 We're recording now, Andy. Okay. So I'm calling the Finance Committee meeting of March 28, 2023 at order at 3 PM. Thank you everybody for being here. We're soon into chapter 20 of the acts of 2021. This extended this meeting is being conducted by a remote means, members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so. I have Zoomer telephone, no in-person attendance of members of the public is being permitted, but every effort is being made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time, why technological means. And I'm going to start by going through the committee and make sure that everybody on the committee can hear and we can hear them. So, Anna. Hi, everybody. Lynn. Present. Bob. I'm here. Matt. Present. Bernie. I'm here. Kathy. Here. And so all members of the committee are accounted for because Alicia had informed us at last night. Council meeting that she would not be able to attend the meeting today and which I will treat as a follow up as an additional item, not anticipated 48 hours in advance because I didn't know it until last night. So it is legitimately within 48 hours. And that is that we need to set up a process to try and find out how we can get a meeting time that all members of the committee can be present. But in any event, we will proceed with today's meeting before going to the business of the meeting. And I need to at least let you know that we're in a little bit of a period of uncertainty as to how we're going to proceed procedurally. But we do think we have a plan and Lynn might explain some of this too. But those we reached a realization that the order was presented by the town manager. And if the town manager's presentation of an order is consistent with the procedures set forth in. MGL chapter 44 section 32, then there's a problem with what Alicia and some of them in a lot of members of the council one, which is orders can not be increased, they can only be agreed to or reduced. And in order to, we're trying to get that confirmed with town attorney. And then also what we're looking for maybe looking for today. And I think we are going to be looking for today. Is to turn the question into whether the committee wants to make a request to the town manager to change the order. And then there's some procedural pieces that may fall into play that would cause us to delay the vote. But if we ask the town manager to do that, and he does, then we're back within the scope where the council will have the ability to make a decision as we had been anticipated. So I'm going to call on Lynn before I get to Kathy and Lynn, do you have anything to add to what I just said? No, but I have a question of Shawn McDonald. Go ahead because we're trying to at this point I'm trying just to make sure we all understand the process because then I think that if we get to the point where we agree that the appropriate thing to do is to whether or not to make that request to the town manager. That we need to proceed with the discussion that we intended to have just with a little bit of different process that blows from it, but gets us back to where we want to be. So go ahead and ask your question. Shawn, what is the amount that is presently in the capital reserve, a capital stabilization fund? Yeah, so the capital stabilization fund, the transfers that went into it were from free cash and from the general stabilization fund were 9,287,465 was the initial balance to start the year. And that's that would be there for what's in it now. Yeah, so the way our reserves work, especially our long term reserves is that we work with a financial advisor to invest them. And when we follow our investment policy so there is a portion of our long term investments that are invested in the state approved list of publicly traded companies. There's 20 or so companies and so there's just somewhere we fluctuates based on economic conditions but somewhere between 10 and 20% of our long term investments get put into those types of investments. And it serves us very well. It's one of the reasons why reserves have grown. It's helped grow our reserves over the last several years. So the balance with the way that works is we get a quarterly update as the market value of that portion of our investments and then we update our different long term stabilization funds, our general stabilization fund and our capital stabilization fund. So the number went up for December, but I haven't received the March, the March quarter isn't complete yet. So I think the safe thing to do would be to go with the initial balance that was in that fund to begin the year, which is the 9,287,465 and go with that figure. And the reason I asked that question is because if there's going to be a motion to increase to request that the town manager increase the financial order, I strongly urge that it not be for any more than what is presently in the stabilization fund, the in the capital stabilization fund. Okay, thank you. Kathy, you had your hand up. I do because I have a basic question on this on are we making it. I know you're talking about procedure. My memory of the Jones library. When we voted on it. We voted on. There was a total amount of money. There was a mount coming from a grant from the library. There was a mount coming from CPA. There was a mount coming from the town. And then there was the wish, the pledge from the library. So it had all these pieces that added up. So we're never going to have a financial order that would be more than 98 correct, Sean. Right, so that's, that's the point I think that's important is, and one of the reasons why we're going to check with a council to get it straight. The, what's being considered right now, whether to use 5 million or the 9.3 million of capital stabilization. None of that increases the appropriation, it changes the makeup of the account of the appropriation changes the funding sources. And so we need to get a little clarity from our council whether that triggers, you know, whether that triggers additional steps or whether that can just be an amendment that the town manager would accept and we can still follow the timeline that that that was my question because you said increase it doesn't increase it, it changes the components is the point I was making the components. And right now, to the extent there's a draft since I haven't seen a draft I've just seen the table. Does the draft have the fly in it. Would it be helpful if I share that the full order. I was going to offer to do that too so but why don't you go ahead but answer the question I use the term increase in reference to increasing the amount that we would take from the stabilization fund, not increasing the bottom line. I understand that I just wanted to say that the to me. I'm pretty simple minded there's a top line that says 98. There's something underneath it that says where's that money coming from. And talking about how much is coming from the debt exclusion and adding it all up has to add to 98 so I just wanted to be really clear that it's not in or whatever the 97 point. Right. Okay, so that was my point. So this number has not changed the total appropriation. Okay. So the pieces that have changed. And actually hasn't, I spoke to the MSBA grant changing that was already updated in the original order so the 67.66% that's the correct percentage. And if the finance committee in the council wanted to do a different number from capital stabilization the areas that would change would be this 5 million would change and this amount of peer the 9492 this is the borrowing authorization. So those are the two figures that balance each other out to get to the 97 total appropriation so if one goes up the other one goes down. And then you can see that in the table here. These two at the top of the table are what comprise the appropriation to get to the total the 97 million. Again this table shows the total project cost because we were asked to do that from the MSBA but the appropriation is for 97 492 297. And where do you show the MSBA piece you don't have to show it here so. The only place you show is the in terms of the percentage. So where that shows up is provided how further that the grant on the time you receive an MSBA for the project shall not exceed the lesser of the percentage of eligible costs so you don't put us. We don't have to put the specific dollar amount here, or they ask for the percentage. But our understanding because if anyone looked at that table it doesn't add up to the total. So, we're saying. Well, because as you know, like, like with other projects we have to authorize the full amounts. Yeah, project in order to proceed. And mainly, we did this once with Jones is the only way I remember it so I know Anna Anna was not there for that so it's that it's kind of complicated just you see this number and it doesn't even add up to the total. So my point was we're talking about what's online to the, the FY whatever is it a five or something bigger, right. Exactly. So the whole council, you know when we, again, I'm, I'm just doing the one time I've been through this. The whole council, I raised the question whether the CPA money for Jones was seen as a gift or was it, do we need to vote on it separately and we voted as a package because we hadn't voted that yet, you know on how we were going to treat it. We haven't yet voted on the five as a council but the way you're doing this if we take your package, it has the five in it, correct. Right. And you may remember the finance committee voted, right, informal recommendation of five, which is okay. So my, you, you've answered my question that the five is currently in this and what we're talking about is there a different number. And this is the order that's been posted for the, for the forum as well. So this is the any changes would be to this. Okay, thank you. So, the council last night voted to request that the finance committee consider increasing five million to 10 million. So that that request is was submitted to the committee. And what we're trying to do is bring us back to a discussion on that topic and the outcome of what we do with it. We'll change a little bit because of what was just explained about the process. But we still want to want to get back to what the council asked us to talk about in its final vote last night. And I know the rest of the members may not Bernie wasn't there and I don't know if Bob and Matt state a little bloody end or meeting. I wanted to ask one clarified question of Sean. Go ahead. The MSBA is going to determine what is the eligible portion that they're going to reimburse against. Looking at the 99 million dollar figure. We can't expect that the MSBA is going to start with that number. Is that correct. Correct, we have the number and it was part of the presentation last night so we had a meeting with the MSBA on Monday. Last Monday, the project scope and budget meeting where they went through all the different categories of costs. They did not make it many changes to it. Other than as I may not have heard this Bernie mentioned last night that they updated our reimbursement rate for 2023. And it did not move in a, in a positive direction and moved in a negative direction. But it is that the, our maximum rate is that 67.66%, which is our base rate plus incentives for building net zero school and for our maintenance policies and procedures. And we do have a number from that, that meeting that sort of the maximum MSBA facility grant so if our budget proceeds exactly as it exists on paper and we spend everything exactly as it exists on paper. We have the maximum grant number that we would receive and it was about 40 million dollars. Thank you. And it's, and, and the what they said, you know, since the official is not for a few weeks Bernie they said, this is what the staff is recommending to the board. You know this is the table we're seeing is, is on its way. Yeah. Yeah, there always is the caution and I'll just do it again there's always a caution that we have chosen to vote this before the MSBA board meeting. In the NGO world we might not do, but because we wanted to have this vote before the townwide vote because we wanted it to be clear how the council felt about this. There's always the chance, you know, the MSBA could find a mistake or they could do something that we might have to revisit this after the townwide vote in May. There's always just a caution we don't anticipate that's the case we've looked at the numbers their PM or the MSBA they've blessed they've looked at all the wording. But there is always that caution that if something, you know, something at the board meeting or if they find something along the way that was just a mistake. And maybe even a positive you know, some things we're hoping might move in a positive direction that we might have to revisit it after the townwide vote again. So the number that was in the order that was in the packet last week that you just put on the screen is the number from that most recent meeting with them. Yeah, the 67.66% is the, the number. Okay. So to answer all your questions burning for you. So, I think that what we need to do is. Lynn, you have your hand up. I was going to make a motion. I wanted to ask, do you want to do public comment first and before you make the motion or do you want to make the motion. You're the chair. I just assume make the motion and get a second and then move into the discussion and have public comment. Okay. Okay, so why don't we do this let's get the order, get the motion is I think I have a sense but don't know they make it. But go ahead and make the motion. We get a second then it frames the discussion. We will allow some discussion within the committee for a little bit of time. I know that that has to leave briefly at 330 I believe in but it's going to be back. And we will try and do public comment with fairly soon after a little bit of discussion, which may help frame the public comment but I do want to get allow that to take place. The other thing is, I know that they just here but he's gone off screen because we're not giving is but there was a request that we develop information regarding the house, how the subsidized news. And he was obviously not available last night, but he is attending the meeting for that purpose I know there's several counselors in the audience I don't want to delay getting to Nate either. So, when we try and move it along in an orderly fashion. Maybe I'll have Nate do his report, just before public comment. If he's available and I know that he's probably trying to get something else done the same time. Lynn I'm going to recognize you because you have a motion that you would like to put for us. I'm going to make a motion and hopefully have a second and then I'd like to speak to the motion. My motion is to ask the town manager to issue a new financial order. That includes taking from reserves from the capitalization, stable capital stabilization fund, the amount of $9,287,465. Is there a second to the motion. Shane seconds. Okay, so we have a motion that has been made by Lynn seconded by Kathy. And so, Sean. So, the one clarification I would pose is, Lynn, do you want there to be a new order submitted by the town manager and that amount, or do you want to consider amending the existing order. To that amount. Again, if we go the new order. It's pretty clear we would have to start the, we probably have to start the process of process over in terms of scheduling a hearing posted on the bulletin which is not, it's not, we have plenty of time in terms of going forward so that that's an option. Another option, which we were hoping to get advice from legal councils in the next day or so was, could the existing order be amended to just change the funding sources, but keep the over the same total overall appropriation. So my motion would be to either amend or if necessary issue a new order. Okay. If he agrees to secondary. Yeah, and because, as I said mentally I just think it's changing that line so whatever you've wherever this goes. That's, that's the change we'd be talking about so whether it had that same number of the top or not. Okay. Because of all this had discovered. Within the past hours. We are. I should be careful. Some members of our staff are actively trying to talk to our attorney to make sure that we're properly advised in the process that we're using going forward. So that you want to speak to the motion. I do. This is a very painful motion. The motion that I've thought long and hard about, and I'm going to continue to think about until we vote on council. We've built these reserves for many, many things. The school is high in my priority list. So I really want to say, here's my reason why it's become clearer and clearer to me that we're spending our time and energy on the wrong discussion. We divert this amount of money or 5 million are nothing to the school project from our capital is a capital stabilization. The most important decision is that we build this school. And if this is what it takes to get enough votes to build the school, then I just have to say, I pledge to do everything I can and will continue to do. In other reserves to build our other projects. I'm not walking away from them. I just feel we need to get on to the real issue and that is to pass this school vote. Thank you. Thank you, man. I know you have to take off for a few minutes and come back. You want to please. I recognize you. Thanks very much, Andy. And thank you, Lynn. And everybody. So yeah, I just want to make a few comments about where we're at in this process. Before I share my thoughts about drawing from the reserves for the project. First of all, most importantly, I really want to appreciate the amount of time and energy that everybody has put into this particular question. And especially town staff. The staff has been just incredibly responsive to every question and idea that's come out during this process. In addition, I especially want to appreciate counselor Walker, who's raising very real concerns about the cost of housing in this area and in town. Housing affordability is going to continue to be a challenge for us as a town for many years to come. And I suggest that a town council were to make a referral to the finance committee. About housing affordability, this could be an issue that we could study. It might also be the appropriate subject for known for its own study committee. However, I've heard many hours of discussion and presentation on the topic. And I do not feel the use of reserves on the school building project is the answer, or even the beginning of an answer for how to address housing affordability in Amherst. I'm happy to say that there seems to be a consensus among all of us. I think that the elementary school project is the right financial decision for the town. The overwhelming percentage of voters that I speak to feel the same way. Folks understand that the expense of repairing and maintaining our two aging school buildings is money poorly spent. They also understand that we would be on our own to pay for those repairs, as opposed to taking advantage of over 40 million and state funding. If we build the new school, I do speak to the occasional voter who is not in support of the school building project. It's actually because of the cost. I can say fairly confidently, these are folks who are unable to support an additional cost of about $450 a year in property tax. I do not believe they will change their vote from I know to a yes on May 2 on the basis of $45 savings or whatever the relevant savings is for them. We need a functional school building for the long term benefit of the town. Schools bring new residents improve property values and energize the community. They are net economic assets in addition to becoming to being educational and climate assets as our new school will be. That being said, we need a functioning fire station. I do not believe that we have done an adequate job of communicating the plan for the Hickory Ridge site for the new fire station. It seems to have been a fairly recent development. And of course the plan is still being developed. However, if Sean's projections are accurate, I don't believe we can afford to wait another 10 years to provide the men and women or fire department with an adequate building site to work out of. I strongly support the new elementary school building project, as everybody knows I'm sure, but I do not support the use of capital reserves to finance it. Thank you, Matt. Are there any other preliminary statements from members of the committee before we do the two other things that I want to do next, which is in some order to public. In order to order some public comment in here from Nate, Bob. Yeah, I. Having sat through the council meeting last night, it's clear to me that. The school is a lightning rod right now. And we the last time we saw something like this in town was the previous time when we tried to build a new elementary school. And we had some pretty bad feelings generated on both sides. And it's kind of split the town in the way that I hadn't seen since I moved here in 2000. And I don't want to see us repeat that again. So I think that whatever the decision is reached by the council. I think we need to make it very clear that there's consensus, at least, I believe there's consensus for a new school. So what we pay for it is, you know, part of the discussion, but we can't let that get in the way of building the new school. And we can't let it split the town the way though we had the split the last time, which was not healthy for the town. Thanks. Thank you Andy. I know that Lynn has worked long and hard on the whole subject of getting a new fire station so for her to make that motion. She certainly didn't do it lightly and I'm sure she's going to continue to think about the implications here. She's going to continue to be disappointed in the fact that we've had, you know, staff in this, this committee, previous iterations of this committee, work long and hard on trying to figure out how to fund the capital projects without an increase in the, in the tax rate. I understand we have a high tax rate. We also have one of the most expensive school systems in the state in terms of educating students. We're building a much more expensive building than the originally planned. We're operating in an interest environment. We basically are fiddling around with this basically let us pass by a historically low interest rate environment so now we're facing more costs. I don't want to spend any more stabilization money on this project than the $5 million that the committee has proposed. I think that's sufficient. We have to look at the other capital needs we have. Those are going to have to be met. Those are going to have to be paid for. And I think we're caught up in some, we shouldn't get ourselves caught up in some short term thinking that because we have $9.3 million in capital stabilization, we can then spend it on this project. I think the point that that made is very well taken. I think points that Bob made are very well taken. In the long run, the school needs to be built. Otherwise we'll make yet another stupid mistake. The previous stupid mistake being what we didn't build in the first place. I'm going to voice again that I don't want to spend the extra money on the school because we have other other pressing projects that benefit every single person in this town. And we'll let it go at that. Thank you. I just want to echo what Bob said about dividing versus uniting on the up until this discussion and the $5 million seemed to be a uniter. People like the idea up until this discussion. The overwhelming response to this school, the design of it, the, the, the potential of it, including the climate action and I think of it as a really much better project Bernie I think we're investing in kids climate and community in a way that's pretty unique. It's also the timing for all the weirdness about timing suddenly ever source wants to give us a chunk of money the federal government wants you know everyone is worried about the world we live in and the air we breathing in and so there's climate money on the table. And so we can't miss this moment. So I am doing everything I can. You know, you talk about the school and getting very positive responses so I would, I would do, I'll go anywhere. Others are willing to to unite around this rather than divide. And, you know, unfortunately, because of the high taxes in town. You know, something more than five, you know whether it's 123 or four since we don't have 10. There's more of a difference for people with a very high property value than it does with the people with a very low property value. And it probably doesn't make enough of a difference for people who can't stand higher taxes period, you know, just are going to be. I don't care whether you're building a widget. We don't have very many of those people are really want to invest in and people are talking about housing values depend on a good school system that are immersed and other colleges faculty move here, or the colleges will them to come here, because of what we're offering them as a community. So I just want to say that, you know, if there's a sense of the group on movement on this, I'm willing to move. I just want to make sure everyone understands that we took a big step when we went to five. That's the end of my statement. Thank you. Yeah, I agree with Kathy's last point I think that we're really I agree with a lot of Kevin just said but I want to highlight the last point that that she mentioned which is that we keep losing the fact that 5 million from our reserves is a significant step, right and and yes we would make that back. Ideally, I'm confident that we would make that back through inflation reduction Act funds but it's still a significant step to go beyond that does make me really uncomfortable and I think that the question is, and I said this last night and I apologize and I'm repeating myself again but I feel compelled to say it again, is that the cost benefit, the cost benefit here right the impact to our other projects specifically when we look at this the fire station and I recognize that DPW has been kind of put to the side in this conversation simply because we seem to feel like we have a common understanding of where the fire station is going to go but regardless. And the impact to that project the number of years that this gets pushed down the road with every million that we continue to take out of reserves, I'm extremely uncomfortable with. When we think about the way that we're, you know, the way that people are playing with an amount that is impactful to many, and seems to ignore impactful to many in terms of the payments for this for the debt exclusion, but it seems to ignore the long term impacts on our fire station and our infrastructure. That's very concerning to me. I also wanted to, to mention something that's been brought up to me a couple times which is that folks, folks are saying, you know, well, won't we have those same inflation reduction Act savings for the fire station or for DPW, and maybe we will, but we're already in my opinion again, and I've only been on finance for a couple months so bear with me if this is uninformed, but we're already under budget for those investments, right, we're already right. So, so we're going to need every ounce. Thank you. I've got this very validating. We're going to need every ounce of those reimbursements from the IRA on top of what we have saved. So for me, it's we are losing sight of the fact that we are already pushing ourselves really hard by taking this 5 million, even though it will get, you know, pulled back. And then I'm trying to recall a conversation that we had about pulling aside the operating fund savings and applying those to the school to the, to the debt, and I feel like we had come to the conclusion that that was not possible and I'm looking for converse for confirmation on whether or not that's true. Sean I think would mean who I'm looking for conversation confirmation from I thought that it's not possible it's not a decision I think you can make now. It would be a decision when the new school opens and new budgets are updated that time if there's significant. You know, if there's the savings that the projected or realize in terms of the staffing and the operation of the, of the school, it could be part of the budget guidelines for example, for that year when the budgets are developed. So I think it's, you know, because it's so far in the future and there's a lot that can happen between now and then I don't see how you could vote something like that now but that's super fair thank you for clarifying I think what's what's hard for me in hearing that is that I would rather those operational savings go back to the school's operating budget, which we also know could use a big boost right now but and that may be the, again that might be part of your guidance in that year. I look forward to that conversation, but ultimately that's that's where I'm at and then I also want to address the thing that keeps that that folks are using as the driver for this conversation which is understandable, which is that you know we need to provide relief to folks who are feeling the squeeze of our tax payments, and I do not believe that this mechanism is the best avenue for that. We need to create a create a mechanism, whether it be through community development block grants, I have to say the whole thing because the acronym always gets mixed up whenever I try to say it out loud, or, or CPA funding or something else whatever it might be that is the better mechanism to actually support the folks who need assistance, taking more than the five million from our reserves, regardless of the number over I believe that anything over five million isn't actually helping the populations that we need to be helping most in the most concentrated way, we can and we need to do that and I am happy to commit to chasing that down the road, down the, you know, down the path to make it happen. I will, I will run on that but I think that that's, I think that's important. It's important to remember who we're actually helping and who we need to be helping and pulling from our reserves, ultimately hurts our overall picture and is not providing significant relief to the people who need it the most. Thanks. So let me get a little sense from the committee. I would like to make a decision between going first public comment and then seeing if Nate is available to present or the other way around. Is there a preference from the committee. If Nate's, if Nate's information is going to influence our discussion, any public comments, we might be best to hear from Nate first. I don't know. I don't know if Nate can he is listening in. Sure. So what the question that came up last night, Nate. Thank you for being with us today was that counselors were asking questions about differences between this subsidized housing and housing vouchers and also some of them. And what we know about vacancies. I don't know if there are others in the committee who would like to add to the framing of the question. But I know that there's several members of the council were present in the audience in today's meeting and maybe joining to get a little bit better sense of it. So, Kathy, why don't you. I just, I just had to the list, Nate. So it was a question of the difference between the two and also is there a place you can go to just see if there are vacancies right now that are affordable units and get help applying then with CDBG. How much of that and I know it's, but there's a public hearing and a decision on allocation. But is there a limit like you can't do more than half or, or something to how much could be devoted toward rent subsidies. So that came up on how much of that budget could be devoted toward helping make housing more affordable. So I want to add to the list, Andy, on it was clear how much of it. Okay, so why don't we let Nate start making presentation if that's okay with on and Lynn and then they can follow through with additional questions for Nate. After he's responded to the beginning if that's okay with you, Nate. Thanks. Yeah, I'll, I met with Sean a little bit too so I have some framework for this and, you know, feel free to ask questions so I think, you know, there's a lot of nuance or sometimes just, you know, language differences and how people describe housing and sometimes it's not meaningful so for instance, the state calls it the subsidized housing inventory. The percentage of affordable units it's a same accounting methodology across all towns, and they call it the subsidized housing inventory, you know, SHI. It doesn't mean that all the units on there are subsidized it's just it becomes, you know, that's kind of the common term because most of them do receive tax credits or some subsidy, but units on there don't necessarily have to get subsidized so sometimes we call it capital affordable in lower case affordable so capital affordable is something that's deed restricted, you know, is a firm relief fair marketed it's monitored. And so those capital affordable units are what's on the subsidized housing inventory. So any unit that has a deed restriction, you know, their rents are calculated based on the spring field, a larger area not just Amher so it's, you know, it's a, there's a an area that the state uses to calculate what, you know, what the area median income is and then there's a percentage of that so say in a unit's affordable up to 80% of the area median income. And then, you know, there's a formula to say well you can't pay more than you know 30% and that establishes what the rental maximum is for those affordable units and so, you know, the tax rate and Amherster in these towns doesn't really affect that rent calculation because it's based on, you know, HUD in the state looking at an area for income. And those are capital affordable so a voucher unit section a voucher may or may not be capital a oftentimes that's lowercase a right so a mobile voucher is something that say the housing authority administers a voucher and a tenant can go to market rate and and use the voucher, you know, to make a certain amount of payment. And what we're finding in Amherst and what we've heard is that you know the the rental amounts and Amherst is more than what a section a voucher program can pay. And so you know a tenant can't pay typically more than 30% say 40% of their income to housing and so if a tenant were to come off the waiting list and Amherst which is about five to six years. So you have 60 days to find a unit. And the housing authority, a tenant might look at a unit, and they'll say okay here I found a unit it's this much money. The housing authority might say well that is too much right the program given your income, how much we can help pay you know how much money you'll get in your voucher. The unit is too expensive for you and so they, the perspective tenant has to keep looking. And so in that case it's, you know, there's really no protection for trying to keep those rents low. And so the zoning bylaw says that you can go up to 80% of the area median income the AMI and that's a standard. And then you saw that 60% but 80 AMI is kind of the standard definition of affordable units and an Amherst 80% AMI is more expensive than say a section a voucher holder can typically afford and so, you know, through our local bylaw we might we did we do you know there's so many units you have to have some at 60% AMI, and that's a lower, you know, median income calculation and that would be affordable to someone with a section eight voucher but, you know, the essentially the voucher program works within the market it's not deed restricted or anything so it's different than the capital a affordable units. And, you know, so that's it and it's also difficult to get subsidy to a voucher holder so typically a voucher holder can't get a second subsidy, they can kind of double dip. And so, I know there's been mention of CPA and block grant programs and there's probably some ways to assist a voucher holder but it's, it's a little more complicated than doing that, typically to even with the say the block grant or CPA. We can't make payments directly to a tenant you know there's the anti aid amendment and so we had been with with housing trust money providing rental assistance, it was payments to landlords for tenants that you know say we're income eligible or met certain requirements and block grant can do the same thing it's essentially a, you know, a monthly subsidy that goes directly to the landlord it can be for utilities or for rental amounts. And if it isn't in the block grant application 20% of a grant, you know, so the town is eligible for 825,000 typically every year. 20% of that can go to towards social services. And that, you know, emergency rental assistance is considered a social service and so we typically can fund up to five activities so you know, survival center family outreach, Amherst Community Connections you know there's a number of agencies that apply here in the, the kind of the practice has been historically and currently that the committee would recommend five social service activities, and those can range from, you know anything like I said survival center to helping Craig's doors with rental assistance we can do that we've done that in the past. So the, I think limits it to three months of expenses for a beneficiary they don't like to see it as helping to pay, like ongoing living costs and so the program, you know has some limits in terms of how much it can support a tenant, or it is possible, we have you CPA money through Amherst Community Connections to also provide a similar program where we're providing almost like a local subsidy that ACC is a pass through they, you know, qualify tenants make sure they're getting support services are income eligible and then there's payments of CPA dollars that are really then made to reimburse the landlord for a monthly expense. And so CDBG and CPA can assist with that there are some you know limits on terms of income eligibility and, like I said the duration of payment, but those, those can help. And I think that's it I don't know if there's if I'm missing something, but feel free to ask any questions. Thank you. So I actually had a question from another counselor and Nate, thank you so much for that overview that was really helpful. I'm going to put this question out into the universe. I don't know if Sean is still with us because I might, I might wait until Sean is, oh Sean's here okay. You can keep your camera off Sean it's okay. So the question from another counselor came in that what is the capacity of the hardship and tax deferral and the senior clause 41 C through 17 D. Would there be a cap on number of applicants or requests. How does this compare in terms of decreasing burden on qualified taxpayers compared to the decrease expected from five or 10 million from reserves. I think one of you can make sense of that and help me out with an answer. Yeah, so my recommendation would be to send that to me in an email. Okay, that's everybody. It would, I mean again the best person answer that would be the principal assessor, who is on a process is all of those over a year. So yeah if you send me that an email like we can get you a full response by tomorrow. Thank you sorry I was like I'm going to just put it out there and see if one of you can answer it and otherwise I will. Great. I'll email to you. Thank you so much. Yeah, just make one quick observation that Colin Lynn next up. And that is that I don't, you know there's been some discussion that we've had in a presentation of the council yesterday about the amount of increase that might come to a tenant. The amount of a tax increase, or anything else. But, and that's the whole point is that the or anything else, because we don't know what factors landlords consider. They consider their expenses but they also consider what the market will bear. So I'm not sure that there's perfect answer to that question. One of the other questions that came up about housing Nate was how much of our affordable housing. Do we put Amherst residents preference as the first preference. So that's the state regulation that, you know, it's a local preference so there's, you know, it's at the initial lottery or lease up so you can the regulations right now are up to 70% of the affordable units and so a local preference can be an applicant that lives in town works in town has a low wage children. And then there's a fourth category I'm, I can't think of right now but you know there has been some discussion that a local preference is discriminatory so that if, you know you are trying to diversify. Who's a homeowner or tenant, you know if a community is mostly older white, you know households you're not diversifying and offering opportunities to others and so, you know it's it hasn't been confirmed by the state or by HUD that a local preference is discriminatory, but you know housing developers are asking for a reduction in that percentage so you know it could be 50% local preference or something and, you know something that has been, you know requested of staff and it's been you know we've been discussing it you know I think that in Amherst we you know we often when the town had the request for proposal for Belcher town road and East Street school we asked that as part of the review criteria a more competitive application or response would have extra marketing and advantages or extra local marketing to you know people of color or something and so we, you know the trust really wanted in the town wanted to have that extra outreach, and to me that can help overcome, say a local preference that may, some people may seem as discriminatory so it is up to you know it's only at initial lease up and so, you know, after the initial lottery for units. You know there's an applicant pool that can be maintained on a waiting list but it's really just that initial lease up is where the local preference is used. And just to follow up on the, for example the proposed ball lane development. Right. Is there a local preference on that and is that only on the initial buyer is it over a period of years. Yeah, so, you know, local preference can be used for rental or ownership opportunities and it's usually just on the initial lease up or the initial sale. And the local preference is really at the discretion of the local permitting board so the comprehensive permit ball lane, you know valley CDC is looking to do 30 home ownership units. So the local preference could be that, you know, a certain up to 70% it's so it's, it's up to 70% that's the maximum, the ZBA would make it a condition of the permit, and then the town has to justify it to the state to DHCD into the marketing agent so every time there's a local preference request we have to research the market conditions and write a letter, you know it can be anywhere from like three to eight pages with, you know statistics in terms of housing costs demographics to justify that local preference you know we've been successful doing that I mean some communities for instance if there wasn't you know if you if you know for instance what if there really wasn't a need for studio affordable studio apartments you couldn't say well, you know let's have 70% of those be reserved for local preference and so the state might say well maybe only 50% so every time you ask for a local preference, or you condition it as part of a permit the town then just has to justify it and the state has the ability to modify that percentage. But you know so for ball lane it's something that would be considered during the permit process. Thank you. This is this may stretch your knowledge and I can find a direct source but they state code for seniors has a circuit breaker that if either your property taxes and your water bills exceed a certain share of your income or your rent exceeds a certain share. It's a direct refundable credit that can actually wipe out the tax issue but if you didn't even know any taxes you get all the money back. And I discovered it by making a mistake of my mother's tax return where it said, you know, in this blank, put the rent you pay but you know you're only going to get up to 5,000 I put the whole amount in. And this form appeared, and she got a check. So do you know whether a senior center advises people on this, because the ink, it goes up pretty high on the assessed value of the house and very high on the income. You know it's all it's just in the tax code. Do you know whether we do that kind of, you might be eligible for this. I'm not sure. I think if someone were to ask, you know, we would, you know, get back to them but I'm not sure if we advertise that, you know, per se with a flyer or anything so you know I can look into that but I'm not sure. Yeah. And the other thing Kathy had mentioned, you know, can someone look at where are their vacancies now an affordable housing. And so the state worked really hard to put together a website is called the housing navigator. And, you know, it's supposed to be an an active website where you can search by town, and you can see what units are available. And it's supposed to show both, you know, all the affordable units and whether or not there's vacancies what the rents are, and, you know, periodically the state asked for local representatives, you miss officials to verify that the websites active or accurate and So, you know, Amherst, I think they have listed most of them but it's something that you know they're still, you know, I think it'll be totally built out over time and it's active now the website so you know it's live and it's online but you know if someone notices something, you know, even today if you go look and you say wow it's missing something email me, and then I'll communicate it with the state because you know it is, you know, essentially it's like how do you manage hundreds of thousands of listings and they're but they're trying to find affordable units but I think they heard that it's really hard to know where do you even find affordable units and so, you know, when we were doing the CPA programs with Amherst Community Connections. I mean essentially we just had like three ring binders Amherst Connections made them, you know, the housing authority might have them it was just like, you know, you know, one page of listing here's you know here's all the apartment you know, apartment here apartment there in a certain radius and it's just a, you know, but the minute you make it, it might be, it's could be out of date and so the idea is that this website would be something that's maintained and you know it could be used, you know, it hopefully it becomes a really useful tool. And Kathy can I just address your question real quick. I was just looking at the most recent edition of the Amherst Senior Spirit. And there is a AARP tax aid program where there's a says it's free drop off tax preparation services I think you have to schedule something I can send this link out to everybody. But this has appointments are available on Tuesdays ending April 11 that talks about making sure everyone gets the tax credits and deductions that they've earned. So I think they do advertise things like that. Okay. Thank you. Well, thank you. They give a couple minutes because what I might do if it's all right with you is just see if there's anybody in the public comments section, who has comments or questions on this topic. I will, I want to limit it because I want to get on to the rest of public comment, and then get back to the committee. So, I know that we have one person whose hand is up now. And it's somebody who I don't know the name of because it's attached to a telephone number for anybody who's on including other counselors. If you have any questions that you think we need to pose tonight would be helpful. If there are things of interest, please let us know by raising your hand. And then I'm going to come after that. And I'm going to try and limit public comment to just about two minutes so that we can get through as much as possible. And then we'll come back and do general public comment and all other matters. So, the person who has your hand up now, if it is regarding this issue, then please keep your hand up otherwise take it down. Anybody else who'd like to ask a question on this topic or make a comment on this topic, please raise your hand. Hi. So I was asked to be unmuted. And you and identify yourself just so everybody knows. Yeah, Vincent O'Connor 175 Summer Street in Amherst. So I just wanted to check with Nate on my understanding of the housing affordability problem. I have comments I'll say for the general part. But on this, my understanding is that for every place that there are subsidized units, Rowling Green, we get credit for 204 units, even though only 72 are available for subsidy that are project based built in subsidized units. And if your income is below the cutoff, you can apply and then you pay a certain percentage of your income to live in the apartment. And that's constantly monitored by yearly reports and so forth. North Square, you have 130 units we get credit for, but only 26 are actually available as subsidized units. The rest of them, for example, I think the one bedrooms are $2,000 a month. The new units at Presidential, I think there's three to five that are subsidies. They have a separate company, and I know this because I'm involved in helping people find affordable housing, rental housing. And they have a separate company and you file a very lengthy application with the separate company. Caymans, which manages the rest of Presidential does not handle your application. So there are fixed numbers of units for, you know, the units of Long Meadow Drive at 12 Long Meadow Drive, those are all subsidized. And you have to be income qualified and otherwise qualified to get there, but none of those are available for market rate rentals. But the problem that I see with housing in Amherst, with rental housing, is that almost all of the apartment complex, if not all of them, the problem for Section 8 is when you, if you have a Section 8 subsidy as I do, I can stay in the unit that I'm living in at Mel Hollow as long as I can find a way to pay the rent, even though the rent is above the entry level. But if you are moving to town, coming here to finish college to go to graduate school and you have a Section 8, you have to find a unit where the entry level, where the rental amount, I mean, if you find a unit that includes heat and hot water, then the unit's monthly cost can be higher. But the total cost with the utility allowance has to be below a certain amount or Section 8 will not, will not allow you to move in. That is our problem because so many of the apartments in town, the older apartments, not the ones that have been built in the last 10 years, but the older ones essentially have essentially raised their rents to the level of some of the newer ones. Again, places that were $1,200 six to eight years ago are now $2,000 for one bedroom or two bedroom apartment. And that's really the essence of the problem, I think, in terms of affordability. Okay, Vince, I'm going to let Nate respond and then I'm going to ask for general public comment and I know you're saying you wanted to come back. So Nate, do you have any follow-up on what Vince was just saying? Yeah, I mean, I, you know, he's right. So if you're in a unit with a voucher, you can, as long as you can make the payments, you know, you can spend a lot more of your income on housing. But when you're coming into a unit, you can't spend more than 40% of your income on housing. And so then, you know, given the rents and Amherst, you know, the housing authority, for instance, if they're administering a voucher, they would have your income, they'd have the rent amount and they would do some calculations and they would just say, well, that unit, you know, it's too expensive. And then, you know, find another unit, but if all the units are priced that high, then, you know, you're shut out of the market. In terms of the sub-size housing inventory, he's correct that some of the units, you know, aren't affordable in developments, but that's statewide, right? That's not, that's the way the system works. You know, the methodology the state did with, you know, the 40B permitting is an incentive that if 20 or 25, in a multi-unit development, you know, multi-unit, whether it's home ownership, or mostly apartments, but in a multi-unit development, if, you know, 20% or 25%, depending on the affordability level, then all of the units count on the sub-size housing inventory. You know, that's a state regulation and it was meant to incentivize development of affordable housing. And so, you know, in almost any community, if they say they're at 13% and that's, you know, 1,200 units, typically not all 1,200 units are affordable or de-restricted capital affordable. It might be 20% of that, it might be 40% of that, it depends, and you have to kind of dig into the numbers, but that's true across, you know, the state. So if you, you know, go online and you Google DHCD, subsidized housing inventory, they have a percentage list for every community. Well, you know, rarely is that percent, you know, directly represented by all those units being affordable. And so that's, you know, to me, it's, once you understand that it's not, you know, maybe it's misleading at first, it's meant to incentivize development because someone can, you know, get some percentage of affordable and have market rate, but it's just the way it's accounted. It's, you know, it's a common percentage across the state. So I'm not, you know, whether people think it's good or bad or misleading, that's just how it's recorded. And so I'm not, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on that. You know, and he's right. So like Long Meadow Drive or Olympia Oaks, all the units are affordable. So when there's 40 units, that's all 40 affordable. You know, up at North Square, you know, there's, you know, 20% of the units are affordable. So it's 26 out of 132. That's just the way the project was permitted and financed. And, you know, could someone come in and say, I'm going to do 50% of the units be affordable? Sure, they could do all of them be affordable. It's really how, you know, how you can finance it, how a developer can finance it and make it feasible to develop and everything. So it kind of comes down to that. And it's also the level of affordability. So at North Square, the housing trust in the town asked if they could have units for, you know, 50% AMI and 60% and not 80, right? Have a deeper level of affordability. And that's something that happened through, you know, I think the town's encouragement and then through Beacon working with, you know, their subsidizing agents to be able to do that. Okay, thank you. I'm going to bring one more person in on this topic and then I think we need to switch to the general discussion so that we are conscious of our time. Carol Lewis, can we bring Carol in? Hi, Carol Lewis. I'm one of the co-chairs of the housing trust and I just want to say everything Nate just said is absolutely true. And it also drives us crazy. We are working at creating a list that shows you not only what's the subsidized units, but what are the actual affordable units, and we hope that that is available in a kind of a summer or other form now if somebody wants to see it. And also we hope that we will make it available in a broader way before too long. Thank you. Thank you Carol. Okay, so Nate, thank you very much. I'm sure we could go on a lot longer on the topic and I think the council through probably another committee ought to be delving into the question a little bit more but I think Carol just represents the affordable housing trust and we really count on them to be our primary public person but it was very helpful for the counselors on the committee and other members of the committee and other counselors who are here to hear your response. So thank you for joining us this afternoon. Appreciate it very much. And so I'm going to, the question now for the general public is if you would like to make public comment on the question that we need to return to. Which is the motion that is on the floor. And I don't know if either Athena or Lynn would like to make sure that Paul's aware of what the motion is since he's now been able to join us. I don't know which other meeting. So, the motion was to ask the time manager to amend or if necessary issue a new financial order that includes taking from capital step stabilization fund, the amount of 9,287,465 dollars. Okay. So, that is the motion on the floor. Anybody with public comment. Please raise your hand and we'll try and ask you to be brief so that we can get the committee can get back to it but we do want to hear. So anybody it's open for comment and I guess we can throw Connor back with us. Yes, it is. So try and keep it to a couple of minutes, but please. Right. Yeah, so I wanted to speak to two things. One is the actual the actual in addition of additional money and the other is the project itself. I think this is, I mean, and a lot of credit goes to the committee. Because this is the first clean elementary school project we've had in 30 years. The one that came forward on old farm road in the early 90s was in the Fort River floodplain. And and it also involved the closure of Mark's Meadow and and the perception that it might become a school for Amherst Woods. And it was pretty soundly rejected by both the voters and the town meeting. And and the the previous iteration of having 750 students and two buildings at Wildwood. It wasn't just that Wildwood is a much more constrained site than Fort River or that it would involve trying to build those two buildings while Wildwood continued to function. As a school, it was that there was an enormous change in the structure and of the elementary school that affected other elementary schools that that were not being physically touched. And that, I think, created a problem that became insurmountable. This project is clean and it is on the site that the school can be constructed without affecting the functioning of the existing Fort River school. It has a lot of virtues to it and and none of the detriments that have happened with the previous two elementary school projects. There are no transformations of the elementary school system or, you know, laid upon under so forth. And so that to that extent, I think that the committee deserves an enormous amount of credit for bringing forward a much cleaner and and effective project. I did participate in the meeting last night and listened to all however many minutes after I joined until 1015. And six members of the council voted in favor of an additional $5,000. And I think it became clear to me that the council itself as a body, the certainly the great majority of members of the council were quite certain that the initial $5,000 was going to come back. So this would be $5,000 that might not come back is not likely to come back. And all I can say is this is the most crucial project. If this project fails, I can just say you should forget about all the other projects until you can bring this project back and make it succeed. And I don't want us to go through the same process we went to through in 1994 we had to bring back the high school renovation and expansion, which I spent six weeks of my life trying to undo at 72 vote defeat in June of 94 and turned into a victory. And I think the way to accomplish that perception is everything in politics. And I think that putting in $5 million that you are on top of the 5 million that you know, you know, with 95 or 98%, certainly that you're going to get back to put an additional 5 million supported already by six members of the council. Perception is everything. I think that it is better to do what you can to make this thing pass on the first go round than to have to come back in the fall with a second go round. And I think it would not be helpful. And this, this is a perception that you are trying to, you can analyze how much or how little money is going to, but that's not the issue. The issue is perception. And it is important that the public perceives that you are doing whatever you can to help this thing pass. And I would urge the finance committee, as I think already given the motion, the maker of the motion that the council seems to be on record with a majority in favor of the additional amount of money. And I would urge the finance committee to, to, to support their, their efforts. Thank you. But I appreciate your comment. Thank you. Dorothy's hand was up. I'm just going in order. Hi. 229 Amity Street. Very quick. I do agree that the school school plan is superior and it is much more family friendly and does not involve breaking up siblings. But we keep talking about the four capital projects, and we really in deep we have the fifth capital project which is roads, and people know that we're working on it, and we have to work on it for a long, long time. So I want to speak up now for a group of people retirees who have no children in the school, but so far, most of them have been responding to the vision of Amherst as a place with a superior educational system and an intellectual cultural artistic capital. And, you know, this is the vision that we have to understand we have to keep that part of the voting public with us on this, because they are the group of people most likely to go and vote. Particularly when you have it at a weird time. So the other thing about the school I want to mention this is, to my mind, really superior from the first version, because it's a post COVID design. It understands the importance of being able to bring in air light and have outdoor recreation and to be able to continue school, whatever the epidemics may be flowing here and there. I say, have you really thought about those who do not want to give the additional 5 million. Have you thought about what happens if the vote fails. I came to town when it when the school when everything was very divisive and then the school vote failed it was not. It made me think I don't ever want to get involved in public life and Amherst, and it took me a number of years before I realized I was going to have to get involved. It is absolutely essential to pass this vote. It is absolutely essential, all of the other projects depend upon a town that feels successful of able to pass a major project and to do it without friends turning into enemies. So, I mean, I agree that when I was on the finance committee, I love the idea that there was money in various places that there was a conservative. There were many holes that there was a thought about times can change things can go bad, but we're not saying that we want to strip all of them. Okay, there still be Amherst finances are in good order. They're being managed very, very well. And I don't want to think anyone to think that because if we vote to give the 10 million to the school that we're being fast and loose with the money because we're not. I want to say that if you want to stick to your conservative finances on this issue our first big major capital project. You have to think about how much of a gambler do you want to be because we don't control the vote the vote is out there the voters are going to make up their mind. I'm not a big sports fan, but I've been following the basketball games. And if you're in a basketball game and you're playing, you know, you're going to win the game you're in. You don't say well I'll let this one go by but I'm going to win one nailer, because you'll be out of it, your team will be out of the whole thing. We have to really put together a program which tells the town, we are together, the council is together we are not divided. We're going to go forward on this, and we're going to use the resources that we have in order to keep Amherst as the town that it is a place of superior education and concern for its children. So I do hope that you would support Lynn's motion. Thank you. Thank you. I think we have one more person who's asked for public comment Jenny. Hi all thank you Andy. Very brief comment. Thank you for all for your work. I'm very excited about the school. I just wondered whether there was any possibility that the finance committee could meet at a time where counselor Walker, who has so much input that is important to hear based on last night and other meetings. If there's any possibility whatsoever that the next finance committee meeting could include her, and I think it would be very meaningful to many of us who are following the debate. So this may be very difficult, but just a suggestion if at all possible. That's all thank you very much. Thank you. So let me just respond to that last time at real quickly and then get to the committee for discussion of the motion that's on the floor. But if you missed the beginning of the meeting what I said is that at the conclusion under 48 hour notice rule where we're allowed to take up things were not anticipated 48 hours in advance. The committee is going to talk about how it can find a different schedule for meetings to accommodate counselor Walker, Alicia did not inform us until last night's meeting that she would not be able to attend today. So that it was too late to reschedule today's meeting, but we are very conscious of that. And for the exact reason that you've indicated so thank you for bringing that to us. So, going back to the committee then. We know what the question is on the floor. I don't know if anybody has additional trauma so we're not made before. Yes. Go ahead. Yeah, I just wanted to kind of echo what Anna and Kathy and others and Bernie have said in that. I think that the issue of affordable housing and the issue of how much we should put of reserves into the school building are really two separate issues that have gotten confounded. And I, I'd like to separate them out and I agree with Anna that I think if we can work on affordable housing with other initiatives. We have to think about not just this building, but other the other capital projects as well. And so, I think, as a finance committee, we should recommend what we think is in the best financial interest of the town. I recognize what Dorothy said, which is having listened to the meeting last night, there's a political issue here. And there's a perception here that that somehow we're not spending enough money on this project, and we should spend more reserves on this project in order to reduce taxes. So that's a political issue, and I don't think this committee could get into political issues. I think we should focus on financial issues and make a recommendation council can take our recommendation or they can make a decision that differs from our recommendation. That's their prerogative, but I don't think we should think of the politics versus the financial implications. Okay. You can go to Bernie first. Bernie, you had spoken before. Please go. Thank you. Thank you Andy. In my previous stint as an elected official. I was part of a group that built two new schools in plan to third. And I can tell you that going through a school building project this time as a an appointed finance committee member is a lot more fun because I don't get to worry about being reelected to anything. One thing that always happened was we always got as we were going through those school projects. We got phone calls from realtors saying, is the school going to go is the school going to be built you know what that means. So, if anything, the new school might actually increase property values in town, and compound some of the challenges that we're already facing. I can't see how 23 or 25 cents a day for the average homeowner in Amherst is going to do anything to alleviate the shortage of housing. It's not. I agree with Bob that these two issues have gotten convoluted. If we have an issue with with the census says that only 45% of the housing in Amherst is over occupied. This also says that the typical person over age one has lived in town 49% of the typical people in town have only lived here for a year so there's a lot of turn a lot of turn over. It's a complicated situation. Again, another $5 million. It isn't going to help create house. It isn't going to keep people from moving out of town, it might even induce people to move into town. I understand that politics is his perception. There's a great deal of effort in that there's a great deal of theater that goes into to two politics into meetings. I understand that. But again, $5 million isn't going to change it. I'd like to mention that the previous school project was approved by a majority of the voters. And well this is a great project. I want to reiterate, I'm in favor of this project. I want to see it built. I think it would be a tremendous mistake, not to do it. For the sake of the kids and for the sake of other projects. I will not agree with adding additional funds. Stabilization funds to to buy down the cost project because we need that money elsewhere, and it's not going to make any difference in the challenge of housing that people keep raising. Thanks. Thank you. Yeah, and I think I want to add something to what Bernie said and he doesn't need to endorse that but 5 million does go a long way towards the other capital projects that we have planned. Whereas when you spread it out the way that we've talked about it, it doesn't quite doesn't quite go as far. Okay, I had one quick comment based on what we heard a public comment that I believe is a quick sort of factual correction if that's okay Andy and then I had a couple comments that other counselors had sent me to ask if now is an appropriate time for me to ask those. Okay, which goes both. Okay, so the first one is that the, the motion that the council voted on last night was for the finance committee to consider the additional 5 million it wasn't to actually add it it was for the finance committee to discuss it and have that discussion and so I wanted to clarify that that and a number of people abstain from that vote and so I don't actually think that that was a vote sorry that that was a vote to approve that amount and so I wanted to just clarify because the public comment that it was a vote for finance to to endorse that and I did not interpret that motion as such. So the questions that I have I believe are mostly directed at Sean, or maybe Paul. So first question. Oh my gosh I lost it all. Okay, first question is how much money has the town contributed thus far to the elementary school building project. Maybe it's easier if I just break down the funding sources. So of the 99.2 million dollar total project budget. 280,000 is has already come from free cash that was used to fund the increase in the feasibility study costs. 750,000 is coming from general fund debt so not a debt exclusion but from our capital, our capital budget. 700,000 is coming from CPA. And so those are the sources that are set at this point, somewhere around 1.7 million. Thank you. Second question you already told me would need to go to the assessor. Third question and this Councilor did say they weren't sure how to frame this one so bear with me. Would any of the other options presented last night have equal or greater decrease as would removing five or 10 million from reserves. If so what would a timeline look like and how would they add up in terms of a guarantee in compared to the first million. Yeah, what are they sure what it's asking. And then the so we did present option one option to option three, in terms of the level of reserve use. So maybe if you read that question again with me having that frame. Okay so it says, would any of the other options presented last night have equal or greater decrease as would removing five or 10 million from reserves. If so, what would a timeline look like and how do they add up in terms of guarantee and compared to the first 5 million. So it sounds like that questions in regards to maybe alternative options that were not presented last night. And yeah so I would need to think about. Okay. And I think you've kind of answered this is what is the minimum amount prudent for our reserves how low can we go. So again. So the history of our reserves the finance and Andy feel free to, to contribute. For the longest time our policies were between five and 15%. It was determined that we had significant capital needs including building projects. There was an effort to grow reserves, even beyond that. When we've been looking when we create a capital stabilization fund, we adopt adapted that to try to target 15% between free cash and general stabilization, and then anything above that for the reparation stabilization fund and then the capital stabilization fund. And as I said in the past, the reason why we target 15% for free cash and general stabilization is that when we have our bond rating meetings. One of the factors they look at is our budgetary flexibility and what they mean by that is how much we have basically in reserves, and the best score we get is for 15%. So it's one factor it's not the only factor but it's one factor that contributes towards keeping our bond rating where it is. And so we want to do everything we can to keep our bond rating where it is and if possible in the future, get an upgrade in our bond rating. Thank you. I think that's it. Yeah, the 15% was created. When we develop the not current but the prior version of the town policy, financial management policies, and it was developed by the old finance committee under the working with the then finance director. And the 5 to 15% arose from that process and became part of those policies. And I think that it was recommended by the finance director probably because he was conscious of the point that Sean has made about the relationship between the policy and the bond rating. We've, we're fairly consistent in staying with those ranges until we've made the decision that we needed to do these four building projects, which was for the first elementary school project, which is the one that failed. It was put forward and it was part of a four building plan. The reason I want to say that is that I'm not going to just say what I'm thinking. I think that there are two separate issues actually here. One is the motion on the floor, which we do have to get back to and vote on. The value of the motion that has been made in second that it would be that it would give the council the capacity to make a decision and it's sort of an action that we could take to recommend something to the town manager that would give the town manager. a direction if he chose to take it to revise the order in make the order something that gives the council full range of options, because if it's the order stands as it has been previously submitted. We now are depending on final advice from town attorney, not going to be possibly in a position where the council choose to increase it above the amount that's stated in the order which is based on the 5%, which was the last vote of this committee. So, I separate that out from the other question which is, should the committee make a recommendation, which may be a separate a separate motion entirely, or could be done by just saying that we want to make sure that the views of the committee are presented. But I think that I would be inclined to say that we should make the recommendation. I think that's why we're here. And I've consistent. I think with most of the other comments because I said it last night that I, looking at the building plan. Don't believe that we can move forward with fire station and the DPW building. And we may have to do the DPW building first because it is in far even worse state as far as the conditions of the building and what we're asking people to work in and their health then even the fire station is, which just shows you how bad it is because both of them are buildings that are sorely in need of replacement and the ability to complete those two projects would be delayed by a fairly substantial period of time. If we take what was the entire stabilization fund for capital that has been built up for that purpose and take it and use it for this other purpose. And I would do it if I thought that there was a risk to not being able to complete school project because that certainly is the one that we're dealing with now and it is a high priority and I think that it would be a financial disaster for the town. If we lose that project, but I still have great faith in the voters of the town of Amherst always have and that when they look at the numbers and realize that reduction of the amount of the increase that they would be voting on would be less than a dollar a week. Or like 60 70 cents a week for most of the average homeowner would very obviously then to get fun price of the house. And for renters. It's as I noted earlier, that's something we can know with certainty, but when dividing up the additional rent by the number of units would be even a much smaller amount. But I just don't think that they are going to say, oh gosh just $40 is they're really going to make it impossible for me to pay the increase. I think they're going to make the decision to pay that whether they can afford to pay the increase on the whole amount, whether there's a reduction or not. But it isn't enough to make a difference. So I would be inclined, both because of the extreme jeopardy this place is the other projects and and the that was the delay in the cost that would be there in the very high possibility that if we do this with the full amount of the stabilization fund gone. We're going to have to come back to the voters again for another overwrite anyway, or that exclusion because we would need a debt exclusion and complete those last one of those last two projects. And in the end, then our taxpayers aren't going to save any money at all. So for all of those reasons, I think that if we vote yes on the first motion. I think we should have a second motion in which we take a very strong position on making a recommendation along those lines. So now I'm going to get off of making my own comments and get back to chairing and I will, I guess that get the is next. And I just want to modify a bit what you've just said the first five million. We talked through, and we actually had, we, we voted on it, and we voted on us. Second motion that the intent is when we get the direct credits back from the federal government, they go back into the stabilization fund so we are not taking the whole stabilization fund that. What we stated is if we just wiped it out, we didn't wipe it out and I will be the first to admit, we don't know how much of that five comes back. But but I think financially I think it actually gives us a lot of flexibility because the way that the IRA direct payment works is if you finance it with a municipal bond you don't get up to 30% you just get 25%. If you pay for it, you get a full 30, you know so they're they're asked, you know, so if you're, if we're paying for the solar, for example, and one of the nice things. This is getting too much into the weeds for everyone probably, but the school if we, if the school moves forward, it gets built. You don't need to buy the solar until 2025 because you can't put it on a roof, until you have a roof, and you can't put it on a parking lot. And we talked with our design team, and we could separately contract for that I mean they have to design it they have to get it ready so it'll, it allows Sean in the finance department of flexibility to figure out the cash flow on all of this. Rather than assuming everything is long term debt. So that was one of the reasons I thought this was a good, a good financial proposition so I just want to correct that if, if we're talking about Lynn worded it to be all because, but we're talking about an additional amount above the five with a big chunk of the original five coming back and I think that's important. We can separate the issues. That's, I think we're coming back to this discussion to say are we staying with five are we going higher is a simpler way of me reframing it. So, that's it, you know, I just, when I was doing the math on, if I multiply 30% times the cost of the solar versus 25 it matters in terms of the amount of credit we get back. Okay, thank you. And I just incorrect it and I appreciate the correction that you made. I did vote for the original proposal, because I thought that the funds are coming back, and I had confidence enough in the likelihood that they would be there. So it was not a question of taking them out of reserves forever but sort of being able to finance the construction in order to qualify for the inclusion of the pieces that would then allow us to apply for the money that could come through that particular program. Let me play out a scenario. And in part Indian actually is also a correction. If the finance committee votes, not to support this motion today. It means that it will go to the council on Monday. And if they then want to increase it, depending on what we learn from our town attorney. It may start the process completely over in terms of posting a public forum and coming back. The reason not the only but part of the reason I made the motion I did today is because I would like to put the decision in the hands of the council at the same time. I'm probably more fiscally conservative than most of the other people sitting on this committee. And I didn't make this motion lightly. I made it so that the council with the advice of what the consequences of this vote may mean. I can go into those. So many have been mentioned here that they make the decision but if we vote this down in the meeting tonight today, then it has to come back on Monday. It's a full council. And if they we find out we can't just amend a financial order on the spot. Then it has to be reissued as an order by the by the town manager, and then go through the process unless we've learned something since the meeting has started Sean. Another scenario would be if you put it down today. You could vote on the $5 million order as it currently exists you could vote whether to recommend or not recommend the existing order, and then it would go for the hearing you would finance committee would decide if they want to change their recommendation on that vote after the hearing and then the council would consider that and vote yes or no on that. Again, you could take the existing order and proceed with it. Ultimately, it's, you know, it's up to you whether you want you want us to look into the we're going to look into either way the possibility of amending the up. But the normal course of action we take the order we have and have it be voted on by the finance committee that recommend or not recommend. So again, I want to say, by us not voting on the motion that I made. We either take the decision out of the hands of the council, because they don't get to amend it to go up, or the council does the same thing that my motion did today, which is to increase the amount we take from the motion. And they can vote it down on the third. But if they have to go back and then our town attorney says, Oh, by the way, that starts a whole new process because that is on the whole financial order, we have to reset our public form. We have many days between now and May 2, but I want to just mention ballots go out this coming the first sometime around the end of the first week, the beginning of the second week of April. So, and we know that in Amherst in the last election by November, 50% of our population voted by mail. So this is not a decision that's going to get made on May 2. This is a decision that's going to get made probably way before May 2. That's not to discourage people from going to the polls on May 2, because you could change the vote. But 50% of our population voted by mail. So where my goal was to provide the count, the full council with full financial advice, but to also give them the option of either going with the 9 million plus, or going back to five or going back to zero. That's where I was going. I'm at it. I also want to just say, I agree with what Andy said, we may have to go out for another debt exclusion, or even a straight out override. If that's what we have to do to fix our roads to build something else. But that's the risk we take by cleaning out our hard developed reserves. I don't care which way you go it's risk. This is a plan we've been trying to get done for so long. Other things interceded. This is where we are today. I don't hear anybody on this whole group here, or probably anybody sitting in our audience that doesn't feel we need this school. My goal is to get the school built. And my goal is to let the council have all the options, and to provide them with good financial advice. Are you going to contribute something or. Yeah. Lynn, I think some of the things that you just said are mutually exclusive. I don't think that we can. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that we have to vote in the affirmative on a recommendation that's not sound financial advice again that's my opinion but that's not sound financial advice it feels like it's holding the finance committee hostage to allow the council to have an option and I'm very uncomfortable with that. I think that, you know, this committee is responsible for providing the council with what we believe to be the best finance financial advice that we can. And for us to vote in the affirmative simply to give the council something else to discuss is not actually following that responsibility. So I'm very uncomfortable with that. The other part that I don't understand that's from a process angle is that, you know, the, the council voted last night to have this committee discuss the possibility of increasing the, the amount from reserves to 10 million I feel that we have had a very robust and informed discussion today on that topic. And I think that that's, you know, in my mind what we should be making that that recommendation or not. I feel perplexed as to whether it has to be a recommendation in the affirmative. So I think that that's my question for Sean or Paul is, you know, it asks for a finance committee recommendation. Does it have to be a positive recommendation, or is it just asking for the opinion of the finance committee, because I think that that is also telling right and I think that for it to only be a positive recommendation, that's the part that's making me very uncomfortable and feeling like we're weirdly holding this committee to doing something just so the council can debate it which is not appropriate in my mind. Anna when you say it requires what do you mean the process or yeah so so my interpretation of what Lynn just said was that if we don't vote in the affirmative for the motion that she made the council can't have any discussion or on that topic. I actually don't understand that because with the reparation fund it came out of finance with one recommendation and it was changed in the council. It was changed increase it wasn't decreased it was increased. So I think if there's sufficient confusion. Again the fact that we'll look into this but the meeting Monday night is a finance committee meeting. Right it's a joint meeting and between finance committee and the council public forum first. If there's sufficient confusion. It may make sense not to vote this now, but to let Paul and I find out. We have all the options and then the finance committee could choose to take an action Monday night after the forum as part of their piece of the meeting. Once we have all the options because it feels like there's sufficient confusion at this point. And I'd rather not vote something that then we find out is, you know, not what you were intending to do. Yeah, I would I speaking for myself I would appreciate that because I think that there have been plenty of times where, you know, things have been referred to finance for a recommendation and that could mean either a positive one or a negative one. But, but it's a recommendation it's, it's feedback and so I would be more comfortable hearing that before making a decision. Thank you. I just wanted to, I think we're all in violent agreement now but I think I want to make sure we don't send mixed signals to the council. I think if we, if we approve the motion. It's approving increasing it and then if we could come back and say but we don't really recommend this. And then something else. I think that's just going to be people are going to read that. Each counselor is going to read that the way they want to read that. And it's not really coming. It's not this committee making a recommendation to the council. So, I'm uncomfortable with with where I'm uncomfortable voting or don't vote but recommending this motion. And send the wrong signal. One thing before I get back to Kathy because that since I want to respond to you and then you can respond to be back. I, we may have made a mistake in the last time we did a transfer into stabilization fund for the reason that you have stated, though. There was a difference to because we were not, it was not attached to a budget. It was about funding a stabilization fund only, which, but this is recommending a budget for the construction of a building. The budget falls under the budgeting rules of chapter 44 section 32. So this becomes another question for just for clarification if we haven't had a conversation with Lauren Goldberg yet, which is whether there was a difference in the process because we've also budget and that last one didn't, or did we make a mistake the last time and do we need to. Is there something effective that we need to be aware of. Andy, which, which one are we talking about? The decision that was made, we made a recommendation on the amount to transfer into the stabilization fund for reparations. Did that not come from that ultimately did not. I, but I think that what Kathy's point was in my recollect, I call it as well, but you seem to recall that we voted up to $1 million out of the committee. And when it went to the council, it went, it was amended to go up to 2 million. So that was an advisory vote that wasn't an appropriation order. If you remember, it's, it's up to, it's to tell Paul, essentially that every year when there's, we do our free cash transfers. If the town that has is in good financial standing that we would transfer them out up to. And again, that is, that is not an appropriation order so wouldn't follow the same. It wouldn't be applicable here but I get your point why it's confusing but that's a different type of vote. Okay, so I have kind of a simplistic question. The appropriation order that show Sean saw on the screen. I think are we are unanimous that we at least want that. So, we were asked to vote on that today, I think, going in. So what, and in effect, we kind of have voted on that already because we earlier voted on the five million. And all the others are pieces we also voted on CPA, you know we, we, but we've never voted on the whole magnificent whole. So, in all its glory. So, do we need to at least vote on that today in a, this looks good. And then what, what's being asked is the question of that line that says five does the line that says five go bigger. Can that be a full council decision that is what that's what's being asked, rather than, and then do we out of this discussion, I'm willing to take a vote on whether we want a recommendation that says we don't advise to go higher, you know separate from the vote on the order, or, and I'm not. I have my own thoughts of how I'm going to vote on that but if we want to say that, and X out of Y of us who were here in today's meeting. I think five is a good number, you know that we shouldn't go higher. So I just, I don't want to leave a loop. Paul, you understand what I'm saying I don't want to fail to say, you know, we at least all approve this. I don't have time because that's one of the things I thought we were going to do at least when I'm saying at least this. So, can someone kind of help me with this because I would like, you know there's a lot of people out there that don't realize that there was a lot of approval of the five. And it never came to the full council, it just got quickly referenced. Yeah, and I'm sorry I missed the first hour so this may not be appropriate but it seems like what the finance committee could do is take a motion, take a vote on the motion as that was presented which has the 5 million period, right. So that moves that forward. And then I think you promised last night that you would vote on another number, IE 10 million. And I think you, Kathy and Lynn agreed that you would put that motion on the floor could have a companion motion that would recommend that the town manager increased that amount from $5 to $10 million. And then then the finance committee will have acted on that. Sean and Athena, does that make sense. Yeah, I mean, I think the first piece definitely makes sense. I think the second piece, again would be sort of advisory to you. And then again, the finance committee is going to have a chance to change its vote after the public forum. So, we will have answers by that point. So if you wanted to vote on the order as it stands from a process standpoint, it would make me feel better because when we go out for large borrowings we have to show that it was presented to the council, it was referred to the finance committee, the finance committee reviewed it, then there was a public forum and so we have to show these steps in order to make sure that everything is in proper order. And, and so typically that means there's a recommendation vote from the finance committee. So, so I think the way you described it is something that could work. And we will be vetting this with our town attorney tomorrow to so we'll have an answer tomorrow from the town attorney. You know, just, I think I was clear but you know normally we said, I make a motion to recommend authorization number blah blah blah all those numbers up at the top of this thing. And instead we're just talking about one line down down in the middle of it so far. But we would, yeah, but we would look for you to do the way you described it in the beginning which is to recommend to take it to take a vote on order. Financial order FY 23-06 C is the order number. So, we've now come full circle with the, I would believe. Yeah, I'm sorry if I come, but I thought at a minimum can't we do that. I feel like we've left, you know, that one I agree. I agree that we should do that. But we do have a motion on the floor. Yep. And the motion on the floor was to amend that order essentially to increase the amount to the full amount available in capital stabilization fund make that recommendation to the manager. Can I move that that motion be put aside. The motion is most Athena, Athena had to leave the maker of the motion. You can decide to pull the motion. No, I'm not pulling it. I'm not withdrawing it. I'm actually just putting it to the side. This is where I need Athena. If there's a motion on the table, you have to act on that motion. You can't just say, oh, we're going to do this other thing first. Unless you table the motion unless you table it or. And then reintroduce it later. Okay, then I'll table it. It's the emotion. I move to table the motion. And you're tabling it till this meeting right we're still getting coming back to it. I'm actually probably and tabling it until after the. I would table it until after the public form. I would like. We heard the other night Linda. What was the. Direction that Tina gave that a motion to postpone to a definite date. It's different from a motion to table. And really, so in the motion really be to postpone it until Monday. Yeah. I'm not stopping debate. Okay, I move that the motion that's on the table be postponed until after the public form on Monday, April 3rd. Bernie, do you have, are you trying to give me help here or whatever. Yeah, I'm searching back through Roberts and yes, too many hours of meetings with Bob Ritchie. I really think that. You, you could just. We could just take the motion off the table now. And you can always reintroduce it at the meeting. The finance committee meeting after the hearing. So whether you want to do what you're trying to do now or just say, you have the committee vote to table the motion. It can make a reappearance in the next. My major problem is that it means. I've already said it. It means that whatever the council does on Monday we have to get legal advice which we're going to have to do anyway so I'm going to just. I don't want to withdraw this motion, but I also don't want it to. I just want to move to postpone just what you just said. I moved to postpone the vote on this motion. Until after the public forum on April 3rd. When the finance committee reconvenes. There's a second on that. If you seconded. I'll second it so since I just want to hear from Paul and then. I just want to make sure you feel you've honored what you said you were going to do last night. Last night we said the motion that was given to us last night was that we, the finance committee would discuss the option. We did not say that we would vote. No, I think. You and Kathy both said you would make a motion or something. And I did. I made a motion at the very beginning of the meeting and Kathy seconded it. And the only difference for the record, the only difference in the motion was that prior to that, I asked Sean what was the amount in the capital stabilization fund. That is the number I used versus 10 million. Okay. Thank you. So. Going to a vote. I'll just do it alphabetically by. That's me. I'm so sorry. Could you repeat which motion is actually on the floor right now? This is the motion. To postpone action. On the original motion on the floor until after the. Forum on the third. Thank you. I vote I. Lynn. Hi. Support. Support. Matt. Support. Bernie. Support. Kathy. Support us work. Yes. I get to vote. Yes. And I'll do yes in the leash is absent. So it is. Four to zero of the voting members was one voting member absent in the support of three. So I think that the. The next motion be. Support the. Order. To recommend the order as. Resented. I'm willing to make that if Sean puts it up so I can read the right letters again. I move that the finance committee recommend that the council support and auto authorizing construction of a new school at the Fort River School site and appropriation and borrowed authorization order. FY 23 dash 0 6 C. As presented. Second. Okay. And that is both. That is a budget motion. And so just. Be clear about what we're doing. Any further discussion on the motion on the floor. Seeing no request for discussion. Let's. Start with Lin this time. Just go down one. I support this motion as my minimum. So it's a yes vote. Yes. Support. Matt. Support. Bernie. Support. Kathy. Yes. And I'm a yes. Felicia's absent. And Anna. Yes. I. Same thought on four to zero. One over voting member absent. And support from the three residents. I don't think that we require to take any other. Action. Writing this up is going to be a real challenge. But I'll do my best. And try and do this one. In time to. Get it out for comment. I apologize that. I was unable to do that with the last report. So the only other thing that I have. Wanted to. Bring up because I'm not going to train. Take up. We don't actually have anything other. We don't have minutes on the agenda anyway. I asked so we not do that tonight. Under not anticipated. Is. There any guidance that you can give me or about. Times. That. We can propose to meet as alternatives. Because. We don't actually have anything other. We don't have. Minutes on the agenda anyway. I asked so we not do that tonight. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. Because. I. Yeah, I posed the question to Alicia. And I've not received an answer. And the other thing. And it would have to be interactive when with when other committees meet too. So just. Yeah. Andy. I mean, I'm happy to share. I have a job that I'm currently I need to. I need to be on. Count on these on finance committee days. So I have to make up that time at some point. So. I think that for me, it's really about. If you ask us, giving kind of a little bit of lead time so that I can adjust my schedule accordingly as needed, but generally. I mean, I. I work eight 30 to four 30 or five most days, but. I can be slightly flexible, but. Lead time is important. It's hard for me to switch one week to the next. It's hard for me. It's hard for me to switch one week to the next. It's hard for me to switch one week to the next. It's hard for me to switch one week to the next time, but from your perspective. Doing an evening meeting. If we could find a night that doesn't conflict with other. It's possible. I mean, this time. I've figured out a way to make it work for me. I'm very privileged to have some flexibility in that. But I think if you're able to send out, maybe a doodle poll or something that might be a little more helpful. Or ask for a first preference and second preference. That would be also beneficial. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Alicia. And then. A theme usually helps us with getting out polls. And I just want to point out when you get it. When we hit May. And we're in the intense time. With all the staff people coming in. And it's meeting more often. If you get a sense that. The people, I realize this is people are giving their time as well. But we can only make some of them changing the schedule for all of them. Won't make sense. So just look forward, Andy, when you're, when you're asking this, because we hit that. Twice a week. Period in May. Yeah, thank you. After that, we're, after that, we're back to the. Whatever. We go to Tuesdays and Thursdays. And typically we extend the meeting to three hour long. And we have two meetings as well in order to get every department. And we have two new departments this year. I can't remember if we, we have a class or two, I guess. But we'll have more robust presentations from two additional departments this year. So. Yeah, so we got to make sure we get everybody in. Just a word of caution on asking for. For times that there's the may as may as unusual. Yeah. And Andy, that just might be a future agenda item for not too far future. Thinking about committee assignments for the. Budget book and who's going to do what departments. Okay. Good reminder. And I don't think there's anything else that we have on the agenda for 10. For this meeting. So. Unless somebody else has something that they want to. Raise really quickly. I don't see anybody who's. Jumping to do so. We were adjourned and I thank you very much. Thanks. Hi everybody. Bye.