discussions on how many square feet should the building be, what site should the building be located on. I'm sure you remember that discussion how should we achieve net zero and then, you know, tonight is another spirited I'm sure discussion about how to do the exact funding. And it's, it's really important for the, I think for the town council to model that for voters that are going to be, you know, making a decision to raise their property taxes, even though they might not agree with all the decisions have been made along the way. I was really inspired. I don't think it's too strong of a word at school committee last week, we unanimously endorse the project. You may recall that last year the last project that was not the case for school committee. And we have a school committee that is comprised of members who support the project and did not support the last project. I think it's really a great opportunity for y'all to show unified support. I hope that you can, if this gets to be spirited tonight you can take an opportunity to just take a couple of steps back, breathe and then and then come back and say okay now we now we have the chance to move forward now we have a chance for the headline for tonight's meeting and the Gazette to be town council unanimously endorses the school project that will be a really great thing for the town. Thank you. Thanks for joining us Peter. Jenny Hamilton you have your hand up please enter the room state your name and where you live. Hi, I'm Jenny Hamilton I'm a resident of Middle Street in South Amherst, and I'm here to speak in favor of approving borrowing for the elementary school using the 5 million from your town from town reserves. I've lived here for 11 years now it was our town government's failure to authorize funding for the last project six years ago that actually got me to start paying attention to town politics. And I'm currently an active part of the volunteer team working to pass the debt exclusion over right on May 2. Okay, echo Peter's comments. Our town has really come a long way in these last six years people opposed to the previous project are actively working alongside those of us who supported it to make sure that this building project can move forward. We share some numbers with you today as of last night's count from people knocking on doors and making phone calls over two thirds of those we've spoken to say yes they will vote for this project, only 3% have said that they're opposed. Now that doesn't even count the hundreds of people that have come to the website to actively opt in to say that they they're planning to vote yes and pledge their support. And I share these numbers because I know there's some of you here that are concerned that the only way this project will pass is if you use all of the town reserves. For those care who care about issues of those with limited incomes which I do as well. Amherst does allow exceptions to property taxes for for people with income limitations over age 60. My neighbors like East Hampton has opted for additional waivers in lieu of taxes for community service there are other ways of bringing down the tax bill. If you all want to look at some other creative options for that. And I'm glad to hear that that that there will be continued work to look for ways for this price tag to go down. I'm saying, you know, given the financial uncertainty that this past few years have shown us unexpected needs for great amounts of funding. The importance of all of the other capital projects that remain in town, and the broad support this this project has, even with its price tag. I urge you to vote yes, and to only spend $5 million of the recommended proposal as that's before you today. What you say is that you have the voters on your side. Thank you. Thank you for joining us, Jenny. Athena. Next up in the room is Matt. Please state your name and where you live. Good evening, Matt Blumenfeld 335 Middle Street. And tonight to express our support for the school project, the Jones Library project, the DPW and the fire station, believing fervently that all four capital projects are important to Amherst future. Even though our children have graduated out of the school system. We are in favor of the override to pay for the school project and uncomfortable with any further delays. We therefore urge the council and the town administration to proceed with the override vote as written with $5 million that would be reimbursed. Without taking further funds from capital reserves that have been developed over time to allow our town to take on all four capital projects. Specifically, I'm concerned about the impact of depleting our reserves and the impact on our bond rating. If our bond rating ends up being lowered, then I'm concerned that the longer term costs of borrowing will exceed the benefits of lowering taxes marginally over the short and medium term. And specifically, I'm fearful that doing so would put the DPW project and the fire station in jeopardy, which we think are very important. Long experience is shown and I've done many public projects over the years that public construction costs rise about four to 5% a year, no matter what. And our current favorable bond rating, which I think is a double plus, or a plus, make our borrowing costs favorable today. As I said earlier, I'm fearful that reducing the reserves by 40% or $10 million could potentially lower our rating and therefore raise our borrowing costs. And lastly, for too long, we've not invested adequately in our public buildings and infrastructure. Let's turn this around please so that we may provide the schools libraries and other public infrastructure that our community needs. And that will allow our generation of Amherst people to create a strong foundation for our children and grandchildren. I wish I had grandchildren. Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us Matt. We're going to go to the zoom audience and Jeff Lee, please enter the room state your name and where you live. Thank you. I'm Jeff Lee from Southeast Street. I support the Fort River project I think it's a good plan, but I'm not wild about the way the town leaders are proposing to fund it. I think you're choosing to leverage the most important project to get the voters to support a very large tax increase while you're paying for lower priority projects out of the capital budget. I appreciate Councilor Walker's respect for the lower income and less financially secure people in town I think they're going to be hurt by this significant tax increase $451 a year is nothing to, nothing to sneeze at. Need to point out that that $451 is in addition to regular tax increases that happen every year, then the proposition two and a half limit over the past five years. That's gone up 3.79% per year. This year the increase for the average home was $375 the year before that it was $419 so add those to the exclusion amounts, and it's, it's, it's significant. I'd also like to hear an explanation of what's going on with the library project. The capital plan shows that there's $24 million allocated to the library over the next 20 years. $16 million in borrowing authorization and another $8 million in debt service. Yet I've heard reports that the fundraising is not raised close to the amount needed to plug the budget gap which was like $14 million. So that's $24 million it could be diverted to the school and help the taxpayers. I think you should seriously consider that. I've heard counselors say that, excuse me, you know, debt, debt exclusions are on the other projects are to be avoided but I don't really agree with that. I think it's not really fair to put a debt exclusion on the most important project while the others get a free ride. Hadley routinely uses debt exclusions. They passed 391 on things like fire trucks and school improvements since 2002, and they have a much lower tax rate than Amherst and a better bond rating than Amherst. So I support Councilor Walker's proposal to use the full capital stabilization fund amount for the schools to lower the impact of the override and thank you very much for your time. Thank you for joining us Jeff, Athena, other people in the audience. No more for this part. Okay, then I'm going to call on Maria Kopecki. Please enter the room, state your name and where you live. Thank you. My name is Maria Kopecki. I live in South Amherst. I support the use of 10 million of the $24 million that the town has in stabilization funds to support the school project. And the point of this is not to gather votes. The reason that I think it needs to be done is that we need to support our people. This committee, the town council and the finance committee have for two months now prevented Councilor Walker from bringing forward her proposal for a full discussion to this council. The extraordinary measures and amount of time that were spent to prevent that full discussion from happening and from having our counselors vote on this until this very last minute is honestly pretty shameful. You've got a finance committee that's got there's there's three people on the finance committee who are not elected or not appointed and they've had more opportunity to weigh in and vote on this than eight of the 13 counselors. Eight of the 13 counselors have not been able to take a vote on this and it's a manufactured crisis of time now. You know this other shameful things that have happened and how this process has been conducted pitting the fire station against the school project. You know, it's terrible what the town has not done about the fire station you don't have a site you don't have a building committee you don't have a preliminary cost estimate, you have a $20 million placeholder out into a placeholder year that has no basis in evidence. And if we want to look at real numbers, the difference between using 20, I'm sorry, 10 million of the $24 million of reserves on the total cost in debt exclusion amounts to $18 million. So the other shameful thing that's happened is that people are some people are trying to tell other people what they can afford and trying to decrease down to the smallest denomination of a couple of cents a day, $18 million over $18 million difference. The models that have been developed have never, they've never shown the models that even counselor Walker, and I believe counselor Shane have asked for. And yet again, here we are at the 12th hour doing this, the proposed motion by the town manager is also pretty shameful. It's toothless. There's, there's nothing in their, their words their promises of things that we should have been doing for years and we should continue to do, regardless town council needs to do its job. You can take action. You should take action. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. Maria Claire Bertrand please enter the room stage your name and where you live. Yes, hi Claire Bertrand 610 Bay Road. I'm I'd like to encourage you to not Rob from the future project so in my mind from my days now campaigning to ask voters to consider a yes vote. I'm so grateful for the people that are doing this project. They are, as was stated. Very strong majority support yes votes. But they're also concerned about their safety I live in far South Amherst. We heard the plight of actual workers in the fire department. I'm also concerned about the ability of fire trucks to reach South Amherst which is why they considered moving it out of Central Station. So, please don't take the money for future important projects like the fire department building just for a short sighted payment that may or may not impact voters. I think voters get it. I think they understand all the needs are there. It was 65% support for the library. So let's not take that away from them. And thank you for your leadership. I know this is not going to be easy but we've worked very hard at this. And I think the community is very ready to say yes to this new school project. Along with all the other capital projects we know we have known for years that we also need to plan for so thank you. Thank you Clara Sarah Marshall please enter the room state your name and where you live. And would you please say that we're still in public comment for the public forum. We're still taking comments. We're still taking public comment for just the public forum. We will have a general public comment later. During the regular town council meeting. Is that there. Thank you. Carol Gray. Oh, I'm sorry. You had called someone else. Okay, so Carol you do not want to speak to this at this time. Amber canno Martin. Sarah Marshall had her hand up first and Sarah down so Marshall. Can you hear me. Yes, we can. Thank you. Okay. Hello everyone. I do not know what is the right number to appropriate from capital reserves for this project but I do know that all our town employees need modern, safe, helpful buildings in which to work. So I urge you to listen to those among you who have the best sense of what can be borrowed without endangering those future projects. I would also say, and maybe remind those listening that this tax burden whatever it is. The budgeted debt will be spread not only among today's property owners, but all additional property owners for the next 30 years or whatever as we continue to develop property. So continue development, whether it's houses or commercials, property or apartment buildings that will all help to ease the burden on today's property owners and and rent payers. So that's it. That's all I have to say thank you. Sarah thank you for joining us. Okay, I would just want to make sure that these are people lined up to speak for the public forum regarding the appropriation. Okay, Amber canno Martin. Please enter the room. I'm sorry, Lynn Carol was up next and I think her hand went up and down. Okay, thank you. Carol Gray you had your hand up, we're moving you in at this time. We just said before you called on Sarah Marshall so that was anyway, Carol Gray from South Amherst. I am very concerned that for capital projects are proceeding while teachers are on work to rule I feel like this is fiscal mismanagement for the town, and I see the capital projects are very related to the operating budget. You are taking 10% from the operating budget every year to go into the capital budget and when I was in town meeting and when I served on the Joint Capital Planning Committee, we took closer to 7 to 8%. So you're shorting the operating budget to sock money away for capital projects so that you don't have to go to the public to ask for their permission to do capital projects. And I find that really inappropriate, especially when teachers are on work to rule. The DPW and the fire station has never been put before the public, and yet they're going to cost tens of millions. The library when it was put before the public it was 33 million. Now it's over 50 million, and it's running $130,000 in design costs every month. And if you ask the public if they want a $50 million library when teachers are on work to rule, and we're cutting dozens of para jobs. I think they'll say no. But the fact that you're saying that somehow the operating budget is totally separate from the teachers work to rule demands. That's just not true. And with the capital budget, every year, the town automatically orders three to four police cars. Well, when I was in town meeting each police car was $75,000. And I learned when I was on the Joint Capital Planning Committee that sometimes the cars had low mileage and yet we were buying new cars automatic once there was enough money for the for a police car already in the police budget and yet we were going to buy three or four more cars. You could subtract one car and that's two or three para jobs. These are not to say that all these expenses are siloed is to just say that you have no responsibility for a dozen plus jobs being lost by the schools and teachers being forced to take pay cuts every year. There's no way we should be doing for capital projects when teachers are on work to rule you have to listen to the teachers. These are the most fundamental jobs for our children for our future. And yeah, I think I think that you should put some of these projects on hold the $50 million library that's costing 130,000 every month in design fees, the fire station that doesn't have any of these fundamental infrastructure calculations known yet as Mariko picky pointed out those things should be put on hold and we should fund the teachers demands, and they deserve that and I that none of you ever says a word when we keep raising what about the teachers being on work to rule I find really disconcerting you're the elected officials and you're ignoring them as if they don't exist. You have the money 20 plus million in reserves, and you're pleading poverty. That's just wrong. Thank you. Thank you for joining us Carol. Amber. Are we ready for Amber. Okay, Amber, can all Martin, please enter the room state your name and where you live. Hi everybody, Amber kind of Martin and I live at 318 Grant Wood Drive. And I have two elementary school children one is at Fort River now in first grade and then I have one who's just about to leave while but so been hearing about this project for a long time. I'm very much in favor of this project. But I do want to say, you know, once again, that I do support town counselor Alicia Walker's proposal to use the $10 million in capital stabilization funds for the project. This is going to be a huge financial burden on our town and on people who are already struggling to make ends meet. And I know people really that we want to be able to stay in our town who are raising young children, and who, you know, are all going to benefit from the school building. Right. So, again, I support using the $10 million. And I'm also very frustrated by the fact that this hasn't been able to come to the full town council. I'm not entirely sure why that is, but I do think it's something that the town council should be able to hear and vote upon and that people in this town, you know, like myself and others who have spoken should be able to weigh in on so I urge you to bring that to the table and vote on it. And just finally I agree with everything Carol said about the teachers I mean that's a huge concern as well. They are in work to rule teachers are incredibly important to this community to myself to my family. I'm aware of a fully funded contract and I just find it hard to believe that we cannot do both of those things that we cannot build the school building that we know we need, and that we cannot pay our teachers a living wage, right that we can that we're making them take a pay cut every year because we're not even keeping up with cost of living. So we just need to get our priorities straight. That's really the bottom line here. Others have spoken to the state of the budget and how much we have left and what we're working with. Yeah, I think it's about people right it's not about credit ratings it's not about new buildings it's about our people and our kids. Thanks everyone. Thank you for your comments chamber. Allegra Clark please enter the room state your name and where you live. Hi my name is Allegra Clark. I live in District two. I am a parent of a Wildwood student. I am phoning in tonight to talk about my support for counselor walkers recommendation for money to come from the stabilization funds to reduce the cost of the barring that the taxpayers are being asked to take on for the school project. It is a project that is much needed. It is a project that I hope will give our students and our educators a better place to spend their days. There are certainly concerns with our current buildings and the safety of them, and the building that's been proposed is a beautiful project and I hope it will go through. I also hope that as we're thinking about the budget we think about who's going to be in that building, because I think that the teachers as it's been said are on work to rule they don't have a contract they're being asked basically to take a pay cut based on the cost of living. And then we're talking about whether people can afford to move into this town. And with the taxes continuing to go up every year, it's becoming increasingly out of reach for average families average working class people to put their roots down here. I know if I was looking for a house here today, if I hadn't moved back when I did I wouldn't be able to live here. And you know I'm grateful that I moved when I did, but other people didn't have that fortune and I, I hope that we can think long and hard about the percentage of students in our schools who are currently low income and what that means because that are families that are low income families out there that will be severely impacted, whether it's through a rent increase or whether it's through property tax increases that they're paying on their own that does trickle down and it might not seem like a lot to some people, but you know the projected $500 as it is without any reductions might make a difference to some people. So I hope that you will consider that. Thank you for your comment. At this point, we are finished with the public forum. Before we adjourn, I just want to tell people what's going to happen next. Okay. So we're actually going to have a finance committee meeting. During that finance committee meeting, those counselors that are not on the finance committee will be placed in the audience, and then we'll be brought back into the room when we move on to the, to the town council meeting. And we the reason we need to do this is so there's no confusion as to whether or not. It's a council meeting or a finance committee. It's a finance committee meeting. Okay, so when we as we adjourn and the finance committee members both counselors and non voting residents. Please keep your cameras on. And you will remain in the room. Okay. Are there any questions about what's going to happen from counselors. Okay, don't. I'm sorry, Pam. Yes. That wasn't clear. Those of us who have our videos on or supposed to keep our videos on. That's what I thought I thought those of you on the finance committee. Keep your videos on those of you that are not on the finance committee but are on the council. You will be placed in the audience during this part of the meeting. Athena, was there anything else you wanted to say. We'll also ask counselors not on finance committee to come and sit in the audience during the finance committee meeting. Ah, thank you. So counselors who are in the room, but not on the finance committee will be asked to move to the audience. While we're in the finance committee meeting. I want to also point out that there will be no public comment during the finance committee meeting. It's a special meeting of the finance committee. Okay, so with that we're going to adjourn the public forum. Andy, would you please adjourn the finance committee from the public forum. I'm adjourned and it's committee then we'll reconvene as special meeting of finance committee in a couple of minutes. Okay, and I'm adjourning the council from the public forum, but not from the evening. We're just going to take a minute or two while people make their moves. Okay, we, we're going to proceed. Okay. We're waiting for honor to sit down and then we will proceed with the meeting. Good evening. It's April 3, 2023 at 655 and I'm calling the special meeting of the finance committee to order is the second of three meetings tonight, all of which are using the same zoom link. The governor recently signed an extension of the act that suspends certain provisions to the open meeting law. This allows us to continue holding meetings remotely without a form of the council physically present at a meeting location, while providing the public with adequate alternative access to the meeting. The meeting is accessible in real time by a zoom by phone and this live broadcast on Amherst media channel 17 and Amherst media dot org slash live stream. Given that we have a quorum of the finance committee present I am calling meeting to order, and I will call on each member of the committee to indicate that they can hear and we can hear them. This will allow us to go forward. So, having said that, I'll just go through the list on a devil and go here. Present. Lynn Grusner present Kathy Shane. I'm here. Alicia Walker. Alicia. I'm here. Oh, great. Thank you. Bob Hegner. Here. Matt Halloway. Present. Bernie Kubi act. Present. There's no chat room for this meeting. You have technical issues, please let Athena and me know. And to make a comment or ask a question for members of the committee, please use the raise hand buttons so that I can track it because I can't visually see everybody from where I'm sitting who's here in the room so it would be very helpful. And with that said, discussion will be suspended. Let's see if there's anything else that I need to say in introduction. Otherwise, where we are tonight is that we have a motion that was postponed at the last meeting until after the meeting. Of the public forum that we just held. And so it's actually back on the floor of the finance committee, because we did complete public forum. And the tabled motion. Was made by President Grusner. And was seconded by Councillor Shane. The tabled motion was to ask the town manager to amend or if necessary issue a new financial order. It includes taking from the capital stabilization fund, the amount of 9,287,465 dollars. So with that, I think that we're open for discussion about this issue. And related issues. Lynn, let me recognize you first. I'd like to make a substitute motion and I need Kathy who was the seconder of the original motion to agree. If you could tell me what the substitute motion is. Okay. I would like to recommend to the town council that they request that the town manager develop options to reduce the financial impact of the debt exclusion for the elementary school building project on residents by proposing a financing plan. That identifies an additional 5 million of alternative funding to be presented to the town council by November 30 2023. So I agree to substitute motion. Okay. And are you then seconding it. Yes, I will second it. Okay, I'll speak very briefly to the motion. There's a couple of things that I think are important to communicate to the public and to the finance committee. The first one is the first bill that anybody will see with their taxes on that bill is not until 2025. The actual full authorization for borrowing will not happen until somewhere around 2027 2829 depending on when we finish the building. There's some time to find some additional money. And as much as and I want to take the opportunity to actually thank Chancellor, Councillor Walker for alerting us to the issues of the impact of this on renters and low income people. I want to say, I've heard from my constituents who are worried about their taxes, and they live in moderate to upscale homes in many cases, and this makes a difference to them. So, I see this as an opportunity, it buys a little time. There's opportunities that we are aware of in the legislature such as attempts to in to change the formula and increase payment in lieu of taxes for public lands. There's other things going on in the legislature with regard to trying to help finding funding for a building authority that would fund other municipal buildings. And this goes on. And so, while this does not take any more money from the reserves at this time. It gives us an opportunity to both send a message that we hear our taxpayers. We hear our renters. You are in fact taxpayers thank you Vince for that. The reality is, we'd like to give some more relief for this without jeopardizing the other projects, and we'd like to have some time to do that. This would also allow us to put in place some additional assistance for renters and for people who are having difficulty reaching their payments for their mortgages. I have no other comments at this time. I recognize Kathy Shane. Yeah, I, I seconded this and as people may remember I was the person who originally bought the five and I just want to make everyone understand finance committee did look at 10. We looked at 10 and we looked at five, and there was an unanimous vote to support the five. And I think it was in part because there was a proposal for 10 and everyone said five looks a lot better, but there was an argument made. So I just want to also make it clear because I heard a couple of people say that their people are going to pay $500. $500 is for a home that's around $500,000 and Lynn and I encountered this when we went to a group of moderate income seniors who whose condos were in the 200,000 or less range and they were relieved to find out they were in the $200 range. So it's not, it's not that everyone faces 500. And the other piece of information that goes with the, what the town manager has proposed here is on Sunday. We had, and I think it's the 10th presentation of the school, which I'm glad to say got again an enthusiastic response. In fact, one person said, she was always going to vote for the school but now she's excited about it. Because she just heard about the environmental side, but Mindy Dom was there or state rep, and she stood up and she said she understands for low income renters and people living on very restricted income that we need to figure out some better ways of easing the burden. And personally, we'll go out and work on this and she had some ideas and we started talking about it so it's not just the town manager but our state rep coming in saying, we have time. And I saw some eyebrows go up on Lynn's piece on 2005 and 2008. Sean has put that out as a graph. We're borrowing bridge money initially until we get to the full burden, and that that's when you get it so it's going like this, and then up to that average. So that's where we have that three, four, five years before to bring in more money. And then if we then we're spreading the same debt exclusion over more people, potentially, when all those apartment buildings open up, you know, so that average that we're seeing now. As long as we can get the bonds for the interest rates, Sean is forecasting is unlikely to go up. It could go down just over time. So I just wanted to underscore that point, Lynn, that we have time. Thank you. I see Bob Hegner. Yeah, Lynn, I have a question about your, your motion. Is this $5 million required or is it an option if the, should the manager only be able to identify $4 million. I have to turn my mic on. My understanding is that this will give him time to develop a plan. That plan could be something that stretches over a year or two. I mean, maybe even more. And the plan maybe I can identify this much now and this much more later. It doesn't, we don't have final figures, but it allows us to take some time to look for where we can get additional funds. I don't know if that answers your question. It doesn't answer my question, but I don't oppose this idea. I think I think it actually is a good solution. But the, you're putting a $5 million marker down. And the question is what if he can only find $3 million. So that's the question I have. But regardless of what he can find, he has to come back to the council and we have to vote and they make there may be more than one vote. So it may be, we're going to vote 3 million more this year and maybe another year later, there's more 2 million we can find. It gives us opportunities, but the count he has to bring it to the council. And since it is involving financing, we will have to vote so maybe he only comes with three initially maybe he finds more later. Okay, I just wanted to make sure that this 5 million isn't like the, the only solution. The other thing I just want to make a comment and that some of the commenters tonight talked about the elementary school building being the most important project. I think it is an important project, but the other projects are important too. And I don't want to lose sight of that. My wife had a bad car crash about a month ago, and the EMTs were there very quickly and doctor the hospital very quickly. And I don't, that's important. It's important that we have a fire department that has, you know, the environment, the building that the fire department sits in is important, as well as the building that the school children sit in. I don't want to lose sight of the fact that all these projects are important. And let's not call the elementary school project, the most important project. It's the most immediate now, but it's as important as other projects. Thank you. Thank you. And I recognize Bernie Kubiak. Thank you, Andy. I think we're fortunate that OSHA doesn't have authority over municipalities. Because if they did, the most important projects that would be replacing the fire station in the DPW facility. I think the prices are less than hospitable for employees and I very much welcome the statement that was made by one of our Amherst firefighters regarding the situation and the central station. I have a great deal of respect for folks who work for the fire department folks who work for DPW. They're both critical to the town. I think this is pretty good compromise. It gives us a chance to take a look at why what what's going on in terms of housing costs and Amherst. How we can deliver some direct assistance to people who need it as opposed to shotgunning stuff out where probably 80% of the people who benefit aren't the folks that need it to begin with. I think it's representative of good management that we need to continue and Paul's been very effective at this, Sean's been very effective at this. Looking for alternative funding for the community and for projects. Also, speaking personally, I've got three grandkids in the school system. I'm retired. And as you might guess, I'm on the wrong side of 65. You don't want a fixed income. So I, I appreciate the cost of operating the town have operated a couple of towns and I've been part of this finance committee now for quite some time. I can point out that spending additional $5 million gets someone who owns a house in the $450,000 range it gets them 12 cents a day in tax relief. If you don't want to house less than that, like when I live in that's that's less money. We've had a great huge amount of savings here. It's not going to put any. It's not going to, it's not going to bring down highs and costs is that going to bring down the rinse. It's a lot of hard work that has to be done to do that and I think we have a couple of counselors who made some proposals that would would be helpful in that. So I support this revised motion. And I would hope that the members of the voting members of the finance committee will agree with it. Thank you, Brady. Lisa Walker. Thank you, Andy. I just, I have more of a process question, I guess, then to speak directly to this motions contents. But just because I think when Kathy was speaking to her agreement to the amendment and seconding it she said something about the fact that both the. Motion asking for the 5 million and the motion asking for the 10 million went to finance the 10 million was voted down the 5 million past with support from the finance. However, my frustration and confusion confusion with this process has been that it's my understanding that then both those motions go to the council and the council should have the opportunity to. Vote on both and the council has never had an opportunity to do that, not even the 5 million. And so my question is, does this then still prevent me from making the 10 million motion at the council meeting today that I have been waiting to make. Four weeks because I have continuously been told that April 3rd is the meeting where we will discuss these two motions at the council level, because to me it's appearing that Kathy's motion has been locked in despite it just being a motion to the finance committee and that the council has not yet had the opportunity to do both. And so if voting on this prior to that sort of makes my motion move or if I can still make my motion as I intended at the council level. Andy, would you like me to answer that? Please go ahead. Lisa, thank you. What I'm going to do is I'm going to answer the question and offer the council president an opportunity to add to what I'm going to say, but the process always is that the committee makes a recommendation. And it then goes to the council at that end because it's not acting, it's not adopting anything, it's only making a recommendation. So where we were left in the process was that the committee recommended the $5 million number that was Kathy's motion and that became incorporated in what was being presented as the initial motion in the end for the council, but the council actually owns the decisions in the process at the conclusion of this meeting. And so the opportunity to amend motions or to do any of the other process pieces that are in place and offering asking to offer substitute motion or whatever, maybe the proper procedure is then left to the council as a whole because the council has the power and owns the action. I'm going to stop there and see if there's anything that Lynn wants to do to supplement or amend what I said. I ask a follow up. Sorry, Lynn, if you have something. No, I was just going to say, Alicia passage of this recommendation in the finance committee does not preclude any motions you may make, or any other counselor may make tonight in the regular town council meeting about this issue. Lynn, that is very helpful and that does directly answer my question. I just wanted to then reemphasize that. Andy said the process is that once it gets passed by the finance it only is a recommendation to the council and then the council has the opportunity to visit and that still never happened to even Kathy's motion it was then just automatically included in the financial which was then referred back to the finance and so the council still has not had the opportunity to even discuss Kathy's motion separate from the financial order. And I think that is, that is a flaw of the process that we have taken here that that should have happened. And so that's pretty much all I want to say but I'm happy that I will still be able to make my motion at the council meeting. Thank you, Alicia. One thing that I just want to add is that, you know, processes are different for different kinds of actions but that in this particular matter, and the request for an appropriation which is what we deal with mostly in the finance committee, including this one gets then presented as an order. The order comes from the town manager. And so that the town manager on the recommendation of the finance committee went ahead and included the terms of Kathy's motion in the order that he presented. But it still. So that's that's where we were and that's how it came about. So I think that's the only other thing that I would add. Is there if you have a follow up please raise your hand because I certainly will recognize you of course. Oh, no, I think that's helpful. I just wanted to make that statement because I was continuously told that my motion was premature. And I'm now being told that it's slightly too late and so I don't think my motion was premature. I think the flaw was that those two motions didn't go to the council before the financial order was drafted. So I just wanted that statement to be out in the public. That statement that was out in the public was that my motion was premature, which I now believe was actually not the case. Yeah, okay thank you. So with that said, if there's no other request for discussion I think we should just come to vote on the motion that is now for the finance committee, and then we can adjourn. That concludes the matter. We can then proceed and adjourn and get back to the council as a whole. So the motion that's before us is to recommend to the town council that they request that the town manager develop options to reduce the financial impact of the debt exclusion for the elementary school building project on residents by proposing a financing plan that supplies an additional $5 million of alternative funding to be presented to the town council by November 30 2023. And that motion was made and seconded so I think that we can proceed to a vote. And of course as usual, the way we proceed with votes is that we vote the council members of the committee vote yes or no, and the resident members indicate whether they support or don't support the motion that's on the floor. So, I'm going to start with Kathy. Yes. I'm a yes. I'm just going alphabetically from where I started Alicia. I've stayed. Okay. Bob Higner. Support. And Matt. Support. Bernie, Bernie said support. Anna. Yes. And Lynn. I. So the vote is. Or in favor. Zero opposed. One abstention from the councilor members and three member resident members in support. And I think that that concludes the business the only announcement for the finance committee is that we are postponing tomorrow's meeting till later date and. So I just want to make sure that everybody's aware that the previously scheduled meeting for tomorrow will be postponed. And, and I just, I don't know whether Alicia got that, but we're also, it looks like we can have the meeting at 530 when we move it to another date so we can have it at a time you can come. Yeah, I should. Thank you for saying that Kathy. Thank you very much. And I just want to make sure the agenda for the meeting included a motion that you had made before the council that was referred you and Michelle had made regarding the stipend and other compensation. So I just wanted to let you know that that's part of what's going on here, but thank you. So with that, I think I will adjourn the finance committee. We're going to be bringing counselors back. All the counselors back into the room and back to sit with us up here. And as soon as everybody is situated, I'll call the regular town council meeting to order. All right, we're going to get started. As you return, please turn your. Video back into the room and back to sit with us up here. And as soon as everybody is situated, I'll call the regular town council meeting to order. Video back on and the invite expired for and. Oh, you need to invite Athena. Thank you. Okay, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, 10, 11, 12. Pam, you need to accept your invitation to come back in. You just need to click to be promoted as a panelist. Thank you. It is 723. It's still April 3rd. And this is a meeting, a regular meeting of the town council. As we have said in our previous meetings, we're allowed to do this because the governor has signed the extension to the open meeting law that allows us to meet this way. And again, I want to remind the audience that we are here in the town room. You can join us by zoom by phone. You can watch the live broadcast on Amherst media channel 17 or the live stream. Given that we have a quorum of the council present. I'm going to again make sure that people can hear us and we can hear them. And then proceed with the meeting. I'm calling the meeting to order at 724. I'm present. Pat D'Angelo's on a Devon got here present Lynn Greece Merse present Mandy Joe Hannity present. Anika Lopes present. Michelle Miller present. Dorothy Pam here. Pam Rooney here. Kathy Shane here. Andy Steinberg present. Jennifer top present. Alicia Walker present. Thank you. We will begin with the announcements very briefly. To be honest, there aren't any special announcements at this time. The rest of the announcements are on your agenda. I do want to note that the finance committee meeting scheduled for tomorrow at three o'clock has been postponed to a date and time to be determined so that all members of the finance committee can be there. Okay. We have no hearing tonight. So we're going to move to general public comment. I'm going to ask if there's anybody in the room that plans to make general public comment. Yes, we have one signed up. Okay. And then for those people in the audience and I just want to note there's 27 people in the audience at this time. This is the time for general public comment. If you would like to make general public comment. Please raise your hand. Okay, let's start with the person who is here in the room. Okay. Please come up. State your name. Tell us where you live. Hello. My name is Ian Redwall. I live on Pine Street in district one. The town of Amherst prides itself on the quality of education our students received neighbors move here in part on account of the schools here. Every day the teachers, para educators and school staff work hard to educate care for and keep safe the children and young people in this community. They deserve a living wage and a fair contract for their labors for their labor. The towns of Amherst, Pelham, Leveret and Shootsbury voted with a resounding majority. 85%, 80%, 83%, and 82% respectively last November to reject austerity and fully fund and staff our schools in voting yes for the fair share amendment. Proportionally Amherst had the largest level of support for the fair share amendment statewide. Why then is the school committee proposing to cut these necessary union jobs from our schools. We should not be cutting these jobs but fully funding them and making sure they have the materials they need for their classrooms. The fair share amendment brings in up to $2 billion a year annually. The school committee and the town council should be pushing our legislators to get funds for teachers para educators and school staff that make our schools such excellent places of learning. However, school committees proposed cutting of union jobs is unacceptable. This comes on top of the fact that the school committee has not met face to face with the union in nine months, choosing instead to use taxpayer money to pay an attorney to mediate for them and do the job that they were elected to do. The Amherst, Pelham Educators Association has been without a contract since at least June of 2022. Inflation has been averaging around 6 to 7% and social security cost of living adjustment for 2023 is at 8.7%. The proposed cost of living adjustment of 2.775% is a significant pay cut. One job should be enough for APA members to support themselves and their families. We must do right by our teachers para educators and school staff. Stop wasting taxpayer money on attorney fees and mediations, have the school committee do their jobs and face to face with the union and reject any and all staffing cuts. Thank you. Thank you for joining us this evening. There's two hands at this time for the in the zoom room. And so I'm going to call on Allegra Clark, please enter the room, state your name and where you live. Hi, my name is Allegra Clark, I am a resident of district two. I am worried about the budget that's proposed for the schools, both elementary and the regional schools. There are, I believe, 15 positions slated to be cut in the middle and high school, including the high school guidance 504 coordinator school adjustment counselor, a number of para educators, teachers, education teachers, and support staff support coordinators at a time where we've seen an increase in the needs of mental health of our students and mental health support. I think it's extremely troubling that we're cutting some of those support positions are proposing to do so so I hope that when the budget does come before the town council for a vote that it's voted down, and that more funding is needed to keep our schools whole. This is not a request right now of anyone from the school but I went to the middle school the other day and I looked in the library. And there are buckets, like trash barrels on top of bookshelves catching leaks from the roof. There are buckets all around with hoses coming from the roof because it is leaking. There are tiles missing. There are parts of the library they're completely caution taped off, and there are plastic tarps over the library this is the conditions that are middle school students are are learning in right now. And anecdotally I've heard stories from Fort River parents I have a Wildwood student myself but at Fort River, there were ceiling tiles that fell down the other day, luckily the kids weren't at school when it happened. They were not safe. And that takes away from the quality of education we can provide, but also not paying our teachers and para educators salaries that allow them to live in the town that they work in takes away from the quality of education we can provide. And the uncertainty about the cuts takes away from the quality of the education that people can provide when they are worried about whether or not they're going to have a job. It's difficult to do a good job. And I'm not saying our teachers are not doing a good job I think they're doing a fabulous job given all the morale deficits that there are this year. It's, it's something that we need to throw our support behind we need to fund what the budget would look like without the cuts recommended and fund what it would look like with cost of living adjustments for our educators thank you. Thank you for joining us Allegra. Athena, is there anybody else that has signed up to make public comment that is in the room. While I'm waiting for that. I just want to remind people this is public comment on other items than what we discussed you can talk about those as well but if you want to mention something about water sewer regulations, this is the time to do that. Okay. This is the time. Just a moment while. Thank you, Mr. O'Connor just come on right up. State your name and where you live and thanks for joining us in the room. So I. I listened to the presentations earlier, particularly by the representative of the Union of the folks who work in the fire EMT. Department and and I was distressed to hear their comments as I was five or six years ago to hear from the superintendent public works that is employees, especially in the maintenance garage. We're working under conditions that violated OSHA rules. I don't know what process is in place that would would allow or have this town or this council tolerate the conditions that were described six years ago by the superintendent public work or by fire department not until we build a new building but until mean out of respect for the leadership of this town, I did not file an OSHA complaint on the public works department. But I'll say that somebody ought to and somebody ought to do so with regard to the fire department now. This is these situations are intolerable. And quite frankly, I think this council ought to insist that they receive from the manager a list of things that need to be immediately be done. You know, it doesn't cost 10 million to put proper ventilation in the public works maintenance garage. They cost three to 500,000, but it doesn't cost 10 million. The idea that we have tolerated those kind of conditions as a as a means perhaps of achieving new buildings, new buildings can be achieved by I think dealing with our friends at Amherst College and UMass in part but they should not be achieved by having our employees work in conditions that are quite frankly intolerable. So I do want to say something about this school project because the five or six hundred students that will be in this new building probably not have an age where they can file OSHA complaints or grievances. The law requires parents to educate their children and the parents of the children that are going to be in the schools are parents who cannot afford to send their children to private elementary schools or do not have the resources to homeschool or charter school their children. Scores of pay professions will staff this school five days a week before during and after the school year along with countless volunteers. The total annual person hours spent inside this building dwarfs all other proposed municipal capital building projects combined by orders of magnitude. And I don't think there is any question about which project is most important and what is the most effective vehicle to communicate it's important to the public. Given the reimbursements from the state and so forth what I will say is an additional amount of money equal to the amount that has been proposed that will be reimbursed would amount to perhaps ten percent or more of the total cost to be borne by the tax payers. That is not an inconsequential percentage no matter how many dollars it is it is an important message to send to the voters because unlike this the situation that happened with the high school renovation and expansion programs that I helped salvage on the second bounce we should not presume that we can do that. This project has to pass the first time and we have to do everything we can do to convince voters to vote for it. Thank you. Thank you, Vince. I'm going to call on Ronnie Parker. Ronnie please enter the room state your name and where you live. Ronnie Parker district three. I'm calling because as I hear all these discussions and I read in the news it seems like everything always costs us three times as much as it does in East Anton or in Hadley or someplace else and I really don't understand why everything costs so much more here but and at some point if anybody can help me with that I would appreciate it but given that we do have the cost that we do I would really like to I feel like a lot of it occurs in the realm of dreams and I would really like the town council to consider focusing on people. You can have a hundred million dollars school but if you don't have good teachers you're not going to have a good education system and if you don't have a good school we're not going to get the young families that will keep this town sustainable over the long term most of us will die and that'll be the end of it. We really do need to bring in more people of all ages types and increase our population in schools are a big factor in people's decisions about being in school. I don't have any kids in school by the way so I don't know a lot of the details but I was very engaged when my daughter was in the public school system and I related very much to what the first speaker said so I would like to express my support for him and what he said. I was mostly calling in about the education system and my support for the schools but also for the teachers and all those paraprofessionals and all those people without those people a good school doesn't matter very much at all and that's been my experience I've seen a lot of them in my former residence so I want to ask for a focus on the people and this also brings me to the emergency services that I had reason to be in touch with and I know how amazing they were they're really really good but when I heard about the conditions in which they work I was quite horrified and I said to them that they need to be advocating with their representative to get to have clean air where they work and apparently there are union there are rules that prevent them from doing that so I wanted to be sure I spoke up for them there are lots of little things like that that have to do with the people in this town and I do hope that you will focus on them I think I better stop I can't really see the clock so I hope I haven't gone over thank you thank you Amber Kano Martin please enter the room state your name and where you live hi everyone I'm Amber Kano Martin I live at 318 Grant Wood Drive and I just wanted to comment now this portion of the meeting specifically about the hello is there a reason we can't hear her hello yes now we can hear you Amber okay did you catch my address yes and we you started in and then all of a sudden it stopped so please go ahead okay thank you yeah hello Amber yeah you all are frozen for me I don't know if you can hear me we can you're going in and out my guess is that your computer is freezing okay do you want to come back to me if you have someone else just come back to me that's fine let's try that and see if you can stabilize your computer Carol Gray please enter the room state your name and where you live yes hi Carol Gray live in South Amherst so I just wanted to echo what earlier speakers said about the importance of the school budget and I'll add a few things to the comment I made earlier I think that we're not thinking creatively enough about how to save jobs and how to prioritize kids needs in the schools that it troubles me greatly that we're cutting the most vulnerable people for staff in the school system the Paris who many of whom don't make a living wage those jobs especially on the back of COVID I just what kind of community are we that we're cutting the people who are the lowest paid on the total pool and we could do other things so when I was a public defender some years back there was a budget crisis and they said we would like to do a six week furlough we'd like people to voluntarily not work on Fridays for six weeks because we're committed to not cutting jobs and I took a furlough for six weeks and on Fridays and a lot of people did and no jobs were cut and I just it just seems like a real lack of creativity and a lack of caring that we're we're talking about cutting more than a dozen jobs and frankly I remember in town meeting that I would have seen that wouldn't happen people would have taken money they would have said cancel two police cars we need to keep the Paris jobs keep we need to keep those librarians they would have figured out we would have figured out ways to move money around and I don't see that happening and I find that very troubling in terms of the vote coming up with the override I assume that you folks have seen that The teachers union may be calling for people to vote no on the override because they're really at rock bottom. Their demands are reasonable and yet they're being completely ignored over many, many months and it's very demoralizing for the teachers and the parents as well and the students. In terms of what you could do to try to, I'm sympathetic that the DPW needs renovations as does the library. So both are historic buildings and you could get CPA funds to do some repairs, some restoration work. You could do a very big tag CPA community preservation act project that would be bonded out over a period of 10 years. So you could that we have to that that this board is committed to spending $195 million on four capital projects that as another speaker said are like a $50 million library. That sounds like something NASA would build. Why are we the most expensive buildings anywhere? And there need to be ways to do this more creatively and you have to prioritize the teachers jobs and their fair wages and I don't see that happening. And that's not what the public wants. The public wants the teachers taken care of. Please agree to their demands and I would recommend you do it before the override vote because you could be harming an issue that you care a lot about by not supporting the teachers. Thank you for your comment. Amber Kano Martin, do you want to try it again? OK, is this better? We can hear you. All right, sorry about that. Bad connection. Yeah, so Amber Kano Martin, I live at 318 Grantwood Drive. So at this portion of the meeting, I just wanted to specifically address the school budget issue, something I've spoken on before at the school committee meetings. Now it's coming to you all. And so I really am concerned about the fact that the budget does not include enough to cover the very reasonable contract proposals that the APA is making in terms of wages. And in fact, it's still cunning as far as I can tell, seven para educator positions, which is really, really sad that that's where we the point we've gotten to in this town where, you know, we're valuing these big infrastructure projects over actual educators who are playing a key role in the daily lives of our children. And again, I support the school building project. I want a new school. I know how hard it was for the community to come together on this. But we cannot do it on the backs of our educators in the backs of our para educators. Because, again, as we've all said, who is going to be in this building once we have the beautiful building? What's going to happen inside of it? Are we going to have enough staff? Is it going to be quality staff? We're going to people going to go to other districts where they can make a living wage or find other jobs, right? So I think that this body now it's in your hands and you need to come up with a way as, you know, other speakers have said to fully fund the teachers contract, including the wage proposals that they've made. We have to find a way to get the school building done, right? And I, you know, I understand that there are other building projects in the pipeline, right? So, you know, we have to think creatively, you know, as other speakers have said, you know, what are the things that this town really needs? What are our values? What things might we be overfunding right now? And what things might we be underfunding? A lot of us worked really hard to pass the fair share amendment. I know I was out there getting signatures for that. Where's that money? When's that money coming in? Why aren't we fighting for that? Why aren't we fighting for our institutions of higher education in this town to provide some kind of contribution to our schools, right? Some kind of funding. So we just, we have to do some creative thinking, as others have said. And, you know, finally, you know, $50 million on a library that's in little old Amherst math. I just want to say, you know, I have had higher education myself. I've had access to many beautiful libraries. I do most of my library stuff online now. I use my Kindle, so do my kids. You know, why is this a priority? Why aren't we cutting teachers who our kids actually need in order to have a $50 million library? You know, this does not have to be a done deal. I think we can be big people, big adults and say, hey, we made a mistake. Maybe this is not actually feasible. Let's rethink this, because now we're cutting operating budgets. Now we're cutting personnel in our schools. That's not okay. So let's rethink this. And I thank you all for your time. Thank you. There's one other person to make public comment that has not spoken during this public comment. So I'm going to call on them. Jeff Lee, please enter the room, state your name and where you live. Thanks, I'm Jeff Lee from Southeast Street. And I know the town council has considered reducing the time allotted for public comment to keep your meetings moving along more quickly. I hope the variety of comments tonight will impress upon you the real value of robust public comment. I've sure enjoyed hearing what all the commenters tonight have said. Also, I went out to the town's website where you store public comments. And I was disappointed to see that it hasn't been updated since March 20th. I was expecting with a public forum being held tonight that we'd be able to see more recent comments that would have to do with this topic. So I just wanted to pass that along. Thank you. Thank you. Carol Gray, you've spoken before. Is there anything you need to add at this time? Sorry, my hand was meant to be down. Thank you. That concludes Ronnie Parker, your hand you were also spoke before. Is there anything you feel you need to add? Yes, I'm so sorry and thank you for recognizing me twice. My goodness, this is great. It was about the other issue that had to do that I don't understand, but the one that had to do with public, it's on your agenda. It had to do with the public connections to homes and whether the owner should pay for that or whether it should be a town thing because the town owns part of the street. It's like, I think it's like water and gas pipelines that come into your house. I just wanted to speak about that in favor, strongly stating that it is very unfair to have homeowners pay for that if things break sort of on our property, but actually the infrastructure involved belongs to the public sector. So I would like to advocate to have the town take that over. We've had that happen to us in another house and the town did pay for that, which is fair because that's not really a thing that we own ourselves and it can be very expensive for people to cover that. Thank you. Thank you. So this is the end of our general public comment. There is no other public comment this evening associated with this or any other agenda item. So with that, we'll conclude public comment. We're going to move on to the consent agenda. The following items were selected because they were considered to be routine and it was reasonable to expect they would pass with no controversy to remove an item from the consent agenda for discussion later in the meeting after I read the agenda, which is the consent agenda, which is on your screen, you ask that an item be removed, this does not require a second. So the motion is as follows. To move the following items and the printed motions there under and approve those items as a single unit, 6A adoption of the 2023 Children's Mental Health Awareness Day and Week Proclamation. 6B adoption of 2023, Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month proclamation. 6C adoption of universal free lunch resolution. 8G adoption of the proposed water use regulation bylaw. 8G adoption of proposed sewer use regulations bylaw. 8H adoption of proposed water regulations. 8H adoption of proposed sewer regulations. 8I approval of the May 2nd special election warrant. 11A to B, A to B approval of the following meeting minutes, March 20th, 2023, regular town council meeting minutes, March 27th special town council meeting minutes, elementary school building project appropriations and debt authorization. Dorothy, you have your hand up. Yes, I'm not gonna ask to have the 8Gs and Hs removed at this time, but for the purpose of public clarification, I think that we should, and I probably don't have the right words, remind that the present regulations do not include changing the ownership of pipes that are not on the person's personal property that are on the public road, but that we had a motion or promise or something in writing, I don't quite know how strong it is, that said in two years time, I believe that this would be revisited. And I also, a statement from Guilford Mooring from DPW, saying that when they had to repair things of that type, they would do actions that would be rational if one were, in fact, in the future, going to have the town take over the pipes that are in the public way. Because I totally agree that this is something the town should pay for, but as we can see from the arguments and the fights we've been having over the last number of meetings, right now, we are focusing on getting to the school and the debt restructuring passed. So we're not gonna do that now, but there is a promise. Okay, so either under G and H tonight, that motion could be made, that motion could also be brought to a future town council meeting as early as the 24th of April. It doesn't have to happen when we adopt the regulations and bylaws, it could happen in three weeks. Does that answer your question, Dorothy? Well, when you said that motion, what motion are you thinking? The motion that was asking for a study and to come back and revisit this in two weeks, in two years. Oh, I thought we had passed that. So you're alerting me that something that I thought was there has not been done. Okay, Anna, do you wanna speak to this? Yes, please. Dorothy, I'm writing that motion and I have run out of time to finish writing it, so it's coming, it's just not here yet, but I'm happy to take any questions or feedback you have on it as I'm crafting it. Okay, thank you so much. And I note to the audience, we have Elsie Federman who is someone who has strong feelings on this subject, which I concur with, but thank you, Anna, for working on writing that. I appreciate that. Okay, so at this time, I believe we are not removing anything from the consent agenda. Okay, is there a second? Shane seconds. Okay. Any further comment or question? Okay, I'm going to start with Pat DeAngelis. Anna Devlin-Goth here. I. Lynn Griezmursen, I. Mandy Johannike. I. Annika Lopes. I. Michelle Miller. I. Dorothy Pam. Yes. Pam Rooney. Yes. Kathy Shane. Yes. Andy Steinberg. I. Jennifer Taub. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalani Balmilne. Yes. It's unanimous. Just very quickly, we are going to have a couple of the last portions of each of the resolutions read as is our practice for the Children's Mental Health Awareness Week Proclamation. Dorothy, are you prepared for that? Yes. Now therefore be it resolved that the Amherstown Council proclaims May 11, 2023 to be Children's Mental Health Awareness Day and May 7 to 13, 2023 as Children's Mental Health Week to help cultivate awareness for all residents of Amherst. Thank you. The 2023 Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month Proclamation. Mandy Jo. Thank you. This one reads, now therefore we the Amherstown Council do hereby proclaim the month of May as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month and ask that you join us in the town's Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month celebration on May 7, 2023 from noon to 4 p.m. Okay. And Universal Free School Lunch Resolution, Jennifer Topp. Yes. Thank you. And this is a resolution, not a proclamation. And it reads, now therefore be it resolved that we call on state leaders and legislators to pass bills HD 766 and SD 1013 to make universal free breakfast and lunch permanent in all public schools with the state covering costs, not covered by federal funds and schools actively promoting the supplemental nutrition assistance program to families. Be it further resolved that we further call for the immediate passage of a supplemental budget to fund universal free school meals for the remainder of the current school year which will run out of funds this March without additional state action. Be it further resolved that we invite other local officials and school committees to call on their state representatives to do the same. Thank you. Thank you. And actually that bill has passed, which is terrific news. Okay, we're going to move on to the action items and let me just pause for a moment and say that if at any time, anytime a counselor has a question about process, about number of votes, we will take a pause to make sure that it's understood, okay? I wanna make sure that people, this is the time, this next section of our action items is about the elementary school, okay? And I'm going to start, I'm going to place the first motion on the table and then I'm going to recognize Alicia Walker who I understand will have a motion. Alicia, do you have a question at this time? I didn't have a question, but I wanted to move that the town council requests that the town manager amend the authorization order, FY 23, 060 to change the amount of funding to be transferred from the capital stabilization fund from $5 million to $10 million. And so the text would be changed to strike, the $5 million shall be transferred to pay costs of this project from the town's capital stabilization fund and would be replaced with $10 million shall be transferred to pay costs of this project from the town's capital stabilization fund. Is there a second? Second, Rooney. Okay. Alicia, would you like to speak to your motion? Yes, I would. So, essentially my focus as an at-large counselor has been and representing the town is always to consider what I can do to help my constituents. And since I was first involved in the school project more than a year ago that I have been serving on the elementary school building committee, I have been trying to raise awareness to the cost of the school itself and to do whatever I can to help keep the cost down so that we can get a new school for our town. And so that everyone who currently lives here can continue to live here and enjoy the new school building. Early on, the budget for the school was 80 million and the estimate for the override was about 40 million. And we now know that both are much higher. And it is my belief that as a council we should be working to offset those increases rather than put the entire burden onto our residents. Since the fall, I have been trying to get a discussion going of how to finance the school. And for the past month, I have been trying to give the full council an opportunity to consider and vote on committing 10 million of the reserves to reduce the impact of the school project on residents and have, as many of you know, had to overcome many obstacles to be able to present this motion tonight. My first proposal was actually 15 million because I had moved to include 10 million from reserves and Kathy had proposed the fives. And so I was saying, well, we can do both because the finance committee, once they were presented with both of our motions were saying, well, we have to pick one or the other. There's no way we can do both. And so in an attempt to appeal to mine, I said, listen, we can do both. There is no reason why Kathy's approval will not allow my 10 million to be used as well. And so I'm understanding that Kathy's is expected to be mostly replenished through the energy rebates. And so for that reason, and because there was, I understand there are other capital projects and there was not much support for a $15 million deduction to the capital stabilization fund. I decided to revisit my proposal and change it to an additional five million, additional two Kathy's five million, which would be rebated. So essentially looking for five million to be pulled from the stabilization fund in addition to a five million, that will be hopefully rebated. This evening, we're likely going to hear a number of other motions and legal arguments, which are in my opinion, intentionally trying to confuse the matter before us and prevent a vote of the full council on the 10 million. And if at any point you start to feel lost as to what is being talked about and voted on, please remember that all I am trying to do here is help our residents by reducing the override by 10 million. That is my goal. The financial order in our packet this evening includes Kathy's five million, but not my motion yet again. It has yet to make it into a packet, although I handed it to the finance committee in a timely manner over a month ago. And a memo from the town manager and a legal opinion from KP law that now claims that we actually cannot increase the amount that is proposed. Although I have been told for over a month that I made my motion prematurely and that tonight would be the night to make that emotion. And so I want to take a second to express my deep frustration with this process. And it has been yet another obstacle put in my way to trying to figure out how we can tangibly help our residents. I really appreciate the memo that has been included in the packet tonight, Paul's memo that suggests that finding five million elsewhere as an alternative to my motion to using the reserves is possible. It's being described as a tangible action, but in my opinion, a more tangible action would be to commit the reserves now. And if you find more money elsewhere later, it can then replenish the reserves that I'm asking to be committed tonight. In my opinion, the motion is not strong enough and there are no repercussions if it is unsuccessful. In addition, this motion has not been discussed before and unless there were people who attended the finance committee meeting on Tuesday which I was not one of them, it's unlikely that the public was aware before this meeting of these options. And so I want to take this opportunity to put my motion for 10 million on the floor as I have been told that this is the right time to do so. And if this vote does not go through, I plan to propose an amendment to Paul's motion that I hope will make a stronger motion, create accountability, and that will assure it will result in reducing the debt for the school and the impact on residents. I hope that we can all agree that we need to make real commitments and promises and that we need to find a way to both pass the school building project and ensure that there is little impact on our residents. The motion has been made and seconded. Are there comments or questions? Dorothy. Well, people have been asking me all week what I was going to do. And it reminded me of a story about a mother who had a lot of children and she was asked, which do you love the most? And like we are hearing and being asked to do about which we love the most, is it the school, is it the firehouse with the EMTs as the DPW? And the mother replied that the one who is sick and in trouble is the one that she loves the most until they get well, or the one who's being seriously challenged or the one who needs her help now, as any loving mother would do and just doing the best that you can. So right now the school needs our help, the debt restructuring must be passed by two thirds of those who choose to come out for a vote. And I want to thank Alicia who has dead-fastly made us think about those people who cannot afford the continuing tax increases. And that's people of all ages, seniors and fixed incomes, it's families with young children, the young children we need to keep the town alive. And these continuing tax increases which make it more and more difficult to be enamored. And having listened to the finance meeting the other day it was, I just want to remind you, money is real and money is symbolic, okay? It's really nothing, it's something you can use, okay? And so the new proposal to increase the town's contribution is both real and symbolic statement that we are responsibly doing the best we can. So I am more or less trusting in the new motion but I'm gonna vote with Alicia because she has worked so hard to get this motion before the town council and has been stopped at all places. And I so admire her persistence to try to do this. And today, again, I was out in the world and this weekend I was out in the world talking to people, they are concerned, they are very concerned. Yes, some people can reduce it to pennies a day but showing that we're doing the very best we can and that we're trying to do something about it is, it means something to people. And it means that if they're more apt to come out and vote for the debt restructuring, if they feel that there's a serious commitment on the part of the town to make it as less onerous as possible. So I will support this motion at this time. I'm sorry, why? Okay, we have a request for the clock. We could take the motion down so that we can see the clock. I also, I just wanna correct one issue, Dorothy. The council has to vote two thirds for the bonding. The public has to vote at 50% plus one. Thank you. Mandy, Joe. Really important. Thank you, Lynn. I do have to constantly get that clarified. Thank you. Yeah, just wanted to make sure nobody thinks it's two thirds for the public. I was gonna clarify that whole, that same thing. I'm not gonna speak long on this. I just have a question. The capital stabilization fund does not have $10 million in it. So where else would the difference between what it does have in it to bring it down to zero and get up to 10 million? Would councilor Walker propose the money come from? Alicia, did you wanna answer that? Yeah, so in all of our reserves in total, we have just about 24 million. And so just as we have done any other time to put money into the stabilization fund, I would assume that it would be the same similar process to have the difference of, what is it? 0.2 million moved to that fund or to be used from the other reserves, which can also be allocated to this project. But I think what I'm asking is for the town manager to come up with this configuration. And so I think he would know how to get the 10 million from the total reserves and how to apply it to this financial order. Okay. Any further question manager? Okay, Andy. So I'm speaking as a councilor, not on behalf of the finance committee. I am concerned, however, because of my years of experience with financial management and finances of the town that the motion on the floor is not sound financial policy. We're in a very difficult circumstance within the town because of the numerous factors that affect us including our inability to really raise the kind of money that some communities have because we don't have the extent of commercial development that other communities have. And we have a lot of land that is not taxable. And we get very little pilot money from the university property. But it's not on our tax roll nor is Amherst College, nor is Hampshire College. The couple of things just really quickly. One is that as far as the various kinds of reserves which we're just referred to, one is to protect our cash flow and the other is for a rainy day fund so avoid a crisis if a crisis occurs. We are in very uncertain financial times that we're taking on if we take from other than the capital stabilization fund huge financial risks that we're gonna have to devastate the town and curtail programs that currently exist and have been recently added. I think that that would be very unsound financial planning to take away the stability that we have and the bond rating that we have that can lower our borrowing costs. The other thing is about the fire station and the DPW facility. You've heard a lot about it. I don't have to repeat it tonight because you've already heard it. We do have now a potential location on town on land. We can move forward with fire station within a reasonably brief period of time in comparison to other projects but we need the capital stabilization fund to do so. We can't take more away from the capital stabilization fund and then replenish it when it's available. That is something that needs to be available for us now. And the last thing that I would say is we've made a number of decisions over the years about schools not building the last elementary school project for $67 million and choosing the more expensive site at Fort River. I think they're both excellent decisions making for an excellent school but now with the consequence comes back to us to try and find how to finance it. Thank you. Alicia. Thank you, sorry. I just wanted to respond to a few things because I, like I said, I've been working on this for a very long time and although it has been very frustrating to be on the other side of all of these roadblocks, it has been helpful in terms of hearing what the concerns on the other side are and I think those have been made very clear to me and so it has given me more time to think about those very real concerns that are on the other side of using this money. And so some of my thoughts on that are that so taking this I understand out of the stabilization funds still leaves 18% in the stabilization fund in total and so in no way is this depleting the fund at all. Like it is not zeroing us out. It's not leaving us with nothing. We still have the rainy day fund but also that's not what I'm talking about here and these are not funds that we take from on a regular basis for any ongoing needs. So I know, I think Andy you said something about curtailing things that we have already started but none of those things are relying on funds from the stabilization fund anyhow. These are funds that we try not to use on a regular basis and so I don't think that it would have any effect. The second piece is that I was also very happy to hear that the memo that Paul put forward in the packet was something that is being thought of and looked into because again, I think people were comfortable or were it with allocating 5 million from the reserves because of the potential of it being reimbursed with the tax credits. And so now Paul's memo and ideas give us another avenue for reimbursement. So what I am hoping would happen and I know this would be a two piece and that I don't make any decisions on my own but my vision here now to appeal to both sides is that we allocate the additional 5 million to this project that is happening right now that the vote is about a month away and that we ask for the town manager to continue to look for those additional funds to then replenish that and to put them back into the stabilization fund because again, I know we may have a space for the fire station but we have not gone through the entire process that we've gone through with the elementary school building. Like we don't have a committee looking at these things. We don't have the building plan. We don't have, we're not nearly as far along in the process as we are here with the elementary school building and if the town manager thinks that it's appropriate to say that by November or such that we may be able to identify other funding sources, that's great. We can use those funding sources to then replenish the reserves. So that is my appeal to both sides tonight in trying to hear the concerns on the other side but still help constituents who will be very negatively impacted by this. And sorry, I see the clock running out. Thank you. Michelle. Thank you. First, I'm really happy that Alicia was finally able to make the motion tonight. And as a side note, or not a side note but I mean, primary think is that we do take an honest look at the process that we followed and communicate accountability for any mistakes that we made so that we can commit to doing better in the future. And I wholeheartedly support and respect Alicia's perspective on this matter. I also wholeheartedly support reducing the burden to taxpayers by at least 10 million. And while I understand the importance of securing what we can now, I am comfortable combining five million from reserves now and with five million to be identified over the next six months. I would like to see some additional language added to the motion, to Paul's motion that's in the packet to ensure that if Paul is unable or if the finance department is unable to identify the full five million there will be an appropriation for the difference from reserves but that comes at a later part in the meeting. And I also wanted to add that I grew up playing a lot of monopoly with my family. And one of the primary lessons I learned is that when it starts to look like you're gonna lose it's time to sell something. With that in mind, I suggest that we expedite the process of determining uses for some of our facilities, particularly the Southeast campus. There are others, a quick look at some of these property values tell me that we could realize a significant profit and that we could also potentially meet some of our community and housing goals. So I know that's something the finance committee had previously talked about looking at facilities but I would suggest to the council that we ask the town manager to expedite looking at some of these properties that are sitting vacant, collecting dust and diminishing in value when we could potentially be selling them or providing some other use for receiving, creatively thinking about other ways that we could be receiving revenue from those properties. It is disheartening to hear all of the various demands and all of the people in need and the community in need and then to know that we have these properties that we could be working with to offset some of these things. So that's what I have for right now, thank you. I'd like the clerk of the town council to put the motion back up. Okay, so this is to move that the town council request that the town manager amend authorization or FY23-06C to change the amount of funding to be transferred from the capital stabilization fund from my 5 million to 10 million so that the text is changed as follows. Strike the text that reads $5 million shall be transferred to pay costs of this project from the town's capital stabilization fund and replace it with $10 million shall be transferred to pay costs of this project from the town's capital stabilization fund. Having reviewed this, I would like to ask if the town manager has any comment about this with regard to the legal opinion that we received? Thank you, Lynn. So yeah, so this was complicated. It's a very simple straightforward motion and so I appreciate Councilor Walker is making it very simple to understand and I think we all understand that it's moving $5 million to $10 million, sorry. When we craft the financial orders, we have them reviewed by our bond council, by our town council, we go through the MSBA and we are very careful about the wording because when we are borrowing money, the people who are borrowing, the bond agencies come and look at every item that we've taken, they wanna make sure we've had our finance committee, the funding is there and all those things. So this order would ask me to go back and create a new financial order and which would start our process over, which is doable. We would repost it, we would create a new order, we would review the order with our bond council, our town council and with the MSBA as written. So I think that that's, the council should be aware. So we would ask you not to vote on the actual order tonight until we brought back to you at order that was actionable. If this is the intent of the council to move from five million to 10 million, that would be a requirement. Either order will require a two-thirds vote at the town council ultimately. So that's what we need to do. So is that the type of information you're speaking? Either financial order would require two-thirds but the motion that is on the floor is to amend. And that would require a majority of those people present and voting. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. The motion is a request that the town manager amend, not on the order itself. The motion is a request, okay? That the town manager amend. Alicia? Thank you, Lynn. So I just wanted to state that, thank you Paul for sharing and my interpretation of the legal opinion from KP log was slightly different. It does state direct excerpt from the opinion. In my further opinion, while there is no prohibition against the town manager submitting an amended loan order, the charter does not clearly address whether such action would require the legislative approval process to begin anew. And there is nothing in the charter that says we would have to restart the process. If you look at where the charter is explanation of how appropriation should be handled and so it's not actually clear to me that we would have to restart the entire process. But it's also made very clear in the legal opinion that it's also not clear to them. So there is nowhere that states definitively that we would need to restart the entire process in order to make this amendment. Do you have? Yes. No, I appreciate that. And I think, I mean, the first sentence of that orders in my opinion, in order for the town council to change the proposed funding source for the project, the town manager would need to submit a new or amended order proposing the same. So I would need time to go and create that new order to submit it. And secondly, this is a, again, as I said earlier, I think it's important for us to get this right. And it's much more important for us to go through our contacts with the bond council who's expressed concern about this to our town attorney with the town attorney and with the MSBA. So we bring back an order that you can vote on that will meet the standards that are expected of us. And so when we go to borrow, it'll stand up. And if, okay, I'm not gonna comment on that. Kathy? I just wanna say, I think it's critical we vote on the order tonight. I'm up to 12 talks. Sean has a calculator up. We have to redo that and the ballots are going out. I think delay at this point doesn't show, doesn't speak to the unbelievable excitement about this school and the amount of effort that's going into it. So I will be voting no against this motion as I did the first time in finance because I think we need to keep the reserves. And we're talking about buildings, but we need to also talk about roads. We need to talk about sidewalks. We need, these are capital needs having just sat through JCPC and looking at how hard it is to squeeze out money. And I just wanna make one comment on looking up to the state we need to be focusing on the state. Our road money from the state has not changed by a dollar since 2012. It's been frozen. It doesn't even buy a mile anymore. So what we're getting is a squeeze and we really need to be worrying about that, right now that's our resource to tap into. And you go out a couple of years and we're gonna cut the road budget unless we start thinking about reserves. So I think a delay tonight would be send the wrong message. And the one other thing I just wanna say is the first time I met MSBA, it sounds like I'm meeting an animal or something, but I got to be in a meeting with them and they said, are you sure you're ready to go this time? And we assured them we were ready to go this time and it's been a constant question because they've got so many schools in the pipeline. And so I just feel fortunate that they have endorsed this project. They've endorsed every space in it and they've really been reaching out and working with us. So I'm really hope we can vote on this tonight. Thank you, Dorothy. I find these rulings truthfully abhorrent. I like Quaker sense of the meeting. So I'm asking, is there some way that we can proceed? Kathy's right, the ballots are going out. We've got to move, we've got to be ready to go. Alicia suggested that if there was some firmer language in Paul's motion, that she would find it satisfactory. Is there some way in which we can move towards that and vote on the motion which the powers that be have said we can vote on? I mean, I'll never follow when we can and when we can't. So it's, and I can't explain it to people and they're fed up, they're fed up with what's going on at the meetings. So can we behave in a more like human comprehensible fashion and see if there's some way in which we can do a motion tonight that we can support all of us and move forward on this so that the voters know that we're behind this debt restructuring and they can go to the polls and they can vote for it. And then we can move on to the other as have been pointed out so many times in the crucial needs of this town. So I'm asking Lynn and I'm asking Paul. Finance committee has two motions that they have now passed and recommended to the council. Those motions can be brought forward at any time. However, the motion on the table right now is the one that Alicia has made and it has been seconded by Pam Rooney. The council needs to either make a decision about this motion so we can move on to the others. And that's what we would need to do. Alicia? You see. Yes, thank you. I just wanted to speak to what Kathy said because I very much understand that as a real concern too and so a lot of the communication I've been doing today was to try to figure out how I can present my motion without there being a delay and without having to present a new financial order. And with all due respect, I do have to point out that the delay, if any, is a result of the flawed process in which I was not allowed to make my motion in a timely manner and was told that today was the day and I'm now told that we cannot afford any more delays but you all made me wait until today. So I think that's something we should sit with because that's very frustrating for me because I also do not want any delays. But again, in reading the legal opinion and looking at the charter, there is nothing that states we would have to delay the process because there is amendment made. It states that only if there were a new financial order that were to increase the total amount of the authorization which I am not asking to increase the total amount or if there were different funding sources identified and I am not identifying new funding sources. So my argument is that I do not believe that according to the legal opinion, we would need to restart the entire process to make an amendment to this financial order. We might need to, I hear Paul saying, we want to keep our ducks in a row and so we may need to check back in with them but there's no indication that this would definitely require an entire new order with an entire new process. Thank you. Alicia. I'm sorry, Andy. Yeah, I want to correct one thing and I'm sorry that Alicia was not at the last finance committee meeting but we had a healthy discussion about the motion and because we recognized that the question of the additional $5 million was on the table, that was the discussion at the finance committee and there was a substantial discussion about it and I'm sorry that Alicia was unable to attend and that we didn't know about that in advance for the night before the meeting and I think that's where we ran into really unfortunate and regrettable problem and I've been working very hard to get the finance committees rescheduled as far as the time is concerned so that we don't run into this problem again and recognize that Alicia's now made a request but it was the subject and I refer you to the finance committee report in the packet that after a healthy discussion about the issue all of the committee members present including the resident members of the committee took a unanimous position on the question. So I think that that's important to understand but the other thing that I was just going to since I hit the floor in one minute left the stabilization funds and I think that we do have to get some clarification because the way the motion is written that states from a stabilization fund doesn't have $10 million in it and I think that that is itself a problem but we don't know, we give a rainy day fund we don't know when it's gonna rain in 2008 and I've talked about 2008 before, before this council we didn't know that there was gonna be a crisis at hand until it happened and it happened really quickly and it happened hard and we would have been in a dire circumstance of a tremendous layoffs within all departments of the town had we not had the ability to buffer it out and so to take away from the stabilization fund the general stabilization fund is dangerous financial practice. Shalini? Yeah, I feel that I can understand Alicia's frustration that this motion has come only at this point. The way I've been thinking, I mean, we've been discussing this for the past I don't know how many meetings so I really appreciate Alicia you bringing that attention and focus and persistent effort for us to think about it and I think that's what's got us to this point at every stage in the finance committee and then coming back to us and then us discussing we have been discussing whether it's prudent to pull in 10 million or 5 million and it sounds like that's what has led to this newer motion that is saying, okay, let's move forward with the guarantee that Paul is gonna find a way. So I don't feel like you were shut down and I hope that's not what you're feeling because I'm trying to at every point I'm hearing is that it is not prudent to take more from the reason why these reserves are built it's based on assumptions and those assumptions are based on past facts and numbers and it's all about decreasing a probability of trying to build what we want to build. So that being said, I think that's the reason why we are at this point and making that motion now because we have come to a place where we've gathered more information and so based on what I'm hearing I like what the proposal is the other motion that's there maybe it would be helpful Paul to give a clarification you mentioned that the debt person or lawyer consulted is not very excited about drawing 10 million from our reserves and you said he was cautioning us about or something you said, could you speak more to what is his concern about drawing this 10 million? Is my question clear? Yes, Paul. So it wasn't the concern wasn't about drawing 5 million or 10 million from the reserves it was about changing the number after it's been posted on the bullet board and had gone through the review of all the different bodies and so his advice was not to change the number unless you start the process over it wasn't about financing it necessarily choosing the five or $10 million the bond council is just saying is the order actionable by the council and when the bonding agencies come to look at it they look at the language that you vote this is one of the most important decisions that town council will take we have to make sure that it's right if the number is going to change we have to make sure everybody the funding sources are in order and all the MSBA and all of our town attorneys have reviewed the new language. Right and then what I'm hearing again is then we have to again look at the consequences on our bonding rate and all of those things. So if I could and I think there if the number was changing any amount upwards that's what that's where the concern was so I think that it's about making sure that the language that you get and when we give it to you that all the attorneys have reviewed it everybody said this is good and now the council can act on it and so that's what we would do we would go back and review the new language that you wanted to see and review it with our attorneys and with the MSBA. Okay. Alicia. I would like to call the question. Okay. Questions been called. Second. So we need to vote on whether we're going to go ahead with call the question. That's not a debatable question or vote. It's not a debatable motion. This is what I should have said. Okay. So the question's been called that motion's been made and seconded. We're going to begin with Anna Devlin-Gothier. Yes. Lynn Griezmer is an I, Mandy Johanicki. I. Anika Lopes. I. Michelle Miller. I. Dorothy Pam. Yes. Pam Rooney. Yes. Kathy Shane. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Yes. Jennifer Taub. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalini Balmille. Yes. Patty Angelis. Aye. Okay. We're going to go to the question that motion that's on the floor and one more time. Athena, please put that motion up. It's moved that the town council request the town manager amend authorization order FY23-06C to change the amount of funding to be transferred from the capital stabilization fund from 5 million to 10 million. And the rest tells how to do that. That's the question on the floor. There's no more debate. So I'm going to begin the voting with Lynn Griezmer. I am a nay. Mandy Johanicki. No. Anika Lopes. No. Michelle Miller. No. Dorothy Pam. Abstain. Pam Rooney. Yes. Kathy Shane. Andy Steinberg. No. Jennifer Taub. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalini Balm-Milm. Yeah. Did you say I didn't hear you, Shalini? No. No. Thank you. Pat DeAngeles. No. Anna Devon-Gothier. No. There's three in favor. Nine opposed. One abstention. And no absences. So I'm going to go to the motion that was on the motion sheet, which is actually the following. Let me make sure I get it. The request that the town manager develop options to reduce the financial impact of the debt exclusion for the elementary school building project on residents by proposing a financial plan that identifies an additional five million of alternative funding to present it to the town council by November 30th, 2023. Is there a second? Shane Seconds. I'm going to just briefly speak to the motion I did in finance committee when I brought it up earlier. This gives us time, and we have time. The first that it will appear on people's bills, we are told, is not until 2023 and 2025. We will finally authorize the full bonding. Now, but we won't even take out the loans until we start the building process. And then we will turn it into a financial package sometime, possibly as late as 2028. And so what this does is ask the town manager and frankly asks the council to work with him to find an additional five million. I support this motion because of the case that Alicia has made in her various comments. And I support this motion because I also have heard from my residents, my constituents, about the tax burden. So I'm going to, with that call on Anna Devlin-Goth here. I have a question about this. So why five? Why five million? What is the impact of five versus seven versus three versus what impact do you make with five that you wouldn't make with three that feels like enough to justify five? And similarly, why not make it higher? I think I'd like some more rationale from you or whoever else is supporting the motion about why specifically five. Sean, you have your hand up. Yeah, I'll just say quickly that Paul's memo says five million dollars or more. So I think the conversation has been around an additional five. And I think the memo is to say, you know, we hear that and we'll try to beat that if we can. So can I follow up? Yes, please. So I think that for me, one of the reasons the original five was in there was looking at the rough amount in the capital stabilization fund. And so I'm curious if it makes, I think I'm trying to figure out if that's not pulling from the capital stabilization fund, should we be looking at a different number? Is five still appropriate? Would you like to make an amendment? No, I am asking for, if there was different rationale behind five other than that it was the same as the original. I was going with the five to match Alicia's request for five. Okay, thank you. That was, and to match the memo that we received from the town manager which he discussed with Sean. Okay, so it's a number out of the hat if you want to but has some logic. Andy. Yeah, I just needed to make the finance committee report. As you know, we had a meeting two of three meetings tonight was finance committee meeting and there had been a motion that was left over from the last finance committee meeting that was postponed until after the forum which is why we had to have the second meeting. That was withdrawn with the agreement of the person who made the motion and the seconder and this motion that is now before us was put forward as a substitute for the motion that had been on the floor. It passed of the voting members of the committee, foreign favor, zero opposed, one abstention and the three resident members of the committee were in support. Okay. And there's another full finance committee report from the meeting last week that's in your packet. Alicia. I would like to make an amendment. Okay. Does the clerk have your amendment? Yes. Okay. Please go ahead. So I would like to amend the motion as follows. So I would like to first change the date to October 2nd for the town manager to come back to the town council. That's exactly six months. And then adjust the language as following or add the following language to the end. So the motion would stay as is and then add the additional and should funds comprising the additional five million not be secured and guaranteed by the state, the town manager shall be requested to direct an amount equal to the difference between five million and what has been secured, but not to exceed a total of five million to be drawn from the stabilization account to fund the elementary school. Should any alternative funding opportunities emerge at a later date, those dollars shall as possible and appropriate go back into the stabilization fund to replenish to replenish those accounts for future capital needs. Yes. We're working to get it up for you, Athena. So the motion would actually read as I mentioned earlier to recommend that the town manager develop options to reduce the financial impact of the debt exclusion for the elementary school building project on residence for proposing a financial plan that identifies an additional five million of alternative funding to be presented to the town council by October 2nd, 2023 and should funds comprising, et cetera, as you see on the screen. I need a second. Second, Miller. Thank you. Okay. Alicia, would you like to speak to your motion? Your amendment, I'm sorry. Yeah, so essentially again, I think everything is coming back to my original ask and I think it also speaks to honest question of why 10 or essentially in this case, Y5. And I just got that number when I was looking because I was looking initially at only the reserves and trying to figure out what is the most we can use without having a detrimental impact and without changing our bond rating. And so the most I came up with was the 10 million. And so I have since been trying to figure out since I have been told, try to stay away from reserves, what other ways can we accomplish the same thing? So essentially I am still trying to accomplish the same goal as with my other motion with Paul's new proposal. I think this adding this language then assures that eventually there will be an additional 5 million. And I think the language as is doesn't actually assure anything just that we will look into these things. Okay. Anika. Yeah, so I also wanted to appreciate Anna's questions in regards to the numbers there and the numbers and dates and what is the actual, what would be the impact on the difference? And also the question, I have a question in regards to, I think that as we know, unless I'm mistaken, this whatever amount it is is going to impact like the top tax payers in town more than anyone. So like what provisions or avenues and this could be for later discussion we'll help and assure that this money goes to those who are the most vulnerable because we have a lot of talk about symbolic and symbolic gestures, but one cannot eat or pay a bill or buy medicine with symbolic. So I'm assuming these will come through and in later discussion just to ensure that, you know, we're, this is more than just gesture. And sign. I'd speak to that, but the motion on the floor now is an amendment and that amendment asks that we shorten the time period to October 2nd and it asks that we at that point take the money. Okay. So that's the amendment. Anika, further question? No, I just forgot to put my hand up. Okay. Mandy Jo. Yeah, looking at the language specifically, I see it as trying to do the exact same thing this council just voted nine against and three in favor of. It says if funds are not guaranteed and secured in six months, not if they haven't been identified. So it's basically giving Paul six months to work at the state level with a budget and stuff like that or other things. And then, oh, well, if it's not there, pull it from stabilization yet again. And this council just said, we're not ready to pull from stabilization. We need more information. We need more stuff. So I did for all the reasons that, you know, were said that people weren't in favor of the last motion. I see those exact same reasons as to not be in favor of this one. So I will not be supporting the motion to amend. Andy. Yeah, I'm just gonna add to what Mandy said without repeating what she said. By the identification list of examples it was given were things that were gonna take some time to actually secure funds. It was to come up with a credible plan for where we could get the additional $5 million. And the, but things like securing a donation from Amherst College, for example, would take more time. So there's that problem that it makes this essentially, we're back to where we were before. And in addition, it seems that what we're really going to be back at is just funding the, to do the impossible where I think that we need to recognize that what we're promising our voters is that we're gonna make every possible effort to reduce the amount of money that we're gonna actually have to borrow and that they're gonna have to pay back. And if we do that, as is pointed out by Sean at the beginning, we really have about three years to do that, it's not that we have six months to actually secure the funds. If we have a credible plan and secure the money in three years, it does the same thing. So there's the flexibility that we're losing in how the whole thing was structured by this proposed amendment. Dorothy. I think that the October date is just too soon to do anything given, just think about how much we have, we have accomplished some things this in the last six months but think about how long it's taken us to do every single little thing. And I am willing to trust longer time and we've been told that that money is not needed immediately. I guess I don't mind and I don't have a word or two in mind but I don't mind firming up the town manager's motion a little bit, but I think the flexibility and the time are very important. I am hoping and expecting that wonderful things will happen and that opportunities will open up and we will take them. I mean, just think about how this town has found so much money and put in applications and gotten grant money for all over the place but that takes time. So I just don't find the October date realistic. I support the town manager's motion and I don't mind it being firmed up a little bit but I think we have to stay in the realm of possible. Why would we tie that money down completely if we don't need to? That gets rid of flexibility. We do need to keep the flexibility in the budget. So I don't support that amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Dorothy, Alicia. That's okay, thank you. I appreciate that and I just wanna note that I only changed the date by one month and so I do understand that it is very soon but again, this project we're voting in May and originally I had hoped to have answers for constituents before the vote but I am being told that that is absolutely too soon and I completely understand why that is too soon. I'm not understanding why we can't reassess in six months and why it needs to be pushed out. I'm fine too. I'm okay with changing the language a bit so that it doesn't need to be the commitment by that date but I think we need to be reassessing this sooner because again, the vote is happening in a month and so I understand that these bills are not going to be hitting until 2025 which is in two years which is more time but still not that like that's not a long period of time and so I think we need to be continually reassessing to ensure that this happens and so again, I'm happy with being flexible here. I know we wanna move to consensus but I think there needs to be something that happens if the money is not found because that's what makes me uncomfortable with the original motion is it just says we're gonna look into things. It doesn't guarantee any additional funding to be put towards using the burden on taxpayers and I'm looking to get a guarantee tonight that we will do more and not that we will just look into it but that we will tangibly do more. We will apply more funding to this project. We will help to ease the burden and I hear Anika in terms of symbolic and that's not what I'm trying to do here. This is not symbolic to me. This is actually real impact and I understand that just because of the way the debt exclusion is set up that a larger number of dollars will be taken off for the higher people who pay higher taxes but that is just the nature of the debt exclusion. That is how it's going to work no matter what because houses that are assessed at a higher value have higher taxes. So there's really like not too much I can do about that in this specific instance. I hope the town will continue to look for other ways to offset the debt and we'll continue to find other ways to help low income or fixed income families and peoples but I'm trying to see what we can do in this moment with this particular initiative to help constituents. Sean. Yeah, I just wanted to provide a little more background for the date. So the reason that date was chosen is that it allows us to close another fiscal year which typically happens during October. It also allows us to get our next pension schedule which is one of our bigger costs. So allows us to kind of see what the new trajectory is for our pension assessment. And then the last thing is it's shortly after our financial indicators presentation. So that's why that date was picked because there's sort of a number of things that happen in November and late October. Thank you for that Sean. Shalini? Yes, I agree. I want to just agree with what Mandy Jo said and Andy and the Dorothy Pam especially about flexibility. I think leaving it more flexible in the original motion gives us an opportunity to be more creative around like what portion of these resources can be directed towards CDBG or I don't know like some other way. So it's more focusing on the people who really need it. Some of it can be directed towards bringing down the debt exclusion for all the residents. But I think some of it if we can find in the meanwhile during these few months if there are ways to really funnel the resources to towards people who really are gonna be impacted the most. So I want the flexibility that yeah, that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Michelle? Just a couple of things. First with the date, I just put this question out there in terms of how given that we'll be turning over councils just how close that gets to the time that we would only have maybe a meeting or two after that before a new council. So just something for us to think about in terms of new councils. I, it's really interesting. I have, I was very much in favor of adding teeth to this in the sense of wanting to ensure that if we didn't reach or identify, you know, five million in alternative funding that we would have some way of making sure that we reached the goal that I had hoped we would reach. And now I've listened to some of my colleagues and I feel that there is a real benefit to keeping things more flexible. And I'll add, and I think please correct me if I'm wrong that at any point a counselor can bring forward a request to the town manager to appropriate funds outside of the budget. So it's not to say that if we, if come October or November, if we get the sense that there's nothing that's been identified or for whatever reasons a counselor may have to bring forward that request to the town manager, that's never off the table. And I sort of forgot that on my own. So I just wanted to, in case that's something that other counselors also forgot that that's important, that we do, we still have all sorts of possibilities, I think at least for myself sometimes I get limited in my thinking around that. So thank you. Michelle, thank you. Pam, Rene. Thank you. Just posing this a different way, is it really a problem to state if we don't obtain or at least identify various sources for approximately $5 million more, knowing that in fact we have two years or a few more years beyond that to actually lock down what we are going to be borrowing, is it a problem to fill in the blanks later? So if they don't all materialize by November 30th, why is that a real issue? We have the time to identify them, we have the time to secure them. And in the meantime, we were able to go forward and start the process of negotiating the loans with a backup and within the two years or three years before we actually start to, before we have to lock that in, all of this is resolved. So I'm not sure why we can't approach it as a backup plan. Okay, thank you, Anika. I just wanted to clarify for Alicia that first I believe your goals are just as you said, and I know that you're trying as hard as you can to lessen burden of the tax of a ride. So my symbolic statement was not directed to your amendment or motion, more that we've heard this over and over again that it would be important to make a symbolic gesture and whether that's come from council or statements from community. And so I'm just very cautious that symbolic really does nothing for a struggling household, a struggling household that's trying to make ends meet. And, you know, but also, you know, just looking over there, many that are outside of maybe the low income that this could affect, but just so we are well aware of where this balance falls in general, that's it. Thank you, Jennifer. Yeah, kind of a process question. So when Paul comes back, if he's identified funds, whether we decided it's October or November 30th, does that require a two thirds council vote because we would have to vote? It depends on automatic. Right, that's a very good question, Jennifer. The funds may be in various different forms and therefore they may require various different kinds of votes and actions. Some of it might be voting free cash. Some of it might be, hey, we got this extra money from the state. Some of it might be, you know, gee, the formula for pilot changed and therefore our budget has more money in it. So it's hard to say now, but where the council has to take action, we will be asked to take action through the appropriate measures that are brought forward to us. Okay, so I would just like to ask, this is jumping ahead, but since there's a bit of, you know, trust me to the town manager, which we do, that when he comes back, having identified some that we will all support it because that's the next step. I mean, I'm not asking for people to, you know, write anything, but just that we will trust Paul that if he is recommending it, that we support it. That's just my request. Thank you. Thank you. Pam, yes. Yes, thank you. I had a follow-up question. So if, in fact, we passed this amendment with some more structure, does that in itself then require a new financial order? You don't think so, Paul? Maybe I'm not understanding the question. A new financial order tonight or in the fall? It would require a new financial order in the fall. It would, yeah, any appropriate funds would require a financial order. It would not require a new financial order tonight, but as I mentioned when I was answering Jennifer's question, depending on where the money is coming from, we may have to vote a couple financial orders. As we do, for instance, if you remember last fall, when we voted, we created the stabilization fund, we moved money into it, we added additional money into it, and then we voted money for the reparations fund, and then we voted, and all of those are separate votes depending on what form the money is in, and depending on what form the money is in and how it's being transferred also dictates what the vote quantum has to be. Okay, that actually didn't clarify it for me. If we voted to require that stabilization funds be used, if we didn't find the new monies by November, or at least identify the new monies by November 30th, we've had a great discussion about the financial order couldn't be adjusted today. It would require a new one that would take time, and I'm saying would this amendment very specifically requiring a new financial order in the fall? It would be in the fall. Okay. And the answer is yes. Okay. Yes, Anna. So I'm struggling with this. I think I'm uncomfortable falling back to the reserves. I think that's a, it feels like a roundabout way of getting at what we just voted on. And I'm struggling with it because I don't actually feel that this motion is the best, nor most effective, nor really effective, medium effective, at addressing what we say we want to address. And we talk about how we want to support our lower income residents and our renters. And yet we're not creating programs. We're not saying that this, we're saying general tax relief. And so while I recognize that the importance of that, I think that we should be focusing on what we're actually saying we want to do, right? And we keep falling back to this idea of kind of the blanket application of funds when I believe our time, energy and resources in terms of seeking out new resources will be better spent supporting the people who need the support. My other question is a little bit about what precedent this sets. I think my concern here is that we seem to be writing something saying that we're acting like Paul isn't going to be looking for funding to support these projects. And I don't believe that that's true. And so does this mean that anytime we need a project to go forward, we have to pass a motion saying, hey Paul, please make sure that you find as much money as possible to pay for this project. Like, of course he's going to do that. That's part of his job. And so I think I'm struggling to figure out, I recognize how this is different than a general capital project that we might be hopefully paying for with the reserves that we hopefully will keep. But I am struggling a bit with the precedent that this sets of stating an additional extra expectation that I don't actually think is getting at the need that we say we want to be getting at. I'm going to call on Sean, but I also just want to say we're now, we're talking about the amendment to the motion. I know I recognize that my mind bordered and I apologize. Okay, Sean. Yeah, just two things real quick. So I think to your point, Anna, I think the idea behind this was that it would be a creative plan. It wouldn't necessarily be $5 million of general across the board tax relief. Number two in the memos talked about identifying, developing the programs to aid renters, looking at CDBG and CPA. So I think exactly what you're describing, that would be part of the plan. And then the second one, just a clarification from before, I don't believe I could be wrong. I don't believe the council can vote. They can vote to ask Paul to bring back a stabilization order, appropriation order, but I don't think it's binding in a way that Paul has to. Again, appropriation orders originate with the town manager. So it's a strong suggestion, I think, if that's included in the wording of the motion, but I don't think it binds the town manager to do so. Thank you for the clarification. Michelle. I'm sorry, can you come back to me? I apologize, I just need one more. Kathy. I just want to emphasize what Sean just said, because he said it really quickly. We talked about CDBG, Community Preservation Act, other sources of money that actually target where the problem is, as opposed to just dipping into reserves. So I do think this is going back to the reserves as the only source. And for that reason, I'm not supporting the amendment. I think we need to leave it flexible. And with the challenge of doing this, and it's a broader challenge because this is not, it's tangential to the school, but we don't have a lot of support for people at the lower middle and middle group. And trying to think about how we do that better is what I think we all need to be challenged to do. Michelle, I'll go to Alicia and then come back to you. Alicia. Yes, thank you. So I just wanted to say, again, my reasoning for wanting this amendment was to not say that I don't or to add extra expectations for Paul, but to guarantee that something tangible happened. And so, again, I'm very hopeful that Paul will be able to do all of the things that are listed in that memo and that he will come up with the five million and then great, nothing else needs to happen. So this is just adding an additional backup plan for if in the event that those things don't happen, which again, like I said, I'm very hopeful that that won't be the case, but for me to feel comfortable, that would be what would make me feel more comfortable with this motion. And just a little bit because I think also, one of the biggest issues for residents in Amherst, we know, is housing affordability or lack thereof. And so, and then I know I've heard a lot of people say like this isn't addressing what the actual problem is, that's actually not what I'm trying to address with my motion. And so I want to make that very clear that there's no way that with this one project, we would be able to have an impact on the issue of housing affordability in Amherst. That is a huge issue that honestly has little to do with this project itself. This is another additional thing on top of it. And so what my real goal here is to reduce the impact of the debt exclusion override simply. Like my goal with this motion is not to create more affordable housing. Those are all initiatives that I would love to see the town, I know the town is working on, I'd love to see them do more things. And that has literally not much to do with what I'm proposing right now. We have a regular 2% increase on housing taxes. We have increased the sewer and water bills. And now we're asking taxpayers to take on an additional increase. And I'm trying to say we should not increase, like we should lower that to the extent possible, the lowest amount of an increase as possible because there will already be increases. Nobody is saving here regardless of what happens with my motion. Even if it were to pass, every single taxpayer is going to see an increase. The point of this motion is not to create more affordable housing. Like, yes, the point is there are people who live in this town who really cannot afford the increase. That is the point. But with this motion, my goal is not to actually address the actual problem. I think much more, much, much more needs to be done to address what the actual problem is. This is one very small thing that we can do to help alleviate and help, and to not add to the already existing issue because right now we're just adding to it. Thank you, Michelle. I do have great confidence in the town manager and in Sean. And I feel confident that we'll actually exceed the 5 million. However, I also understand that as we're building confidence in each other and with the community, that there is some maybe assurance is not the right word, but maybe some assurance that is being seeked. And Alicia, you had said that you were flexible in changing some of the language of this. And I'm just gonna attempt one time here to see if there's some language that we might be able to work with or if you like to keep it the way that it stands. Do you have an amendment you'd like to propose, Michelle? I do not have an amendment. No, I do not have an amendment. All right, so there is a motion on the table. That motion has now been amended. The amendment has been seconded. And I'll ask the town clerk to put that, I mean, excuse me, the clerk to the town council to put that up on the screen in a moment or right now. And if you can also show the original motion. I don't know if that's possible. Okay. Alicia. I guess, sorry, I don't know if Michelle's, I think it was a direct question to me, so if I can answer that. I am open to an amendment if there's one. Again, like my goal here is, like I would also like for there to be consensus tonight. One very clear thing to me that I would be okay with amending is changing the date back. I don't know if there are any other amendments that would make other people feel more comfortable with this, but I am not comfortable with the motion as is. And so again, I'd be happy if there's anything else. I'd be happy to leave the original date and just move to amend the language. So, Michelle, if you had something in mind, I just wanted to state that. Kathy, you have your hand up. Yeah, I was just gonna ask to call the question. I think we need to take a vote. Second. Okay, the question's been called and seconded, that's not debatable, so we're going to move immediately to a vote on the calling the question, not on the motion, on calling the question. Okay, and I'll start with Mandy Jo Hanneke. Aye. Anika Lopes. Aye. Michelle Miller. Aye. Pam, Dorothy Pam. Yes. Pam Rooney. Yes. Kathy Shane. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Aye. Jennifer Taub. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalini Balmille. Yes. Pat D'Angeles. Aye. Anna Devlin-Gothier. Aye. And Lynn Gries-Mersen. Aye. So we move immediately to the motion, the amendment to the motion that is on the screen. You're voting only on the amendment. The amendment is to change the date from November 30th to October 2nd and to add the following language and should funds comprising that additional 5 million not be secured and guaranteed by this date, the town manager shall be requested to direct an amount equal to the difference between the 5 million and what has been secured, but not to exceed a total of 5 million to be drawn from stabilization accounts to fund the elementary school. Should any alternative to funding opportunities emerge at a later date, those dollar amounts shall as possible and appropriately go back into stabilization funds to replenish those accounts for future capital needs. That is the question. We're voting, you're done with debate. Kathy, you have your hand up, is there? Okay, thank you. So we're gonna begin with the vote. The vote is on the amendment, which is the one that has the yellow on it. I'm starting with Anika Lopes. No. Michelle Miller. No. Dorothy Pam. Did you hear me? No, I did not. No. Pam Rooney. Yes. Kathy Shane. No. Andy Steinberg. No. Jennifer Tobb. No. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalini Balmille. No. Pat DeAngelis. No. Anna Devlin-Gothier. No. Lynn Griesmers. No. Mandy Jo Hanicky. No. Votes two in favor and 11 against the vote fails. We're back to the original motion and that is to request the town manager develop options to reduce the financial impact of the debt exclusion for the elementary project on residence by proposing a financing plan that identifies an additional 5 million of alternative funding to be presented to the town council by November 30th, 2023. Alicia, you have your hand up. Yes, I would like to propose another amendment to this motion. Okay. And so I just sent it over to Athena so she might not have had it before but I can just read it. So I propose to add the following language at the end of that motion and should funds comprising that additional 5 million not be secured and guaranteed reimbursements received by the town ministers related to the elementary school building project so shall be used to decrease the amount of the debt exclusion. Athena, do you have that? Athena, we'll put the motion on the screen in just a moment. Thank you. Point of order. I will see a second as soon as we see it on the screen to amend by adding the filing language and should funds comprising the additional 5 million not be secured and guaranteed by this date. Any rebate or reimbursement received by the town for measures related to the elementary school building project shall be used to decrease the amount of the debt exclusion. Is there a second? Second, Miller, I'd like to hear council walkers speak to this motion. Alicia, please speak to your motion. Yeah, so essentially I'm still just here trying to think of what could make me feel more comfortable and to bring me on board for consensus tonight. And this was another idea that I had. It seems like there is generally uncomfortable for me to be touching reserves it seems at this point beyond the five that we have already put in the financial order. And so I'm proposing at this time that if Paul is unable to identify an additional 5 million from all of those options listed that, and this would happen once the school is built and there are rebates or reimbursements for the school that that money's however much it be, be applied to the debt exclusion directly to decrease the amount of the overall debt exclusion. And that this, in my opinion, achieves a very similar goal without touching additional reserves. Okay, maybe Jones. I believe this would have the unintended consequence since we have not actually voted Kathy's proposed reimbursement of the IRA money to go into stabilization that this would have the unintended consequence of sending all of that IRA money into the debt exclusion decrease and not back into stabilization to reimburse the stabilization. Okay, Anna. Well, Mandy said may have just thrown me off a little bit. I think, oh, sorry, could you put it back? I'm so sorry. Thank you. I think as I'm reading this, what I'm trying to figure out is if it weren't secured, if it were secured, does that mean where does the money then go? The rebates and reimbursements. And so what Mandy is saying is that the way the motion, the financial order is currently designed is that it goes back to the capital stabilization fund. The understanding from finance is that that is going to the project. I'm talking in circles because I think what Mandy just said through me a little bit. And so I'd like to hear it explained a little bit more. Sorry. Mandy, Joe, did you want to explain that a little bit? Sorry, it didn't need to be for Mandy. I think I just want to hear the discussion. I can try my thoughts. So we have a financial order on the table that simply says we're pulling $5 million from stabilization. Right now, there has been no motion to the town manager or to amend our own financial guidelines that says if we received money from the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, that the town manager is supposed to reimburse the capital stabilization for this project. And so without those motions having already been voted, I read this as saying if we receive money from the Inflation Reduction Act, we must use it to decrease the debt exclusion instead of reimbursing the capital stabilization fund. Alicia? That is correct, Mandy, Joe. So that's actually exactly what my intention is with this motion. And so what I'm saying is if by the time the school is built, which is giving us the time that we are asking for, we have not identified an additional $5 million from elsewhere or all of those options that Paul listed, that when we receive the rebates that those be used to pay down the debt. And so I know there has been a lot of conversation in finance about taking the fives because it's reimbursable, but that was not actually something that was ever voted on. So that is not something that's set in stone. That's just a conversation we've been having. And so now at this point, I'm saying, can we use that as an alternative option? That still gives us more time again, because these tax credits we don't get until the school is built. And so it also gives Paul X amount of time to identify an additional $5 million, but it also gives us a backup plan if an additional $5 million is not identified by the time the school is built. Okay, I'm gonna let others ask questions. Andy? Yeah, it's not a question, it's a statement really, but when we've talked about the financing of the four building projects in its last time, and Sean brought this up again before the council fairly recently, there were four options. And this goes back to November as to how we could proceed with the four building projects to include fire station and the DPW building, which we've heard a lot about tonight. And the two of the four options had to do with using capital stabilization fund and essentially trying to use that in combination with other money that might become available to actually do cash and not borrowing to complete those projects. So I think what we're back in is that if it goes, if the proposal now is adopted, we would be in a position where we would not have that option. And we would have to find another way to finance the other way to finance would be borrowing. And I think that that borrowing is gonna come back on all our residents because it's gonna be one of two things. Either you're gonna do less capital for other things and that's gonna cost deterioration to buildings and failure to do roads or we're gonna be needing to come back to the taxpayers again for another debt exclusion and we're not gonna achieve anything because we've limited, we won't have limited the debt exclusion to what we're considering it after the elementary school. So I really am concerned that it does happen to the plans to get those two buildings done in the most expeditious manner. Pam. Thank you. I wonder if Felicia would be open to a friendly amendment of her amendment and add the words after be used to decrease them out of the debt exclusion or replenish stabilization funds as appropriate. I accept that amendment. Okay. Who seconded the motion? Michelle, do you accept that? What is my role in accepting the motion? Like what would, what is... If you just, for the time being, all you need to tell me is if you accept this friendly amendment. Sure. Yes. Okay. All right. Are there any other questions or comments? Sean. Just relative, this amendment relative to the memo, my concern would be the wording secured and guaranteed by that date. I think, again, the idea for them, from the memo was that we would come up with a plan that we would have potentially three years to chip away at this, at the $5 million goal with the wording secured and guaranteed by this date of November 30th. That was, again, essentially give us six months to come up with the money. So if there's, you know, obviously this is up to you all, but if there was a way to adjust that wording to allow for the plan and for the flexibility of the full period of time, that would be more consistent with the memo. Thank you. Is it okay if I clarify? Yes. Because that was not, maybe the wording is funky, but because in mine, I don't have the date listed, but the rebates don't come in until the school is built. And so that was my thought, like we can have the plan, but I'm talking about if the money is not secured by the time that the rebates come in. If does that make sense? Yes, but that's not what the motion, how the motion reads. Is it? The motion read is connected to November 30th, 2023. So if you just strike the guaranteed by this date, that solves the issue. And should funds comprising the additional $5 million? Not be secured. Any rebates or reimbursements received by the town for measures related to the elementary school project shall be used to decrease the amount of the debt exclusion. So just taking out any date because that assumes that, I mean, the assumption is that that can't happen until the rebates are available anyhow. And the rebates will not be available until after the school is built. Okay, Michelle, you would just have to strike the date. Sorry, thank you. Michelle, you made, you seconded, do you accept that change? Yes. Okay. Are there any further questions or comments on this? Okay. Lynn, my hand is up. Yes, I'm sorry. Michelle, go ahead, please. Okay. I guess I'm a little bit confused about the amendment that Pam made. So is this saying, it seems that as appropriate is subjective, I mean, as appropriate to what? I mean, who decides? How does it get decided? I mean, I guess I'm just not understanding, not understanding what we're voting on here. Pam, did you have any comment you'd like to make? Yeah, sure. I understood the, one of the concerns that I heard was that it would only, that any monies found or rebated would go specifically for debt exclusion that perhaps they wouldn't go into the stabilization funds. So this just opened it up so that it could go into either debt exclusion or replenishing stabilization funds, we could say at the direction of the town manager or something like that. I mean, it's trying to provide the flexibility. It doesn't even have to have the words as appropriate if that confuses things. I guess I'm just wondering, have we made a commitment yet as a council that the 5 million that Kathy proposed would come first in terms of like what, like how that was set up was that that money would come back and go to replenish the stabilization fund. And so to me, this seems contradictory to that. Right, so we have not voted the authorization, that is the next vote. This is an amendment to the motion above it and it has been raised by more than one counselor that it does seem a little counter to the authorization language and so forth. So I don't know that I can clarify it because I don't know that I can clarify it. I'm sorry, Lynn, if I could just one more follow up here then. So what we're voting on is basically saying that whatever rebates we receive or reimbursements we receive that are related particularly to the project will do one of these two things and that will be at the discretion of who, the town manager. Since we would have to vote appropriation orders it would be at the town council's discretion. The town manager can propose orders to us but we have to vote them. Okay, all right, thank you. Okay, Anna. So my concern with this is that I'm worried that this actually would endanger our vote on the 5 million for the actual language because I think that what became very clear in the discussions was that the support for the 5 million for many of us is because we know it's contingent upon those funds going back to capital stabilization so that we don't have to delay the projects that the capital stabilization fund is supposed to pay for. We had a chart from Sean in the last packet that talked about the impact of 5 million with reimbursement, 5 million without reimbursement and 10 million, 10 million with five reimbursed and then 10 million with nothing reimbursed. This is that second one, right? This is the 5 million not reimbursed to capital. I recognize the possible impactful support gets that additional 5 million off of the amount on taxpayers, but my concern is that when the idea was brought forward of using IRA money coming back to kind of pre-borrow a little bit from capital stabilization that that was the big reason why many of us supported that initial motion. So my concern with the amendment is that this would, I'd have to really think about the actual language itself. And I recognize that the amendment made that it could be or replenish stabilization funds as appropriate. But again, that's too wishy-washy for me. I feel that it does need to go back to capital stabilization so that it continues to feed the chart as it was seen and as we saw last week in the packet. Okay, Alicia. Hope, yeah, sorry, you see me now here in my bed. Yeah, so I just in response to what Anna said we actually don't know that. And that was the point of the motion is that we never had a vote to ensure that those funds go back into the stabilization fund. That was all just a part of our conversation that was never a for sure or a definitive. And so at this time I'm asking that we can look at that as a backup plan when the school is built. So again, I'm looking to compromise in terms of giving the town manager ample time to identify different funding sources. So that doesn't, like it doesn't have to essentially mean that this is committed to not going back into the stabilization fund. It gives us a backup option in case there are no other funds identified in the next two, three years until the school is built. So this gives more time, which is what I heard was the issue with my other motions, much more time. And this also is just a backup. Like this is not saying now we are definitely going to return the rebates to the debt authorization and nothing is going to be replenished to the stabilization fund. This is a backup plan in case we are unable to identify other funding sources. And it also sounds like to me a lot of counselors feel very confident that Paul will be able to do so. And so I'm not understanding why this cannot be merely a backup plan. Michelle. Alicia, would you be open to any rebates or reimbursements received by the town for measures related to the elementary building project in excess or exceeding five million shall be used to decrease the amount of the debt exclusion period? How would this work with the motion that's on the floor? Like how would they work together? It would be an amendment to your existing motion. It could be considered a friendly amendment, although we're getting to the point that the friendly amendments have kind of exceeded. No, sorry, I don't think that's not what I meant. What I mean is because my amendment, I get how that's changing my amendment, but how does that work with the original motion? Well, yours is an amendment to the original motion. Yes. So what Michelle is asking in your wording, would you be willing to accept additional changes to your amendment language? Sean, do you have your hand up? Yeah, as I understand it, that would be consistent with one of the options that was in the memo, which was to continue looking for other potential rebates from the Inflation Reduction Act and that those could be part of the plan. So it seems like that would be consistent. So Michelle, could you please tell us again what your language suggestion is? Sure. So starting at the beginning, and should funds compromising that additional five million not be secured any rebates or reimbursements received by the town for measures related to the elementary school building project in excess of five million shall be used to decrease the amount of the debt exclusion period. I don't think that that accomplishes the same thing. And I might be misunderstanding, but I don't think that that accomplishes the same thing I'm trying to accomplish because from the conversation, what I've gotten financing throughout is that we're hoping that the rebates are at least five million and that there is a real possibility that they will be under five million. And so again, this is like me compromising saying if we can't get a full 10, maybe we can get a little bit more with the rebates. And so if the rebates only come in at just a magic random number like 3.8, then that 3.8 would then be applied to bring us up to 8.8. But if we're not in excess of five million, then it does nothing. And I'm not actually sure that the assumption is that it will be in excess of five million. I think the assumption at this point from what I've heard in the conversation is that it won't be, is the assumption. So that language, additional language has not been accepted by the original motion. Okay, Pam Rooney. Yeah, I have to admit I am now a little confused because I thought any rebates that come in for the project would go toward the first, easily toward the first five million. And if the tally for expected rebates is around 4.2, then that does not exceed five million. I would like the 4.2 to definitely go back and replenish stabilization. So adding the phrase in excess of five million, frankly confuses the issue and I don't understand that. Thank you, Andy. Yeah, if the finance committee meeting where all this arose and Kathy's motion was separate from a second motion, there were two motions made that day. The first was motion by Kathy, seconded by our honor to recommend the town council request time manager allocate $5 million to the capital stabilization fund, fund the new elementary school building to support the initial cost of geothermal and followed of all payX systems contingent on a positive vote for the school project that May 2nd, that passed five to nothing with one non-voting member absent, two non-voting members, I'm sorry, one non-voting member was in support and two non-voting members absent. The second motion was a motion by Lynn, seconded by Anna to recommend the town council request time manager that when in receipt of any tax credits for the elementary school building project that those be placed in the capital stabilization fund and that passed on the same vote. Thank you. Pat, is there a second? Second. The question's been called and seconded. We move immediately to a vote on calling the question. I'm going to begin that vote with Binkanika. No, Michelle, okay. Aye. Dorothy Pam. Yes. Pam Rooney. Yes. Kathy Shane. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Yes. Jennifer Taub. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalini Balmillan. Yes. Pat DeAngeles. Aye. Anna Delan-Gothier. Aye. Lynn Grisperz. Aye. Mandy Johanna. Aye. Annoneka Lopes. Aye. It's unanimous. We move immediately to the amendment that is on the screen. And I begin that with Dorothy Pam. No. Pam Rooney. No. Kathy Shane. No. Andy Steinberg. No. Jennifer Taub. No. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalini Balmillan. No. Sorry. No. No. Pat DeAngeles. No. Anna Delan-Gothier. No. Lynn Grisperz and no. Mandy Johannike. No. Nika Lopes. No. Michelle Miller. No. I believe that's one in favor and 12 opposed. The motion fails and we're back to the original motion. The original motion is to request that the town manager develop options to reduce. I'm sorry. Can you show the motion? Okay. I'll read the motion. To request that the town manager develop options to reduce the financial impact of the debt exclusion for the elementary school building project on residents proposing a financing plan that identifies an additional five million of alternative funding to be presented to the town council by November 30th, 2023. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, I'm moving to the motion. And this time I believe I start with Pam Rooney. Yes. Dorothy Pam, thank you. I start with Dorothy Pam. Yes. Pam Rooney. Yes. Kathy Shane. I'm just making sure I'm voting on the top part, not the bottom. You're only voting on the top part. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Yes. Jennifer Tobb. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalini Balmille. Yes. Patty Angelis. Aye. Anna Devlin-Gothier. Aye. Lynn Greese-Mersen. Aye. Mandy Jo Hanicky. Aye. Michael Lopes. Aye. Michelle Miller. Aye. That is unanimous. We are going to move to the most important vote of the evening. Are you ready? In accordance with Charter section 5.6, having been published on the town bulletin board for a minimum of 10 days on March 20th, 2023, a public forum held on April 3rd, 2023 and having been reviewed by the Finance Committee report of April 3rd, 2023, to adopt council order FY23-06C and order authorizing the construction of a new school at the Fort River site. An appropriation and borrowing authorization is presented and shown on pages 14 to 15 of the council motion sheet. Is there any? Is there a second? Second. Oh, I was going to let you speak to it. You beat Kathy. John, you have your hand up. Yeah, I just want to confirm with Athena that this is the version they had. There was a couple typos and a table that they were corrected. Okay. Mandy Jo. I just wanted to confirm that they still remain on pages 14 and 15 of the motion sheet. They will. Thanks. They will. Okay. All right. Any other questions or comments? I'm going to move to the vote. And I believe in this case, I begin with Pam Marini. Pam. Yes. Kathy Shane. Yes, Andy Steinberg. Yes. Jennifer Tob. Yes. Alicia Walker. This is a very tough decision for me tonight. One, because Linda just announced that this is the most important decision that we'll make tonight. And I would like to contest that because to me, this was not the most important decision we made tonight because I know this is going to pass. The most important decisions were the decisions in the conversation that we just had in which I found all of my fellow counselors were not interested in helping constituents who are going to be deeply burdened by this project that's going to go forward anyhow. And so for that reason, I am voting now. Charlene Bonilla. Yes. Pat DeAngeles. Aye. Donna Devlin-Gothier. Aye. Lynn Griezmer. Aye. Mandy Jo Hanneke. Before I vote, I would like to say a special thanks to all the three counselors that have served on and continue to serve on our elementary school building committee, counselor Steve Schreiber, who was a former counselor, counselor Alicia Walker, and counselor Kathy Shane, especially Kathy, who has chaired the committee from the beginning. I vote aye. Anika Lopes. Aye. Michelle Miller. Aye. Dorothy Pam. Yes. The vote is 12 in favor. One opposed. And we're going to take a break. We will reconvene at 10 o'clock. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to resume our meeting. Dr. Slaughter is waiting. Please turn your video on when you return. And please turn your video on when you return. Thank you. Jennifer, are you back with us? Michelle? OK, they'll be with us in a moment. I just want to make sure that, first of all, we welcome Superintendent Mike Morris, Superintendent Dr. Mike Morris, and Finance Director for the school's Dr. Doug Slaughter. Now, we know that chemistry degree is really helping you. I couldn't resist. It's the hour. You know, we need a little humor at this point. We're going to have a presentation of the regional school budget. And it involves all three of the next items, CD and E, both the budget presentation, the debt authorization, and the assessment method. There is one motion that we do need to take. That motion is the following. I'm going to take a motion. I'm going to look for a second. Then we're going to have the presentation. And then we'll go forward. Before I even start that, however, I want to make sure that Dr. Morris and Dr. Slaughter know that there is no finance committee meeting tomorrow. It has been postponed to a date to be scheduled so that we can have as many of our finance committee members as there is possible. So the motion is in accordance with Section 5.5a of the Amherst Home Rural Charter to refer the Amherst Pellum Regional School District annual operating and capital budget and assessment method submitted by the town manager and recommended by the Amherst Pellum Regional School District Committee for fiscal year 2024 to the finance committee to hold a public hearing and to make a recommendation to the town council by April 20th, 2023. And let me just mention that hearing will be, in fact, April 24. April 25 is what's on the motion sheet. Yeah, Athena, I just want to clarify. The 24th is when we council next meet. Should it say April 24? It should be 24. Thank you. Looking at this ground. OK. Is there a second? Second. OK. Let's proceed with the presentation. We're wide awake. OK. Well, given the hour, Dr. Slaughter and I just spoke, and we wondered if Doug could just do a brief update, because really not much has changed since the last four town meeting and this meeting, the presentation, very similar to last regional school committee meeting. I left the last one with the one where we was presented. And so we thought maybe we would update the council on what has changed, which is not all that much. Not a tremendous amount, I should say, since the last time we got together. And then just see if the council had any questions, just given the hour that we're here. If that's OK with the president and the council, then I can turn it over to Doug, who I think can update the council on where we stand with things. If I didn't say it was OK, I think there'd be 12 other people who question my decision. So please go ahead. All right. I'll turn it over to Doug. Thank you. Thank you. So I think the the briefest thing I can say is as far as the operating budget is concerned, the town of Amherst came back to us fairly recently and said, we believe we have funding for another half a percent. So to go from 2 and 1 half percent increase in assessment to 3 percent increase, that's roughly an $89,000 increase from the town of Amherst. Went through the assessment method again and reworked the numbers relative to that to see the impact on the other four communities. And in particular, with the guardrails already in place with our previous calculations, those would still be in place. It did change the amount for shoots barrier. We reached out to the folks in shoots barrier. They were amenable to that change. That adds about a little over $9,000 to their assessment. And overall, it does help our budget and allow for us to accommodate a little more expense in our budget. Given that we have four of six contracts still under negotiation and are continuing to work through that process, we felt that the best approach would be to put that into our contingency and reserves section of our budgets, a single line in our expense section. When we're projecting forward, and particularly when we have an unsettled contract circumstance like we have now, we have some of the changes in our payroll estimates. But we also carry a certain amount of estimation of that cost in our contingencies and reserves. And given where we are and given the size of the number, the total increase to the budget, about $97,000, we thought we would be best served by holding our expectation of reductions and use of other resources like our ESSER funds, our COVID grant monies, kind of keep that the same. And so the increase in funding was used to bolster the amount of contingency and reserves by that little over $97,000. And that's really the only real change we have in our budget from what you saw at the Bortown meeting. From the standpoint of capital and capital assessments, those are all the same as what you saw before. There's no change to the projects. There's no change to the cost of the projects. And just a reminder, what we have in that section of our budget is that we have a debt authorization, which is about new projects. And we're looking for authorization to fund. Notice to you has been served by the actions of the school committee. We send a notice within 40 hours about that. We have 60 days to take action or take no action. The actual money that you have to appropriate is having to do with debt we've already incurred. And so that amount is an obligation that the town has to fund it portion. And that is the methodology we use for that involves the EQD. And that's fixed within our regional agreement. And those numbers have not changed since last time you saw them back in mid-February. So I think I'll stop there and just see what questions you have or if there's any particular other things you want to know about our budget for the coming year. Are there questions from the council? And just to mention that the finance committee when they meet, either in one or two meetings, will also include meetings and complete further discussion and presentations by both the superintendent and Doug Slaughter. So are there questions from the council? Mindy Jo. Thank you for staying so late to do this. It's not really a question, but it's kind of a question and it's about the guardrails and how those are presented to the other communities. We, you talked about the guardrails this year being already in place for two communities, which means the regional school committee and the superintendent and the business officer willingly giving up about $50,000 in income, in revenue in this budget. But last year, Amherst also voted share of the state aid increase with the supplemental budget that we gifted a significant amount of that increase to the region. And so I would like to hear from you whether Amherst's extra support last year to the budget, because it was a gift and you didn't go back to the other towns to ask for their proportional share under the assessment method. And this year, particularly those towns that are at the guardrails, how you communicate that extra support that Amherst is sort of giving the region to those towns, because by instituting those guardrails are not going back for the money that we supplemental budgeted to the region. In some sense, we are paying more than our fair share. And so how is that communicated to the other three towns? Particularly their town meetings and their finance committees? So I can speak to that. So I think you're right in noting many of the points you made, Mandy Jo. I think the way it's communicated is quite similar to what you said, which is that we appreciate Town of Amherst stepping up and increasing their contribution. Town meetings are a little complicated. Sometimes we're asked to speak, sometimes we're not. So we can't control what some of those conversations go, but we've been really clear with all the towns about the implications of this. And they're aware of that. And I think, for me, I'll just say not to delve too deep into it, but the guardrails are a way to get budgets past that support our system. So if there weren't guardrails and some of the increases in the small towns, we'd be having a different conversation tonight, I imagine, with a lot more uncertainty in the budget and potentially a lot more cuts to the budget. So that's what they provide for us. And we continue to have this conversation. We had a group that met last year after the Fort Town meeting process, suggested about guardrails, and had some conversations, had some discussions. Didn't hear a real strong push to land in a different place, but we can continue to have those conversations each summer if folks would like to make sure that we're getting it right and supporting the member towns both in terms of the ability to pay and also to maintain the regional school system that our communities expect. But totally fair point. We've been communicating that with member towns and in our public meetings as well, along the same dimensions which you described. Kathy. Thanks for staying so late. When you come to finance, I don't know what other materials you're going to bring, but I would love to see if you can put together a simple sheet on enrollment trends and staffing trends just to show me what that's looked like over the last five years in a pre-COVID, COVID. I just need a frame of reference, so it's what's underlined the budget. And you may already have pulled these together. I'm not trying to create work, but I have not been attending all your regional meetings as you've discussed it, so it would be useful. Thank you. Shalini. Yeah, I had a similar question. I haven't been able to attend the regional school committee meetings, and so the change in operating budget, the decrease by $1 million, over $1 million, could you explain what that is? And I mean, is the decline in the reduction in teachers because we have less students? Or is it because of financial, purely financial reasons? Like, yeah, just if you could explain a little more what's happening with that. Sure, I mean, I'll take a stab, and then Doug can definitely jump in. The answer is yes to your question. There are fewer students, particularly in the middle school. High school enrollment has remained more constant, and financial pressures are real. So despite the generosity of our four communities, the reality is our costs are going up greater than the revenues. And so that gap that you referenced is sort of a financial result of having costs go up greater than revenues go up. So that's where the gap is. If we were to do a level services budget, in other words, roll everything forward one year, Doug's going to tell us in a second what that percent would be, but it's a larger percent than what we're getting, and the state is giving us very little increase. So you might have heard of the Student Opportunity Act. That is not benefiting our district, any of my districts actually. Additionally, I don't remember the fish title, but what's been commonly referred to as millionaires tax, 0% of those dollars in the governor's plan go to K to 12 education. There's 10 million that go to specific programs for early college and innovation high school pieces, but none of that hits where our budget is. It's really like a grant program. So these two major funding sources the state has talked about to help support K to 12 schools. One of them isn't really addressing K to 12 schools at all, and one of them is addressing in a major way some K to 12 schools, but our district, like 67% of the state, our whole harmless districts that don't benefit at all other than, yeah, I think that's a fair statement. So Doug, what would the percentage be if we were to roll everything forward? It's about, it's over 5%. So it's about 5.1 or so percent is the estimated increase in budget from the current year if we were to do level services. I think the other thing I'll just mention relative to our budget for the coming year and talking about that, there's a variety of strategies we're employing in trying to reduce over a million dollars in the current budget. A lot of it's funding from our ESSA grant to cover that, but it's also to do that, we're strategically not renewing positions that are currently funded under that. So that's a difficult amount of cuts to make and difficult choices that we've gone through with regard to that and spent a lot of time with our principals and administrators and staff to sort of sort through what's least impactful on students and most beneficial to the district as a whole. And it's also a strategy looking forward into the coming years, because there's no expectation that there's gonna be a huge change in our Chapter 70 funding, which is the increase from last year to this year or from 23 to 24s, less than 1% increase in funding and there's nothing in our budget that's gone up 1% or less. And so the pressure on the budget will be there in subsequent years. Our ESSA money is short-term, it has a limit as you know with ARPA funds and other COVID related funds. So we're leveraging more of that now, trying to reduce some pressure on some funding that we have like school choice that we can carry further into the future and support our budget in the out years, meaning two or three more years on down the road. And so there are a few things that we're trying to be strategic about in our process as well. Can just ask one more question. Please. What, I mean, what sort of advocacy can we all do in terms of reaching out to the state to get better reimbursement? I know you all have been struggling with this for a long time. But again, really the problem is there and so what can all of us counselors do to, I don't know, get more? Yeah, I can jump in on that. I think our school committee has been actively involved. I was in a meeting with the chairs of the Amherst Regional School Committee and our local legislators in terms of state senator, a representative from state senator's office and our state rep, Mindy Dom. So my first piece would be to connect with Ben Harrington, the regional school committee, Alison McDonald, the chair of the Amherst School Committee because they're already involved in advocacy efforts. I know they would love to work with you all, folks who are interested in this way and I think through our local legislators who are very concerned about our budget situation, I heard that directly as well as very interested in what they can do to improve the situation. So my advice would be reaching out with to the school committee chairs because they're already doing a number of the things that you're mentioning. And I think there's strength in numbers and strength in inter-departmental or in inter-governmental advocacy. So that'd be my two cents. Thank you. So anything else, Shalini? Okay. When you bring us the numbers of enrollments and staffing, I assume that'll be over a period of the years so that we can see the ebb and flow with regard to COVID, et cetera. So it would be at least over five, maybe even 10 year period. The other thing I'd like to make sure that when we're in the finance committee, we have an opportunity to look at the projections for the long-term capital needs. Since I remember from the four towns meeting, those are pretty alarming. And I think it's important for us to start discussing in the finance committee meeting with you how some of those might be addressed in future years because they're alarming. We already heard about the leaking roofs in the library. Any other questions, comments or requests? Shalini? So I understand that we are, I mean the school committee is bargaining with the union. So we should not discuss that, but when will it be a good time for the council, for town manager, for us to really look into that issue in terms, yeah, because we had that in our town manager goals as well, like looking at doing research into other towns or like what can we do better as a town in that regard? So what would be a good time for us to talk about that? So I guess it depends on the conversation. There's some conversations that could be had in the public, but some not. So, I'm not trying to be evasive, I'm just trying to understand the types of conversation you wanna have, because some certainly while active negotiations are going on would be problematic as you know, and others I think very appropriate. I mean, my belief is that the town manager was supported. So in the regional agreement, there's a part where a representative for one of the towns can join the executive sessions and reached out to all the town executives or town managers and Paul does attend. He's not a negotiator, negotiating agent, but he is that connection. So I do think Paul may be, even for informal conversations in the front end, maybe a really good resource to start that, maybe conversation about when would it come to the council because he's certainly not in the negotiating team, but he's also been really active and really helpful voice so that the school committee does hear from the municipal government as well. Andy? Andy, can you hear you? I'm sorry, when we get to the finance committee meeting we'll build more opportunity. So when we get there, I don't really wanna go into depth about this tonight, but if we could hear a little bit about how people attending charter schools has been, how that's reflected in percentages and numbers over the past few years. And if, so we get a sense of the direction that that's going in, if it's going in a direction but level. And the other thing I think it would be very helpful to have a conversation about at some point in time is kind of a long range view of where the regional district is going has choices that it can make to try and bring a little bit more ability and assurance that we can continue to have the great secondary schools that we are having a sort of fearful of the direction that we've been taking over the past few years and what kinds of plans might enable us to sort of write that shift. Mike, did you wanna address that? Yeah, just briefly, a lot of the questions that you're asking are in, there's like 160 some odd page budget book that's on our website, it was presented in a public meeting. So we can send that in and certainly we can try to address specific points town counselors are making but I also wanna note that a lot of the data sources that people are asking about are already in a document that's a public document. We'll be asking the clerk to the town council to provide us with that link so that everybody has it. Thank you. Jennifer? Yeah, so I guess following on Shalini's question because the para educators came to a couple of meetings in person and very passionate testimony and we were kind of cautioned that the negotiations were happening. It wasn't appropriate for us as counselors to be weighing in at that point or and so I'm wondering does this budget try and respond to the concerns that were expressed? Yep, I think Dr. Slaughter mentioned at the beginning with the additional funds and where they went. So I mean, I think the short answer is with the additional funds that we receive from the towns we put them in control account which is dedicated towards the school committees and the negotiation with the union. That's probably as much as I can say here. I mean, I think if the town council feels really differently and wants to change the budget amount again then we would need to know that very soon but that's not what I'm hearing from the council tonight. If that is the case then I would encourage you all to let us know that ASAP because it has implications to the other towns as well. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Mandidja? Two questions. The first one relates to my first question which is when last year in the budget season and we don't have house budgets or senate budgets yet so we don't know whether they'll look very different than the governor's budget but last year they did by a lot. And that's where we got a supplemental budget and we had talked about it and we shared it with the region. I'm curious whether the region went to any of their towns at all and asked them to do a supplemental budget and to share some of that with the region like Amherst did. And then my second one is the regional agreement. I believe at one of the four towns you actually broached reopening the regional agreement. Where does that stand? Sure. So on the first question, I don't recall that there was a request for the other towns. Lately, the other towns don't always benefit the same way Amherst does. It also doesn't, sometimes it cuts better, sometimes it cuts worse, right? But there's not local industry in the other towns and so there's some implications there of that and they also had warrants at town meeting that have to be designed long in advance. There can be amendments made on the floor of the town but we're not town residents. Doug and I were there in our staff role so we're not able to make amendments on town meeting floor around that dimension. The second part of your question now, I lost it. I'm sorry, I'm frankly not usually awake at this hour. I know you all are doing this routinely. The regional agreement. The regional agreement. So the one piece that actually was interesting is a conversation with Desi that we talked about at a regional school community. I don't expect you all to go to those just to be really clear that the state is loosening some of their restrictions. So at first it was that if you opened a regional agreement, you had to open the whole thing. The assurances I got received recently from Desi is they've kind of shifted their practice where they are allowing more targeted amendments to regional agreements, which is incredibly helpful because one would imagine a document that hasn't had major amendments in a very long time to open it up, opens up late at night. I can't think of a better phrase than a can of worms, right? Lots of things that need to be done. It's a long expensive process, typically takes two to four years and costs upwards of $100,000 in legal fees and other fees. So the idea that we could make if there are specific aspects of the regional agreement that we could look at those and make more targeted amendments is a return to the original model. You may know, may not. There were multiple amendments over the first 10, 15 years of the regional agreement, much slower since then. And so this gives us an opportunity if there are clauses that want to be, there wants to be reconsidered to look at it in a much more targeted fashion. So that's really good news. So we did talk about that original school committee, but I think the last couple of meetings, frankly have been focused on budget and negotiations and things like that. And so we haven't returned to that topic. Please. One of the specific things would be actually writing the town council and the town manager council form of government for Amherst into the regional agreement. Right, which looks much more feasible now that we have clearance that we don't have to open up the whole thing. And so I would strongly encourage you to bring that feedback to the regional school committee if you want, because I think now they are aware that they have a lot more license to make changes like that without reopening the full document. And I know you, Mandy, Joe and others have been bringing that up since the form of government changed, right Philly? So I do think there's more, that birth to do that is much wider now than it felt like two months ago. Thank you. And targeted changes would be welcomed. Dorothy? Yeah, other plans in the budget for a teacher strike and how would that affect things? And also, is there some money that may be planning that you're planning to get that might in fact allow for the rehiring of all the teachers and parents that would have to be fired? So a couple of clarifying pieces. When we use the term, use the term fired, so that's typically for performance. And I don't think that's how you intended it. So I want to just make sure I'm understanding the question. You mean, I guess you call it excess or but they're not extra. I don't know what you call it laid off. Yeah, that's a more fair. Yeah, yeah, I just want to make sure I was understanding the question. I wasn't trying to question. You're so I don't for, you know, this budget is built on a million dollars of one-time asset funds. So it's not balanced. It's balanced by one-time funds. So I don't see a scenario by which we're able to bring back the number of positions that are reduced in the midst of the negotiation challenges that your first part of your question raised, right? There's a relationship between those. We, you know, as I often say, Doug writes checks, but he doesn't print money, right? So we have to make sure that we're balanced every year. And so I think to your first part of your question, I'm not really going to address that. That's not in my purview around, you know, teacher strikes and things like that. So, you know, there's really not much to say on that topic and I won't be commenting on it to this evening. Are there any other questions? Doug, do you have your hand up? I do. I just want to add one other quick thing. Just by You're muted, Doug. I realized I muted myself. Sorry, I need to lower my hand. The only other thing I would say is that in circumstances when we do that type of reduction forces, it's sometimes called as well or those types of playoffs, we endeavor whenever possible to retain all the staffing. So we use attrition and retirements and reassignment of jobs as best we can. Obviously there are licensure issues that come to play and it does at times require us to make actual reductions and to let people go, but we generally try to avoid that whenever possible. For a variety of reasons, there's the personal ones, but also it's financially more sense for us too. But certainly with our paraprofessional staff in particular, we usually have enough openings that are such that we can kind of cover those. We reassign people as best we can. So we try to make the landing as soft as possible for as many people as possible. Any other questions or comments? Any other requests? Okay. Then I'm going to go ahead and ask that we vote on the motion. This is the motion that refers to section 5.5A of the Amherst Home Road Charter. It requires us to refer the budget for the annual operating capital and the assessment method submitted by the town manager and recommended by the Amherst Pellum Regional School District Committee for FY24 to the finance committee to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the town council by April 24th, 2023. It's a vote that just requires a majority of those voting, right? Majority present in voting. Majority present in voting. Thank you. I think we begin with Kathy Shane. Just, Lynn, I'm sorry, but I'm in a brain fog right now. Tell me what I'm voting on. We're just voting to refer. Yes, the answer, if we're voting to refer, yes. Yes. Thank you. Andy Steinberg. Yes. Jennifer Taub. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shannon Balmille. Yes. Pat DeAngeles. Aye. Anna Devon-Gothier. Aye. Lynn Griezmer is an aye. Mindy Johannike. Aye. Anika Lopes. Aye. Michelle Miller. Aye. Dorothy Pam. Yes. And Pam Maroney. Yes. It's unanimous. Thank you. And we will be coordinating with you for the date for the finance committee meeting to make sure it works with your schedules and as many of the finance committee members as possible. Thank you and thanks for staying up so late. Appreciate it. We now have a set of financial orders that I'm gonna ask Sean to speak to. And we only have we have two votes we have to take and then we have the others are all automatic referrals. Okay, so Sean. Thank you, Lynn. I'll take Dr. Morris's message there and try to go quick. So we try to package these financial orders to gather streamline the process. So I will go through each of them quickly. The first one is since the legalization of recreational and recreational cannabis use and the creation of community host agreements with the dispensaries in town. The town has been receiving impact fees and you may remember these every year we look at it and it's a travel that comes in, we don't budget it because it's restricted for a particular use. And so this money flows into free cash and what we're proposing is to take the amount that we have kind of accumulating free cash that is restricted to addressing the impacts of the dispensaries in town and to put it into a revolving fund. So it's very clear that that money is specifically meant for addressing these impacts. And some of what has sort of brought this up is that we do have a couple of costs now that we would like to start using these funds to pay for. The first one is we have assigned to an existing employee the responsibility of managing community host agreements. We have a number of them in town and especially now with the change in the legislation there's a level of oversight that needs to be done. And so we've estimated the cost of that work around 10,000 and that will shift some of the costs to this revolving fund and really where it should be. And then the other one, Dr. Morris probably hopped off but the other one is the Amherst Pellum Regional School District is looking to update its vaping curriculum and possibly add some additional vape detectors to the school facilities. And the estimated cost of that is 20,000. So again, that would be this money can support the schools. We also anticipate in the future there will be some public safety costs for Crest and the police department, potentially EMS. We also anticipate there will probably be some public health costs as well but this money can be used over the next number of years to deal with these impacts. And this one's an automatic referral. Okay, continue. So the next one is for the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. So the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund it's our smallest enterprise fund and it's not doing that poorly financially it's actually doing pretty well because it has the pilot payments coming in from the solar panels now that are on the landfill but that's on the revenue side and doesn't help us in the current year. On the expense side, we've seen an increase in tipping fees which is essentially the cost that we have to pay for someone to take the trash from the transfer station and those costs really spiked when our gasoline costs went up late in 2022. It's subsided a little bit but because the fund is so small we wanted to be safe because we cannot have a expense deficit. We wanted to be safe and appropriate from the retained earnings within the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund enough to cover this projected increase in costs for tipping fees. That's an automatic referral. So the next two are kind of good news, bad news but mostly good news. So you may recall a few years ago the sewer fund had two large infrastructure projects that the council approved. One for reuse water and one for the gravity belt thickener both related to the wastewater plant. We've been working with UMass around reuse water and sort of the planning going forward for reuse water and we've decided to pause that project while we can think, well we can do more planning with them and decide if that's gonna be an investment that the town should make. So we're looking to rescind the balance of that which is 4.7 million that was authorized for reuse water and where you will see that is when we bring you back your sewer rates if you approve this rescission. Previously it was in the projected rates going forward you'll see it come out of the projected rates going forward so to help lower those rates in the future. And then the second one is the one that's a little bit of a negative which is the council approved 2.3 million for the gravity belt thickener. The actual cost is gonna be about 3.3 million and it's related to the same thing we've been dealing with with the Centennial Water Treatment Facility which is just the increase in cost for equipment. And if Guilford's still here he can speak to that a little bit if there's any questions but we do have a good handle on the cost now. So we're gonna be rescinding about 4.7 but requesting an additional 1 million. So the net savings to the sewer fund and projected rates in the future is about 3.7 million. Let me just mention that two of these will require that we actually vote to refer them to the finance committee. Okay. And then the last one is a number of years ago the town purchased the gas station site behind the North Amherst Library. The gas station has set their vacant for a while. It's a little bit of a liability. I think Michelle you mentioned earlier just the having vacant buildings around and with the North Amherst Library addition project near completion, we thought now would be a good time to also address the liability of having this gas station and to demolish it. And that's an automatic referral. And the orders are all in the back of the memo but I will stop sharing. I'm sorry? All the order, yep. Okay. Kathy? Yeah, I have a question for tomorrow. Not tomorrow since we're not meeting tomorrow but when it gets to finance on the last one on the gas station the question is the anonymous donor amount that went did some of that money and vision redoing the parking lot, redoing the area? So my question was on the 110 how much of that is knocking the building down and taking away and how much of it is brass and something where the building used to be so I don't need an answer right now but just trying to look back at the flow of those funds and if anyone hasn't seen it yet, it's gorgeous. Yeah, Gopher may have that answer. Do you have that answer now? Gopher, you can feel free to share if you do. Yes. Right now it's about 50-50 for what we're asking for. The 110, 50% of that is for tearing the building down and the rest is for tying the new area where the building gone into the parking lot part that was being paid for and part of the library project. And so my question was, is any of that potentially reimbursable out of the construction contract? No. No, okay. Okay, Dorothy? A follow-up on that. Is the funding sufficient for the landscape? I know I've been really shocked at how much it costs to do things on the commons or is more money needed to make that look to fit as it should around such a lovely building? Gopher? Yeah, it's enough money to take care of around the building and tie the two pieces back together. Ernie's will still rent the property. They rent half that gas station property for storing vehicles. So there will be a fence. The fence will be extended across part of where the building is now so Ernie's can continue to rent the space they're renting now. Okay, thank you. Man, did you? Yeah, no, my question's about the cannabis revolving fund and this question has, I wanna be clear, the use of the money for vaping detectors and a vaping education at the high school makes a lot of sense. But my question revolves around the logistics of that because that's not a town department. It's a regional department with separate funding. And so I thought our impact fees had to be impacts to the town. So I guess I'm curious, how does that work? And then would it end up being a gift to the region if we can gift it for that? So it's more of that, the vape detectors that are in the high school have worked, clearly worked in the ones, the bathrooms that they're in to solve some of the issues that the high school has had with bathrooms this year. And so I think that's an important use but I'm confused as to how impact fees to the town can be used for a department that is not part of the town. Yeah, so I mean, the way I would envision it would work is we would pay for those things for them and charge it to this revolving fund so that we have a clear accounting of all the things that these funds have been paid for or these funds have been used to pay for. So the regional schools are within, obviously within the town and they're located near the dispensaries and a lot of the impacts of legalization is in that regional school age. So we can look into it a little bit more but I don't think Paul or I have any issues with supporting the regional schools and the education around responsible cannabis use and legal cannabis use obviously, using it in this way, we think it's a sort of part of what it was intended for. Pam. I have a couple of different questions. One is also about the cannabis fund and it appears that there is more money in the impact fee than there is in taxes gained from sales of cannabis lately. Is there or has there ever been any consideration of impact fees actually being used toward reparation since it was discussed as being something that would help affect the impacted community? Do you wanna just answer that and I'll add the other two about solid waste? Sure, so it's roughly the same amount. It's 3% but this has been built up over many years so you're looking at the accumulation of three years here. Whether it can be used for reparations, we would need a legal opinion and we may have, Paul, I can't remember if we may have had a legal opinion on this once upon a time, the law says it has to be related to the impacts of the actual dispensaries that are here in town. And so yeah, we would need a legal opinion if there was a way to either someone to definitively say, yes, this is an allowable use of impact fees or a legal opinion that makes that connection. Second question is about solid waste and it seems that I'm a little confused why there is a need for covering additional tipping fees since I thought I understood that the solid waste fund has seen a significant increase in the number of users since people were dissatisfied with the USA trucking. Why isn't the increase in the dump fee covering some of that cost? Yeah, so it's a good question. So when revenues come in better during the year, they don't help on the expense side. It will come in better and it'll give us a surplus that will go into retained earnings and in the following year, we can update the budget to reflect those higher revenues but during the year we still have to live within whatever the expense budget is that was voted. We're not allowed to exceed the expense budget and so that expense budget didn't reflect some of the higher revenues that we're seeing. It did to an extent, but not to the extent that we've seen some of the higher revenues coming, especially around the pilot revenue from the solar panels. So essentially what we're asking to do is to take some of the money that will fall to retained earnings this year from the revenue side because the revenues are coming in better and to appropriate it this year to cover this cost and then the next year when you get the FY24 budget, you'll see those revenues reflected and this tipping fee budget will be increased as well. So it's really just a one year correction that we need to make. Thank you. And the last one is about the reuse water. And I think I may know the answer now since you just said that it stays essentially within solid waste or water. Where does the money live until it's reauthorized? And I was just curious if it ended up in stabilization funds? The money, where's the money? So what these were, we're borrowing authorizations to complete these projects. And so we wouldn't, we don't go out to borrow until we actually haven't heard the cost. So essentially what you're doing is taking away that authorization to borrow. But I don't think in either of these cases, we've actually borrowed the funds. We may have borrowed a little bit for some of the early costs, but we haven't borrowed the majority of these. Any other questions? And I just wanna thank Sean and Guilford for again staying so late to get to these items and the earlier discussion that Sean, you were a significant part of as well. So we're going to have two votes. Both votes are required. And the first one is to refer order FY23-13D and order rescinding authorization by unissued bonds originally approved by vote taken under council order 21-09D reused water to the finance committee for review and recommendation to the council but by May 1, 2023. Motion's been made. Is there a second? Is there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'm moving to a vote. I'm starting with Andy Steinberg. Yes. Jennifer Taub. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalini Balmille. Yes. Pat DeAngels. Aye. Anna Devlin-Gothier. Aye. Lynn Breesmursen. Aye. Mandy Johanagi. Aye. Anika Lopes. Aye. Michelle Miller. Aye. Dorothy Pam. Yes. Pam Rooney. Yes. Kathy Shane. Yes. It's unanimous. The second is to refer order FY23-13E and order rescinding authorized but unused bonds originally approved by vote taken by under council order 21-09C gravity belt thickener to the finance committee for review and recommendation to the council by May 1, 2023. Is there a second? Second. Seconds, Hanakie. Is there any other questions or comments? Seeing none, I'm moving to a vote. Jennifer Taub. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalini Balmille. Yes. Pat DeAngels. Aye. Anna Devlin-Gothier. Aye. Lynn Breesmursen. Aye. Mandy Johanagi. Aye. Anika Lopes. Aye. Michelle Miller. Aye. Dorothy Pam. Yes. Pam Maroney. Yes. Kathy Shane. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Yes. It's unanimous. Okay, thank you. We are now, need to find my agenda. All of the other items on the agenda were voted on consent. There are no appointments. So we'll move to a committee on liaison reports, CRC, Mandy Joh. I'm gonna skip for tonight. Okay. Kathy, elementary school building committee. A report. The finance committee. I'll just quickly say that we're at, I was trying to count, it's at more than 10 going out to meet with groups. And so if anyone has small groups, we're perfectly willing to go out and it's really proven terrific because people ask good questions and sometimes we don't have the answers, but it's been great and needless to say tonight for me was a real milestone because this is such a positive signal that we just sent to MSBA. And I just wanna underscore the point how much effort has gone into lowering the cost to this project. There's been a lot of effort in lowering costs, including behind the scenes, working hard at MSBA to get the amount that reimbursant up for us. It could have been much worse. And we cut another $5 million out in January with well thought designs. And that took a lot of behind the scenes work, just with a design team putting in extra hours knowing that we want to bring it down. So for the people out there, I think this is an excellent investment in our kids, our climate, our community. And we're gonna get a good return on this. This is not, it's this generation and the next generations. I think it's a fabulous project that is a result of a lot of people working hard. So that's the current report because until May 2nd, we won't have another report. Finance committee, Andy. Finance committee has nothing to add to the written report already submitted. Okay, GOL, Pat. Very briefly, we're working on a flag policy and we'll all meeting with Pamela and KpLaw on February. I did that last time too. April as well, and the other issue that KpLaw will be working with us as the ruling around civility and public dialogue. So those are major things. It might be a very interesting meeting. That starts at 9.30 on January 19th, March. No, I guess. April 12th at 9.30 a.m. All right, we are. JCPC, Kathy, you gave us two reports. They're in the- Okay, what you have in your packet, it's a report to the town manager, but I did a two-page summary with some highlights in it. And then the longer report is the product of Mandy and Pam and the other people. And I must say that this year, it was great because everyone really read the draft report and the result of that is I had five edits on the report, but I think it's a strong report. And I just wanted to do a shout out to Paul and Sean. As we were raising questions and asking about various projects, they came back in a responsive way because we were looking to try to get more money for roads. And they came back with recommendations of eliminating some projects, moving them, cutting them in half in a really responsive way that made it, instead of having a report pleading, we could make adjustments as we were going. And I thought it was just a terrific way of interacting and listening. And they said they liked our questions. So maybe it's also helpful to have a committee being asked, asking tough questions, but I thought it was a really good process this year. And we wanna thank all the members of all of our committees, but JCPC, your short-term and very fast turnaround, thank you. The three of you that served on our behalf. Jones Library Building Committee, Anika. I did not believe there's anything to comment on right now, but in case I stand corrected, I'd like to ask Paul. No, okay, we're good there. TSO, Anika. So TSO, we had a packed meeting. We began our last meeting. We talked with Sarah Barr from Amherst College. She's the advisor to the Provost on Campus Initiatives and Director of Community Engagement, excuse me. We had a really informed, engaging conversation. And we talked about everything from the demographic information on the student body to Sarah welcomed ideas from the committee on connecting the town and the college. We talked about involvement that the college has with elementary schools from everything from Native American stories to mammal cams and updates around exhibits and museum events going on. The conversation went expanded from there and it touched on everything, including even land and housing potential. So that was great. We also had a presentation from Zero Waste Amherst that was in detail with their survey of 510 Amherst residents responding to that survey. And for details with that, you can either refer to the packet and you can also go to, I believe it's Zero Waste or ZW Amherst at, I think it's gmail.com, excuse me if I'm wrong to view that survey. And then we wrapped up with a surveillance use policy and then going forward, we will be continuing with a surveillance use policy street lights and also the waste continuing with the refuse collection and recyclable materials bylaw. Our next meeting is the 20th of April. Are there any liaison reports? Okay. I'm seeing none. We've already approved the minutes on the consent agenda. Town managers report, Paul? Yes, just three things. Don't tell Paul what the game score is, okay? Don't mention it. Very quick, very quick, a very long report I submitted to you, but in writing, very quickly though. First, I wanna just recognize how valuable Sean is and that he stands on the work that Sonya had put together and established. I talked to Sonya this morning and she's doing well and we're hoping to engage her into different ways to keep target certain things that we need help on. But I just appreciate that you know that Sean is very creative and a good listener and really has incredible asset for the town. There's a whole bunch of DEI activities that we've outlined and the DEI department is just out there doing a lot of work for us. And I think we'll have the opportunity to talk about that in the near future, but just I wanna recognize that department as especially working on multiple levels within our staff, within specific departments and even outreach today at the senior center open house which has happened this afternoon from three to five is packed lots of people there, lots of activities. So kudos to the senior center for that. And the last thing is we were had the opportunity to look at meet with Valley CDC about the ball lane development. And they've offered if there are counselors who would like to take a tour of the site it's just and talk to them about what they're proposing. It's a really exciting development of home ownership opportunities, very affordable, meant to help build generational wealth and has received pretty much broad support from the neighbors. They've listened to the neighbors made adjustments and the plans. But if there are any counselors who'd like to take a tour of the site or be up there and be present, we can organize that for you. Any questions for the town manager? Not at this hour. Okay, I did submit a town president's reporter. Are there any questions about it? I'm going to be coming back to you to pull for when we'll meet with the CSSJC and HRC. Originally we tentatively scheduled that for April 24th. And given the agenda, I will re-look at it again but I still think we can fit it in on that day either if before the meeting starts for the town council or after we've gotten through but keeping things that are reasonable out our agenda items. Are there any future agenda items people would like to bring up at this time? Any councilor comments? I would like to make one. And that is I really appreciate all work and thought that went into the various motions tonight. Ultimately, I think what we've done is we've sent the taxpayers a message that we hear them. And we've also sent renters and homeowners that we hear them and we're looking for various ways to relieve some of the pressures on them as we go forward with this very exciting school. So I want to thank Alicia for bringing that all to our attention while the motions that have been made might have been different for various people. The motion that we ultimately did accept really charges the town manager to come up with additional ways of looking at how we can relieve the tax fund. So thank you all for hanging in for I think a very long, but a very important conversation for all of us and for the community. I do want to mention that at the end of this week, people will start receiving their mail-in ballots. Over 1500 people have requested them. Last time in November, 50% of the Amherst population voted by mail. So as far as I can tell, the election actually starts this week, at the end of the week. Then we move into early voting downtown. That starts on the 24th for four days. And then the polls will be open on May 2nd from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. And with that, I am going to adjourn the meeting. It's 11.02.