Town Council - Regular Meeting

Are you ready? I am ready. Are we recording?

Recording in progress.

We're recording now. Thank you. Good evening. Seeing a presence of a quorum, I am calling the June 15th, 2026 regular meeting of the town council to order at 630 p.m. Please be advised that this meeting is being held in person and that the remote access option for members of the public is provided as a courtesy only. In the event of technology issues with the remote connection, the meeting will continue in person as scheduled as long as there is a quorum of the council present in the town room or through technological means. Chapter two of the acts of 2025 extended through June 30, 2027. The ability of public bodies to meet without a quorum of the council physically present at the meeting location, although a quorum of the council is present in the town room. This meeting is being recorded and is accessible in real time via Zoom, by phone, and is a live broadcast on Amherst Media, Channel 9, and at amherstmedia.org. At this time, I will call upon each counselor by the name they've indicated that they would like to be addressed. This will indicate that we can hear you and you can hear us. Counselor Brevik. Present. Counselor Cano-Martin. Here. Andy Churchill.

Here.

Ana Devlin-Gauthier. Present. Lynn Griesemer.

Present.

Mandy Johanneke is present. Counselor Lord. Present. Sam McLeod.

Present.

Pam Rooney. Yes. Counselor Ryan.

Present.

Kathy Shane. Here. Jennifer Taub. Here. And Counselor Walker. Here. Thank you. If counselors have technical issues, please let the council clerk know or call a point of personal privilege. There will be one public comment period during general public comment. If you are in the town room, please sign up with the council clerk to make public comment. If you are attending remotely, I will ask for you to raise your hand in the Zoom application when we reach the time for public comment. There is one change to the order of the agenda. Item 8C, which is a referral of a CPA recommendation to the Finance Committee for consideration, will be taken up immediately after the consent agenda, given we expect some lengthy discussions on a couple items before we get to that are listed before it in the agenda we are hoping to get um the chair of the cpa done before we hit those lengthy agenda items which is why i'm changing the order of the agenda um so 8c will be taken up right after consent agenda i have no other announcements other than what are listed on the agenda um and there are no hearings tonight which means we start and go to general public comment Anyone wishing to make general public comment who is attending remotely, please raise your hand in the Zoom application. If you are present in the town room and have not signed up with the council clerk, please do so now. Residents are welcome to make public comments on matters within the jurisdiction of the town council. The council will not engage in a dialogue or comment on a matter raised during general public comment. Public comments are not reflective of the opinions of the town council. The First Amendment broadly protects individuals' rights to address the government, to speak and express themselves, including their right to say hateful and offensive things. I am generally unable to shut those commenters down under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution unless their level of speech falls within an exception articulated by the courts, such as fighting words, true threats to a particular individual, harassment of a particular individual, or incitement of imminent lawless activity. If a question exists as to whether a particular speaker is engaged in unprotected speech, I must defer to the principle of freedom of speech. There is one hand raised on Zoom of people who wish to make public comment. How many people in the town room have signed up? 16. 16. Each commenter will have two minutes to make their public comment. We will start with the one on Zoom so that then we can move directly to the full list of those in the town room. So let me get that one up. Darcy Dumont, please unmute yourself, state your name and where you live and make your comment.

Hi, good evening. My name is Darcy Dumont and I live in District 3. I'm here to urge you to support the resolution for rent stabilization on the agenda today because in communities across the state and especially university towns like Amherst, the situation is already at a breaking point. Right now, the housing market in Amherst is not working for year-round residents. With tens of thousands of students competing for limited housing, landlords are steadily shifting units toward higher rent, higher turnover student tenants. That's the market outcome, but it's pushing out the people who actually sustain the town. Service workers, teachers, families, and long-time residents. This is why residents have recently brought zoning bylaws to protect neighborhoods and our downtown and why 400 residents recently wrote to UMass administration and this council urging support for housing more UMass students on campus. We're watching displacement happen in real time. Neighborhoods are losing stability and the downtown is losing any appeal to year-round residents. This is not about students. They need housing. The issue is that without any limits, the market will always favor whoever can pay more often. And right now, that means a steady erosion of the year-round community. Rent stabilization is another way to put basic guardrails on that system. It won't stop development. It won't eliminate profit. It will simply prevent extreme rent increases that force people out with no warning and no alternative. This is urgent. The displacement is already happening. According to the housing production plan, we are down to 13,000 year-round residents. Rent stabilization is not the whole solution, but it's a necessary one. And the longer we wait, the harder it will be to reverse the damage. Thank you for your support of the resolution.

Thank you for coming tonight, Darcy. Athena? Si, Olaphat. Si, Olaphat, please come on up. State your name and where you live and make your comment.

Good evening. The name is C.D. Lefebvre. I live in Amherst over around Summer Street by Farfus Pond. Thank you, everyone, for holding this meeting about rent control and Proposition 1447 and H2328. It is important to discuss the issue of rent control for Amherst. Today, the astronomical prices and the ever-increasing rental market needs to be stopped. Both big and small landlords in Amherst continue to raise rents beyond reasonable percentages, and some, as highlighted in the recent Amherst Bulletin article, went up for inspection fail. I have personally experienced this firsthand living in Amherst and at recent places, both on hedgerow and other addresses. We need safe and affordable rental units here in Amherst, which is inclusive. Without rent control capping the rent increases between five and 7%, and please, the emphasis is on 5%, we will continue to see Amherst lose the fight against inclusivity and equality, and the increased exclusion of community members who work here. Many will never be able to afford a home, which now on average I thought was $300,000, $400,000 to start and beyond to $100 million. Please consider passing a local rent control ordinance capping the rent increase to 5% per year in order to preserve and protect the progressive diversity and inclusivity Amherst claims is important to its social dynamics and home for major institutions of education. Thank you.

Thank you for coming tonight, C.D. Athena? Vince O'Connor. Vince, please come on up, state your name and where you live, and make your comments.

I'm Vince O'Connor. I live at 175 Summer Street, Apartment 12.

I not only support rent control, I support rent rollbacks, but I'm here tonight to speak about the school budget.

The manager was wrong to oppose the council's decision to provide money necessary to completely replace the regional middle school roof. He was wrong to sign a way to beacon the community's 10 housing affordability protections without public hearings or discussion or the prior knowledge and consent of the council he is wrong to have ordered the amherst police department to ignore its duties to enforce the laws of the commonwealth and become crowd control bystanders to any ice and border patrol criminal misconduct and the manager is wrong again to have proposed to the council that you vote to reduce the FY27 elementary school budget voted by our elected at-large school committee by over half a million dollars as we open a new elementary school and try to implement a previous school administration's plan to educate Amherst sixth graders. Please reject Another misguided managerial policy proposal. Instead, vote to support a motion to approve the amount for the FY27 elementary school budget, which was voted by the Amherst School Committee. and return the remainder of the FY27 municipal operating budget to the council's finance committee for adjustments consistent with that vote for a responsible FY27 elementary school budget. Thank you.

Thank you for coming tonight, Vincent. Athena? Martin Severidge? Please come on up, state your name and where you live, and make your comments.

Good evening, everyone. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I'd also like to speak in favor of rent control legislation in Amherst.

Can you state your name first?

Very closer.

Just state your name.

Sorry. Martin Beveridge from Maplewood Circle. So I also want to support rent control. You may not be aware that landlords have access to landlord group, which suggests rents based on an algorithm, which it takes from possible rents in the area. So then when 130 at number 11 East Pleasant Street are advertising rents of $1,800 for a single room and $3,200 for a two-bedroom, this immediately impacts that algorithm and invites all landlords to push up their rents to match it. Now, no doubt those apartments are very nice, and the students are maybe very wealthy or have wealthy parents. But that doesn't mean that raises, pushes up the rents everywhere. That means that, of course, That pushes up the value of houses in the area as developers and speculators from out of state dive in to try and buy out homes as soon as they come onto the market. It means a young couple have absolutely no chance of finding a starter home in order to buy and live and raise a family in this area. It means that town is going to kind of die on its feet. Likewise, as others have said, people who work in Amherst can't afford to live here. So I ask you to support this resolution and try and bring in some sort of control, legal stabilization of rent increases.

Thank you for coming tonight, Martin. Athena? Karen Lutterer. Karen, please come on up, state your name and where you live, and make your comment.

Hello.

Hello.

Hi, I'm Karen Lederer. I live in Amherst. I've lived here since the late 70s, and now I'm a gray-haired homeowner lady. But back in the day, I was a tenant for many years. And after I graduated from UMass, I got elected to town meeting and re-elected. And then as one does, I was appointed to committees, including the first housing review board rent regulation in Amherst. I was the only tenant, one tenant representative for 10,000 tenants at the time. Anyway, this board could adjudicate rents if tenants brought a complaint. So it wasn't statewide. It was case by case. I was on the board from 1986 to 1989. The first board wrote the regulations and the procedures. We held hearings. We regulated rent. At that time, only three communities in Massachusetts had rent control. Brookline, Cambridge, and Amherst. But as you know, in 1994, state referendum eliminated all forms of rent regulation statewide. So that meant people voting all over the state and other cities decided Amherst couldn't do what Amherst had spent 13 years hashing out in town meeting as a compromise that would work for this town.

So we have the chance again to figure out what works for this town.

Over the years, I've watched the rents. They're really high. I often ask myself, could I have stayed as a renter? I had a state job, a good job, a union job. I don't know if I could have stayed. And the thing about being a homeowner is that if you have a fixed rate mortgage, not only do you have your equity, which you can do things with, but your costs are fixed. I mean, you might need a new roof. We all know that, or a furnace. But basically, you know your income's this, and your monthly payments are that. That's not true for rent. I remember the anxiety. I was a tenant for 11 years. What's the increase going to be when I get the new lease? So I think it's time that Amherst figures out what we need, and then we do it. So I support rent control. Thanks.

Thank you for coming tonight, Karen. Thank you. Carol Burgess. Carol, please come on up, state your name and where you live and make your comment.

My name is Carol Burgess, and I live in Hadley, Massachusetts. I'm living in a 65 and older community where I would say 70% of our last rent increases were over $300. Some seniors had $500 increases. And we're told we don't know what to expect in this year's increase. So I'm here to support rent control. I feel there's so many things that we're trying to do. And I'm hoping that it comes to fruition because I've been in Massachusetts several times in and out of my life. And we didn't have this problem 30 years ago. People were being fair and there's no fair left in the system. And I just hope for Amherst, Hadley, Northampton, East Hampton, that we can finally get a grip on this problem because it is pushing all the seniors out of the state I know five people in my building have left just since December when we started signing signatures on the ballot. So we really need all the help we can get in all the little towns. And we also need to think someday everybody's going to be a senior and hopefully it will be fixed by then. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for Mindy dome. Representative Dom, please come on up, state your name and where you live, besides Amherst, and make your comment.

I'm Mindy Dahm, and I live in Amherst, and I'm the state rep for the Third Hampshire. I have the pleasure and honor of representing Amherst in the Massachusetts legislature. I was asked to come and speak towards the rent control legislation by Councillor Ken O'Martin. I am a co-sponsor of this legislation in the legislature. I wholeheartedly support both pieces of it, the local option piece and the rent stabilization piece. And if I may, I'm just going to give some information, and then I'll hang around in case there are questions, which I know there are, and I'm prepared to answer them. So I know you know this, but we are in an incredible housing crisis. And the crisis is not only in people facing evictions and loss of housing, but it's also the complete desert in terms of units. According to the UMass Donahue Institute, who does sort of these annual housing surveys, in Western Mass, we need 23,000 units to be able to meet the need of housing. In Hampshire County, it's 5,000. It's wonderful for these projects that we're seeing coming online that have like 30, 40 units. But at that pace, we'll never address the crisis. We need to go big. We need to have housing units of all kinds, affordable through market rate. I know there's been some conversation that I've seen sometimes in the town council, which one's better than the other. All of it is needed in order to address the housing crisis. But in addition to that, we need to have rent stabilization to be able to protect people in their homes. I know people have referred to this as rent control. The bill and the ballot question are not rent control. They're rent stabilization. I come from the New York, New Jersey area, and so there is a very specific difference in what happens. These bills would control the rate of increase of rents. They wouldn't lock in a rent for the end of time or until the tenant leaves. They basically say that you can only raise the rent a certain amount for a certain period of years. I do want to say that the... Do I have time?

you gotta you're gonna have to wrap up but you will be able to answer questions okay there's your buzzer um all right but thank you i'll be around when we get to it and if there's questions we will recognize you thank you for the opportunities thank you for coming tonight rep dom evan naysmith evan please come up come on up state your name and where you live and make your comment evening counselors evan naysmith um uh district five

Some people in Amherst are stunned that I don't want UMass to build more student housing, but I've been consistent with my reasons. When we permit student housing on our side of the street, developers automatically owe us 10% of the price of the building as an affordable housing set-aside or cash payment. We get to control the environmental review and traffic concerns. We can set design standards and select local builders whose kids go to school with ours. More importantly, off-campus student housing generates huge revenues for our schools, senior services, and infrastructure. When we fail to permit off-campus student housing, UMass will permit construction just barely on their side of the street, and we lose all of the benefits that I just mentioned. We should have learned our lesson with Fieldstone, but we didn't. So the Boston Globe this morning ran a story detailing the new dorms that are coming to UMass, quote, The nation's largest student housing developer, a subsidiary of giant private equity firm Blackstone, will lead a comprehensive long range and phased plan to modernize dorms and amenities at UMass using private money to fuel a major upgrade at the state flagship university. These days, rather than financing dorm projects with their own budgets, universities partner with a cottage industry of private companies to fund furnished apartments on university-owned land. The result is towers that look, feel, and cost the same or more as dorm rooms with outside employees taking the role of resident assistants. Rent for the on-campus buildings is typically paid to the developer, not the school, even though the university rules can apply to the student residents." End quote. Let me be clear. Private equity firms are the biggest scumbags in corporate America, especially Blackstone. There is no comparing them against local firms. These guys are going to skirt every environmental law. They will externalize every cost they possibly can to the town of Amherst, and they're not going to pay a single dime in local property taxes. The prices they charge students are going to be astronomical, which is going to worsen the LLC family home conversion problem. And guess where the profits go? New York City, not Amherst.

Thank you. Thank you, Evan, for coming tonight. Stephen Casey. Stephen, please come on up, state your name and where you live, and make your comment.

Good evening. My name, sorry, just woke up. My name is Stephen Casey. I live at 26 Halleck. So originally, I wanted to speak on one concern, but this housing crisis is truly an issue, one that is affecting myself. And I echo the concerns of much of what has been raised this evening. So thank you to everyone that has spoken on that matter. I wanted to address a public safety issue in regards to a walkway. So over on Pine Street, where Pine Street meets Henry, there is a market, Cushman Market. That area is across from a park, which is also very near to our beloved recreational center, I mean, recreational facility, Pucker's Pond. And with this season, that is a highly trafficked area, not only for residents, but for guests of the community. And there is no real way to cross the street safely. That neighborhoods, there are children, there are families on that street. So I just wanted to raise that issue to see if there could be proper markings so that people could cross safely.

Thank you for coming tonight, Stephen.

You're welcome.

Michael Ash. Michael, please come on up, state your name and where you live, and make a comment.

uh hi my name is michael ash i live at 47 mount pleasant street district 4 precinct 4a in amherst and i'm urging you to support and vote in favor of the town of amherst resolution in support of the act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants Many of the people who have already spoken have spoken very eloquently about the high cost and the dangerous consequences. I'd like to address the question, is rent control part of the answer? And I will draw on my expertise as a quantitative policy economist. I have a PhD in economics from UC Berkeley. I'm a professor of economics and public policy at UMass Amherst, where I began my career when I moved here in fall of 99. I'm going to make three points for the affirmative. The first is that the supply of new housing is highly inelastic. We can't expect the market to provide substantial amounts of additional housing in response to high rents. The standard economics argument for permitting high prices is high prices attract additional supply. But this potential responsiveness is not magical. It rests on the existence of suppliers, landlords in this case, able and willing to provide... One minute. To provide... And even then, construction is slow and requires large capital investments. So a pretty good estimate is that there's no responsiveness of housing to higher rents. And so there's really no problem with controlling rents. It's a very effective way to make sure that people can continue to afford housing in Amherst. So that's the first point, that housing supply doesn't respond to its price. The second is that you need perfect competition if you want a rental market to work. The Amherst market is increasingly monopolized. In fact, you can get the odd result that rent control can actually expand the supply of market housing when there is a non-competitive market. market. You end the incentive to withhold supply to extract high rents, and landlords may actually put more units on the market, not fewer, when rent control is passed. And last, rent control has had pernicious effects on town budgeting. It makes it very difficult for renters to support things that would be good for a working campus, like libraries and schools, because they're afraid of pass-through. Rent control would stop that pass-through.

Thank you for coming tonight, Michael. Silas McClung. Silas, please come on up, state your name and where you live, and make your comment.

Hi, my name is Silas. I live on Main Street. I'm just here to voice support along many others here for the solution securing rent stabilization in Amherst and Massachusetts. And rising housing costs really, it creates a lot of uncertainty for me and my family for staying in Amherst in the future. And currently, I pay more for rent than my sibling in New York City. Something doesn't quite sit right about that. So it also, rising housing costs really makes it harder for people who look like me to stay in this community that we all call home. And so I think we all deserve access to stable housing. Housing is a human right. And I just ask that you support the resolution and really help ensure Amherst remains a place where my family and others can continue to live and work and learn. So thank you.

Thank you for coming tonight, Silas. Jeff Coyne. Jeff, please come on up, state your name and where you live, and make your comment.

Hey everybody, my name is Jeff Coyne and I'm a tenant living at 345 East Street in East Hampton. I'm speaking to you this evening in my professional capacity as a tenant organizer working for Springfield No One Leaves to secure this desperately needed rent stabilization in Amherst, our local communities, and throughout the state. I urge you to vote yes in support of tonight's municipal resolution for rent stabilization. Recent figures show that upwards of 70% of people in Mass support rent stabilization. In our neighboring towns, Northampton, East Hampton, and Greenfield passed nearly identical resolutions over the past several months. Holyoke and Springfield are slated to pass similar resolutions tonight and tomorrow, and I hope that the progressive town of Amherst will do the same. As a reminder, this resolution is in support of SB 1447, and the vote tonight is not about whether or not to enact rent control. It simply signals support for the modest local option. While several people tonight spoke or will speak about their lived experience with egregious rent increases and the deleterious effects those increases have on our society as a whole, I want to spend a little bit of time addressing the fear mongering the $30 million opposition campaign is levying against our effort to keep our neighbors in their homes. One of the central claims that the $30 million corporate backed opposition has been peddling is that rent stabilization will hurt housing production. The truth is that rent stabilization can and should coexist with increased housing production. We need every tool in the toolbox to make housing more affordable, including new housing production and basic protections against expensive rent hikes. The claim that rent control discourages new construction is not backed by data. The primary factors affecting new housing development are well understood, exclusionary zoning, high cost of material labor, and fluctuating interest rates. In order to make it crystal clear that our policy encourages continued development to address housing shortages, this bill includes a 10-year exemption for new construction, giving builders the certainty they need while still protecting tenants from displacement. That means that owners of new apartments can set rents as high as they want and raise them as much as they want for the next 10 years. Please, I urge you to pass this resolution tonight. We know that $100 rent increases correlate or correspond to 9% increase in homelessness across the country. Please pass this.

Thank you for coming tonight, Jeff. Noah Siegel? Noah, please come on up, state your name and where you live, and make your comments.

Hi, good evening. My name is Noah Siegel. I live in Northampton, Massachusetts, but I'm here this evening to express the support of the Sunrise Movement at UMass Amherst, an organization of about 50 UMass student activists, for the resolution in support of an act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants. The resolution and the bill it supports would allow for much needed rent stabilization and tenant protection policies to be implemented by the town of Amherst, adding to the toolbox of this council as it attempts to address pressing local housing issues. As students, myself and my friends in Sunrise understand that the competitive housing market caused by a large student presence has been painful for Amherst. We do not want our neighbors and friends to be priced out of this community by high rents, which hurt us as well. Large numbers of UMass students face housing and food insecurity, and we are being crushed under the weight of increasing costs, driven by a university administration which refuses to take our well-being seriously, orienting its housing policy towards predatory public-private partnerships, like the failed Fieldstone project. The sort of measures allowed for by revoking the statewide rent control ban would help to alleviate housing market pressures on the whole community in a major way, improving affordability and lowering competition between students and other Amherst residents. As stated in the resolution, even as the council has implemented new zoning guidelines, building new housing alone may not decrease rents. That is why it is so important to introduce rent stabilization and crucial for this council to put pressure on the state government to pass sweeping policy to allow for rent stabilization and rent control. Students want to contribute to the Amherst economy by renting at affordable prices without driving out existing residents. I would strongly encourage the council to vote in favor of the resolution. Thank you.

Thank you for coming tonight, Noah. Jessica Reyes. Jessica, please come on up, state your name and where you live, and make your comment.

Hi, my name is Jessica Reyes. I live on Cherry Lane in Amherst. I believe public policy should be thoughtful, multifaceted, and always centering people, families, children, the community. Like my colleague, Michael Ash, I'm a PhD economist with a PhD from Harvard and an economics professor at Amherst College. I understand that there is absolutely nothing free about free markets. As Professor Ash said, Doing this with prices is not going to help people. This is a monopolistic market. Letting the prices go up is not going to solve this problem. The entire economic and social system is set up to benefit those with money and power. For one of the main things money buys is exactly that, the power to control the system. So a crude, strict ban on an element of policy makes absolutely no sense. We're in a housing crisis, and thoughtful housing policy will include multiple interwoven elements, including rent stabilization. As Senator Dahm said, all of this is needed. The social science evidence is clear. These policies working together enable families to stay in the community and for our community to thrive by welcoming new folks and keeping those who already live here. It is really important in supporting this that Amherst should do this to live out our values and give the power to the people It's the people's town. It does not belong to, nor is it here for, profit-seeking landlords and corporations to extract from us. It is here for the people of this town. Thank you.

Thank you for coming tonight, Jessica. Thomas Crossman. Thomas, please come on up, state your name and where you live, and make your comment.

Thomas Crossman, I run a business in Amherst, but live in Belchertown. I'm missing pickleball for this. I have reviewed the town of Amherst resolution in support of an act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rent and protect tenants. I appreciate and value the intentions of this resolution and of what rent control appears to provide for the residents in the community and the state. I want it to be known that I respect all of you who are behind this and the amount of work that goes into these matters and its importance to the council members and the constituents that they represent. I'm here to offer an additional perspective from the profession that provides housing and housing services to our residents. Implementing rent control will not have the effect that it is desired to accomplish. We have seen this in the past in Massachusetts, and there were many reasons why it was repealed in 94. History should be our professor on this matter, and we should lean into the examples that have happened as a result of putting in rent control. A few points from the website rentcontrolhistory.com to teach us about the effects. Landlords waited longer before approving applications. Rental availability was reduced during rent control. Rich people took 20% of rent control dwellings, including a judge, a prince, and a mayor. Rent control property owners were beholden to rent boards. Rent control boards contributed to urban blight. Lower rent turned into lower maintenance. Hundreds of buildings were abandoned. Local property assessments went down. Lower local tax revenue meant higher state aid. Cities without rent control subsidized cities with rent control. Landlords stopped providing housing. To respond to some of the items in your proposal, I would say that rapidly escalating cost of housing is not unique to Amherst. The cost has increased throughout the Commonwealth and there continues to be a divorce between the cost of housing and the employment income opportunities that exist. A way to combat these rising housing costs is to create more housing options for the residents of Amherst. With more housing options available, it will alleviate a demand for existing inventory, which will force landlords to consider new rent levels or if a house should be a rental or an owner-occupied single family.

Please wrap up. Thank you, Thomas, for coming tonight. Deb Leonard. Deb, please come on up, state your name and where you live, and make your comment.

Hi, everybody. I'm Deb Leonard. I live in District 5, and I am current chair of the Amherst School Committee. March 17, we had the pleasure of having a budget hearing, the Amherst School Committee, in this very room. And I spent a solid three days transcribing those minutes because we don't have anybody to do our minutes anymore. We do them ourselves. We post on board docs ourselves. There's a lot that we do. There's a lot that you folks do. There's a lot that we do. What I hope you will do is listen to those public comments because our educators made it very clear that the budget that you have in front of you for the most part will fundamentally change the culture of our school. Um, the, the reduction of the specials teachers is, is critical, um, in, in what that climate is going to look like in, in, and I'd like to read what Alison Estes, the, the principal of Amherst Brooks said, she just said, um, where is it? There are 30 classrooms and in a class, and in a teacher's schedule, there are room for 30 lessons in the course of a week with a 40 minute planning period and a 30 minute lunch. That is what's possible. It is accurate that our adaptive specials cannot happen within that model and the culture and the climate work that our special teachers do is not possible. It is very different right now. Our tech teachers handle all the tech needs in the building as part of their role. This is not possible within the model. And also the librarian. If the librarian is teaching 30 classes a week, there is no time for shelving. So you know the things that are necessary to keep circulation going. Those are pieces that are sacrificed when we are told that the town is trying to maintain a 3.85 increase in the budgets. I'd just like you to know that I understand there are financial limitations, but I really hope you understand the implications of the budget you're about to vote. Thank you.

Thank you for coming tonight, Deb. Luke Rocello. Luke, please come on up, state your name and where you live, and make your comments.

Hey, my name is Luke Rotello. I live in Northampton now. I am a former Amherst resident, and I'd like to thank Member Leonard for her work as a product of Amherst Public Schools. Today, I've come to you in the capacity as a chair of the Western Massachusetts Club of the Communist Party USA. As a representative of a political party strongly supportive of rent control and of tenants rights in general, I want to provide some context on the resolution before the council tonight. Over the past year, working class progressive and popular forces have mobilized for a ballot initiative that, if passed by a statewide popular vote in November, will impose a single universal system of rent stabilization in the state. Under pressure from this movement, leading elements of the state Democratic Party have taken a renewed interest in a proposal before the state legislature, legalizing a municipal opt-in system instead of a single mandatory model proposed at the ballot. This legislation, if passed, would grant substantial control over rent stabilization to landlord and developer lobbies, which can threaten capital strikes against any city or town considering opting in. This legislative proposal in that context is thus a compromise, using the power of our mass movement as leverage to evade a wider political confrontation. the intent of the resolution before the council tonight is to endorse that compromise which has seen a renewed push in the final days of the state legislative session the last possible moments before the 2026 elections i'm not here to cast any aspersions on the council for support of this measure nor on the supporters gathered here tonight with this comment i hope to provide context for progressive forces and supporters of rent control to ensure that all political forces understand this moment as it relates to the struggle for universal tenant protections thank you so much

Thank you for coming tonight, Luke. Daniel Feldman. Daniel, please come on up, state your name and where you live, and make your comment. Oh, OK. Sarah Reyes. Sarah, please come on up, state your name and where you live, and make your comment.

Hi.

My name is Sarah Reyes. I live in Amherst. I'm here to offer two perspectives. One, as a young person, I grew up in Amherst and wanted to move back here after going away to California for college. I came back to Western Massachusetts. Got a job working as a cook, making a little bit above minimum wage, and started looking for rooms to rent, mostly from UMass students, because those were the places that were offering rooms and houses. And quickly discovered that I would have to pay well above the standard 30% of my income on rent to avoid being rent burdened. So ultimately, I ended up living with my parents. That is was the case for most of my coworkers who are also young people working in the food service industry. Several of my friends, some of whom also worked in the food service industry, some of whom were even teachers also put in this position of not being able to afford to live on their own. And that is something that plagues young people across the country. I'm sure you know that this is one of the hardest times to be a young college graduate in the history of the United States. It's extremely expensive to pay for groceries, to pay for housing, pay for anything. And this resolution will be one small effort to make that burden easier. The other perspective that I'd like to offer is as someone who has previously worked in the city of Oakland's Housing and Community Development Department, Oakland had a rent adjustment program that prevented rent increases of over 2.3% annually in covered units. This is one of the most expensive housing markets in the entire country in the San Francisco Bay Area, as I'm sure many of you are aware. And this was a proven effective policy that actually did help keep people housed, keep people from being displaced. which I saw from working on the inside of this department and from participating in an external university study of the program. I know that that is a different context than Massachusetts, but many of the pressures and economic costs are similar in California to Massachusetts. Both are some of the most expensive places to live in the country. So I would urge you to learn from those lessons to support this resolution.

Thank you. Thank you for coming tonight, Sarah. Leaf Maynard. Leaf, please come on up, state your name and where you live, and make your comment.

Hello.

Thank you very much. My name is Leif Maynard. I live on East Leverett Road in Amherst, also with my parents, and I am Sarah's partner. I speak as a young person who went through the Amherst public school system. I speak as someone who loves Amherst. I think that many of us relate to that. And I speak as someone who, in my love of Amherst, never really am able to envision a world in which I am able to afford to live in Amherst, given my career path. Growing up, it was a magical place to be. And I can speak to a lot of my high school peers who feel the same way. And I don't know any of my high school peers who are able to move back to Amherst, who are able to envision a world in which they can live here. They may live in Hadley. They may live in Belter Town. They do not live in Amherst. And I also speak as someone who would like to start a family someday and would like to start a family in a place like Amherst and to be near with my parents and to be in the town where I can send my kids to the same high school I attended. That is not a possibility currently as it stands. And so I urge you to vote for this resolution, and I support rent stabilization for me and for many of my peers who graduated from Amherst High School in 2019 and now are thinking about in the future in the next few years starting families. Thank you very much.

Thank you for coming tonight, Leif. Osmond Cash Wars. Osmond, please come on up, state your name and where you live, and make your comments.

Thank you, Counselors. My name is Dr. Osman Keshawars. I'm a professor of economics at the University of Hawaii, but I've lived in Northampton for the past eight years and prior to that Amherst for five years. I want to speak in support of the resolution regarding rent stabilization. I spent the last six years studying rent control. I think rent stabilization has a crucial role in stabilizing our communities and making sure that people who are reducing churn in neighborhoods, making sure people who have lived in our neighborhoods are continuing to be able to live in our neighborhoods. My primary area of research was on New Jersey, where about 114 cities and towns have passed some sort of rent stabilization ordinance. And what we see from New Jersey is that actually, a well-designed rent control policy does not have much of an effect on the supply of housing, which is the most common charge that is leveled against rent control, right? We have this statement that's going around, that rent control is the worst thing you could do aside from bombing. We don't see that to be the case from the evidence. What we see in New Jersey is that housing supply remains growing at a relatively stable level, and well-designed rent controls don't really take effect except in cases of extremely high increases in rent. So well-designed rent stabilization policy has the effect of protecting residents against extreme increases in rent, which is exactly what we want, which is exactly what we are seeing here. So I do want to voice my support of this resolution. I think that we have seen it work in other places and it can work here. Thank you.

Thank you for coming tonight, Osman. Andrea Lydica. Andrea, please come on up, state your name and where you live and make your comments.

Thank you. My name is Andrea Lydic. I live in District 5B here in Amherst. I have lived in this district in the same house for the last 10 years. And when I moved there 10 years ago, the rent was $2,100. And this year, my landlord is proposing an increase from $3,300 to $4,000. No discernible improvements, no upgrades to justify the increase. Just great. I am a staff member at UMass and the only reason I can afford to live in Amherst already given my low salary is living with roommates. My husband and I have two roommates and we have to share this house. We like doing it, but it's still an unreasonable expectation for a young couple. We can't start a family with roommates. We can't afford to live in Amherst and we can't afford a $4,000 rent. So we are moving after 10 years. And it's disappointing.

Thank you for coming tonight, Andrea. That is the last name on the register, but there's one more person on Zoom, Kyle Chambers. Yes, Kyle, please unmute yourself, state your name and where you live, and make your comment.

Hi, good evening. My name is Kyle Chambers. I'm a resident of Holyoke, but I'm speaking on behalf of my members of the University Staff Association, roughly 800 clerical and technical staff of UMass Amherst, and I'm speaking in favor of the adoption of resolution in support of an act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants. I'm no economist. I don't have a Ph.D. and I don't play pickleball, but I can speak to the experience of my coworkers and tell you that when we entered our last round of bargaining, cost of living and inflation led to at least one third of our responding members saying that they were facing food insecurity. Not because food is scarce, but because the staff who keep the university running didn't have enough money for food because their cost of living was so prohibitive. Many of our staff are priced out of living in Amherst, and the working class is finding itself increasingly priced out of the area in which they work. Now, I don't pretend that this is an issue that any of you shoulder the blame for. This is an issue that's part of a larger problem, and we need to work together as a community if we are ever to find the solution for it. The answer is not to do nothing. The administration of UMass Amherst continues to not only ignore the problem, but they push to privatize our jobs, and continue to contribute to an environment wherein none of us can thrive. So to summarize, I do hope that you will vote in favor of the adoption, the resolution in support of an act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants. Let's work together on this. Thank you so much.

Thank you for coming tonight, Kyle. Yaping, please unmute yourself, state your name and where you live and make your comment.

Hi, my name is Yao-Ping Douglas. I live in District 2 in Amherst. I wanted to also voice my very strong support for the rent stabilization resolution. And I just wanted to share that I looked up who published the site rent control history that was cited before. And I just thought it would be important for everyone to know that that's published by an organization called Mass Landlords Incorporated. And I personally trust all of my friends who are not able to afford living in Amherst and the economists that spoke and the organizers that are fighting really hard for people to have places to live. And the Amherst that I want to live in would be one that my friends can afford to live in. That's currently not the case. I hope that all of you can support this resolution to make it more a community that I feel proud to live in. Thanks.

Thank you for coming tonight, Ya Ping. Will Cheney, please unmute yourself, state your name and where you live and make your comment.

Hi, my name is Will Chaney. I currently live in Northampton, but I lived in Amherst for two years. I'm also an economist, I guess ABD, about to have a PhD in about a year, hopefully. And I don't study rent control policy, my research is in other things, but I've taught the introduction to micro and macro and all of those levels of classes. And I guess what I wanted to add, I think, because I think a lot of fantastic points have been made that I totally agree with and just really just want to like second and, you know, say I support this resolution. But the arguments around, you know, supply and demand and this is going to have this particular effect and that effect, you know, you know, the ways that those arguments are made. Right. You know, who's you know, which material interests are kind of at stake. Right. Who's getting paid? Right? Like certain arguments come attached to like, who's getting paid and, you know, rent control, minimum wage, these kinds of like regulations. The evidence is super clear that the effects are that they, you know, tend to make it possible for people to stay in town, right? To continue, you know, existing and, you know, not doing them leads to a lot of profits, right? For a very small number of people. Um, so I just wanted to add that consideration of like. you know, where are the arguments coming from? And it just, you know, and just like voice my support. And, you know, from the, you know, introduction to micro and macro, right? I don't know how much I'm allowed to like directly address maybe what others have said, but there was, you know, the supply and demand argument that we're going to have abandoned buildings and it's going to take longer, you know, to, you know, for landlords to rent these, you know, units out or whatever. I mean, the empirical data that you can always find, right? If you pick the right, you know, place to look at, you can get whatever results you want. But the general, you know, if you look at all the data points and if you kind of look at all the different studies, there's no effect, right? There's not going to be, you know, an effect on the supplies, as a bunch of people have already said way more eloquently. So I just vote and I might still be in Amherst if the rent was not too darn high.

Thank you for coming tonight, Will. That concludes public comment. We will now move on to the consent agenda and the following items were selected because they were considered to be routine and it was reasonable to expect they would pass with no controversy. To remove an item from the consent agenda for discussion later in the meeting ask that it be removed when the President lists the consent agenda items. The request to remove an item from the consent agenda does not require a second, so I will read the motion and then see if there are any items to be removed, please note that I have. and preemptively removing two items because i know people are going to remove them instead of me reading them and those are six a and b so they are going to be removed from the consent agenda which is the adoption of the banned books week proclamation and the adoption of the resolution and support of an act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protections. They are no longer part of the consent agenda. So after I read the motion, please let me know if there's anything else that anyone would like removed. This is to move the following items and the printed motions there under and approve those items as a single unit. 6C adoption of the 250th celebration of the Declaration of Independence Proclamation. Waiver of Town Council Rules of Procedure Rule 8.6 for Item 6D. Item 6D, adoption of Black Business Association of Amherst Area's 10th Anniversary Citation. Item 8A1, adoption of FY27-02, Amherst Pelham Regional School District Budget Assessment. Item 8B, adoption of FY27 water and sewer rates and amendments to water and sewer regulations. I think there are four motions under that item, just to know. Item 8D, approval of the FY27 intergovernmental agreements. Waiver of Town Council Rules of Procedure Rule 8.6 for Agenda Items 9A1 through 3. 9 a 1 approval of town manager appointment of senior services director 9 a 2 approval of town manager reappointments 9 a 3 approval of town manager appointments to the department of public works building committee 9 b 1 appointment of everald henry to the zoning board of appeals for a full member term to expire june 30 20 29 9 b 2 appointment of Blair Nam to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an associate member term to expire June 30, 2027. 9B3, appointment of Francisco Balto to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an associate member term to expire June 30, 2027. 11A to B, approval of minutes June 1, 2026 regular meeting and June 8, 2026 special meeting with CSSJC and HRC. Please note the actual motions on the initial motion sheet for Blair Naum and the fourth person that is listed, Sarah Morton, were mixed. They have been corrected. So we will be adopting, if they stay on consent, the correct terms for Blair Naum. Sarah Morton's could not be on consent because it was not a unanimous vote at CRC. Are there any other requests to remove items from the consent agenda? Oh, I wanted to make one more thing. The Amherst Pelham Regional School District budget assessment is on consent, but the other two votes on the budget are not on consent. That is the capital budget vote and the operating budget vote. They will remain off consent. Councillor Brevick. I would also like to remove 60 adoption of 250 celebration of Declaration of Independence Proclamation. Okay, yes, thank you. Are there any other requests for removal? Councilor Kendall Martin?

Can I just ask a clarifying question? Yes. Okay. So on the consent agenda, where we talked about which parts of the budget that we're going to put under consent, does that mean that if the school district budget assessment is on consent, that we will not be able to discuss the school budget at all in the

We would not discuss the regional school budget. Got it. Okay. This is the regional assessment that is on consent, which is the 7 to 12 school budget for towns, not the K-6 budget.

Okay.

Thank you. Then I'll leave it. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Any other requests to remove any items? Seeing none, is there a second to the motion?

Griesemer, second.

Thank you. We will move to a vote. Seeing no discussion, we start with Councillor Ryan.

Aye.

Cathy Shane.

Yes.

Jennifer Taub. Yes. Councillor Walker. Yes. Councillor Brevik. Yes. Councillor Kano-Martin. Yes. Andy Churchill.

Yes.

Anna Devlin-Gauthier. Aye. Lynn Griesemer.

Aye.

Mandy Johanneke is an aye. Councillor Lord? Aye. Sam McLeod?

Aye.

And Pam Rooney? Yes. That is unanimous. The consent agenda passes. We will now move on to item 8C. 8C was not on consent. Let me page down to this. Item 8C, and then we will move back up to the resolutions and proclamations. We are moving on to the Community Preservation Act Appropriation Order FY2707B, Goodwin Memorial Church Preservation. Before I make the motion, I want to recognize Councilor Lord.

Thank you, President Haneke. I am going to recuse myself. Would you like me to remove myself from the room?

Technically, you're supposed to at least sit in the audience. It's a referral, so you can choose to sit in the audience instead of leaving the room. Now I will make the motion. The motion is to refer appropriation and transfer order FY2707B, an order appropriating the FY27 Community Preservation Act budget as required under MGL Chapter 44B to the Finance Committee with recommendation and report to the Town Council by July 20th, 2026. Is there a second? Second, Rooney. Thank you, Pam. Is there any discussion on this motion? Point of order, just want to recognize that Katie Zobel, the CPAC chair, is here with us. Katie, would you like to speak to this? Or if there's no discussion, would you just rather us have directly to a vote?

Thank you, Councilor Haneke. I would be happy to answer questions or speak to it. I would be thrilled to go to a vote. I just want to say I'm grateful for the opportunity to provide the whole, on behalf of the whole CPAC committee, this opportunity to support the Goodwin Memorial Church because it's such an important historic place. resource and landmark, but also because of its history to the entire community and especially to African-American residents. And I'm just thrilled that the way it worked out is that they'll actually, this will actually be a match to a state grant. So they'll have double the amount of money to support, not only just fixing something, but a huge amount of prevention work so that going forward, this kind of water damage won't happen again. So that's, those are the high points of it.

Thank you, Katie. And thank you for coming tonight.

Happy to be here.

Okay. Oh, you don't have a hand. We're going to go to Sam McLeod and then Kathy Shane.

Thank you, Mandy. And thank you, Katie. I'd just like to comment that I'm so glad that CPA came back with this application request. That building is just a hidden gem in Amherst. And all their requests for funding is very frugal and cost savings. And I just like to commend the Katie, you and your committee for coming back to assist with this exceptional building in town. Thank you.

Thank you. Kathy, Shane. Just echoing on Sam, Katie, I know you also had to have a special meeting to get it done in this cycle. We in the Finance Committee will be taking this up tomorrow. It's on our agenda, so the report back will likely be earlier than the due date that was just announced.

Okay.

Thank you. Further discussion? Seeing none, we will move to a vote. We start with Kathy Shane.

Yes.

Jennifer Todd. Yes. Councillor Walker. Yes. Councillor Brevik. Yes. Councillor Cannell-Martin. Yes. Andy Churchill. Yes. Anna Devlin-Gauthier. Aye. Lynn Griesemer.

Aye.

Mandy Johanik is an aye. Sam McLeod.

Aye.

Pam Rooney. Yes. And Councillor Ryan.

Aye.

So that is 12 in favor with zero opposed and one absent due to recusal. We are done with that. So Councillor Lord, you may return. Okay. Thank you for accommodating us as we took that out of sequence so Katie could leave and not have to wait to get to that any longer. We will now move on back to item 6a me i gotta scroll a lot the banned books week's 2026 proclamation i'm gonna make a motion and then it'll become obvious why it was i i removed it from consent the motion is to adopt the banned books week books week 2026 proclamation as amended by adding the phrase community sponsor representative mindy dom beneath the jones library trustee sponsor line is there a second second devlin gothier thank you is there any discussion As the motion said, I couldn't keep it on consent because it needed an amendment. Seeing no discussion, we start with Jennifer Taub. Yes. Councillor Walker.

Yes.

Councillor Brevick. Yes. Councillor Kano-Martin. Yes. Andy Churchill.

Yes.

On a Devlin got the eye. We agree summer I Mandy Johan a key is an eye Councilor Lord I Sam McLeod I Pam Ernie yes Council Ryan I and Kathy Shane yes that is unanimous. We move on to item 6 B. the resolution in support of an act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants. I am going to recognize Councillor Cano-Martin to make the motion.

Yes, so I moved to adopt the town of Amherst resolution in support of an act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants as amended by adding the following to the Community sponsor line. Quote and 142 Amherst residents and Community organizations see attached list and including the following on a page following the signature line.

And the following is the list of Community sponsors and 142 names correct Okay, is there a second.

Second Walker.

I heard a leash counselor Walker, so the second goes to counselor Walker and counselor kennel Martin, would you like to speak to the resolution.

Yes, I would. Thank you. So good evening, everybody. Hope everyone's having a wonderful evening so far. So I just want to speak to several aspects of the resolution tonight. I do encourage all of my colleagues here tonight to join me in voting yes for the resolution. It's a vital step towards addressing the profound housing crisis gripping both our town and Massachusetts as a whole. So, first of all, I want to start with the scope of the crisis in Amherst in terms of affordable housing. And the body text of the resolution draws extensively on data from Amherst's own housing production plan, which this council voted to adopt in 2025. So I'm just going to read out a few of the key statistics for folks who may not have had a chance to read that. So, a third of non-students' residents surveyed as part of the plan, including 25% of families, anticipate leaving Amherst within five years, with most citing unsustainable housing costs as the primary reason. Another statistic, 58.5% of Amherst renters are considered cost burden, paying more than 30% of their income on rent and utilities. Even more alarming, 39.2% are severely cost burdened, paying over 50% of their income just to keep a roof over their heads. 11.86% of our housing stock is listed on the subsidized housing inventory. However, less than 7% is truly affordable with long-term income restrictions. Market rental prices here are 50% to 100% higher than the regional fair market rent. A one-bedroom in Amherst averages $1,752 a month compared to $1,115 regionally. And finally, in 2023, 28% of Amherst households earn less than 30,000 a year, and 40.8% of our low-income households fell below 200% of the federal poverty level. And I'm just citing these statistics because we heard some really painful and difficult stories from folks who came to give testimony tonight, and I do thank them for that. And they are some of the human beings that are reflected in these numbers. The second thing I want to do is just clarify what we are voting for tonight. So even though it seems like some folks are saying one thing and some are saying another based on their understanding of what's being put forward, we are not voting tonight to implement rent control or rent stabilization in Amherst today. So we are voting on whether or not our Council can support House Bill 2328 and Senate Bill 1447, which are co-sponsored by our own State Representative Mindy Dahm and our State Senator Joe Comerford. Because a 1994 statewide ballot initiative banned rent control across Massachusetts, no municipality currently has the right to even consider it. This legislation simply lifts that ban and restores a local option, giving Amherst and our neighboring towns the autonomy to decide what policies work best for our unique communities. Remember, rent stabilization is a tool in the toolbox. We already have in Amherst the Affordable Housing Trust, the Amherst Community Land Trust, inclusionary zoning, which we continue to improve upon, and we are still actively fighting for a local real estate transfer tax option. But to overcome a crisis of this magnitude, we do need access to every tool available, as Representative Dahm stated in her testimony. Finally, I just want to make clear that rent control is an older term that may be recognizable to folks from 30 to 40 years ago. And it's often used as a, you know, something that we put on a protest sign or, you know, a chant that we say, but It's actually rent stabilization. So people emotionally resonate with the term rent control because it's historic and they know it. However, this measure is rent stabilization. As many folks have said, the rents will still continue to go up, but those increases will be capped at 5%, according to this policy, if adopted. by municipalities. And again, we're not voting tonight on whether or not Amherst will adopt it. So I just wanted to clarify, yes, we understand the difference between rent control and rent stabilization. However, popular movements oftentimes will take up a certain term as their slogan. So again, this is something that is being fought for statewide. If Amherst does vote for this tonight, we will be joining folks across the state. like the powerful coalition Homes for All and Keep MA Home. And this movement brings together labor unions, faith-based organizations, tenant advocates, and key grassroots groups representing low-income residents across the state. Just to name a few, Arise for Social Justice, Chinese Progressive Association, City Life, Vida Urbana in Boston, Right to the City Boston, and Springfield No One Leaves. If folks have questions about these groups, I would suggest that you look at their website, Homes for All Mass, and Keep Mass Home, because these are really the voices that we need to be listening to when it comes to affordable housing. Finally, we have a lot of regional momentum behind us. As was mentioned before, the city councils of Northampton and East Hampton have passed resolutions supporting this legislation last year. Our community, as you can see, is watching and waiting for us to lead. We only have up until July 1st for this legislation to pass at the state level, so it's quite urgent. We have 144 residents have signed on as community sponsors, 58% of whom are current or former Amherst renters. And we also have the support of eight local organizations, Amherst Cinema Workers United, Building Solidarity Economies, Center for Popular Economics, Julie Nolan Jewelry, Palestine Solidarity Caucus, Professional Staff Union PSU at UMass, UMass Communist, Sunrise Movement UMass, and really many others. We are really limited on time and folks are continuing to even sign on as we're speaking. So just a sampling of some of the community support. So let's stand with our residents and join our neighboring communities. And let's add Amara's voice to the chorus of elected leaders and working families fighting for housing justice. I hope you'll all vote yes tonight. And thank you so much.

Thank you, Councilor Kendall-Martin. Is there discussion? Councillor Brevick.

Sorry. Yeah, I just wanted to add my voice to the discussion and I will try not to repeat some of the things that Councillor Kano-Martin said. But I do want to thank everybody who came out tonight because it was really, it's so important to hear all of these stories. And I think the sharing of information is critical. I would like to speak strongly in favor of this resolution because I believe that rent stabilization should be available as a tool, one of several tools that we have at our disposal to address the housing affordability crisis. Municipalities deserve the right to decide for themselves whether this policy is appropriate for our local situation, and the current statewide ban prevents us from even having that choice. The reality is that housing costs are pushing people out of their homes and communities. Amber cited a lot of the important stats from our own housing production plan here in Amherst. We have heard so many similarly compelling stats and have so much at our disposal to understand the full picture from reputable and thorough sources and personal stories like the ones shared with us tonight. And honestly, I think at almost every single council meeting since I've been on the council, We've had somebody come and speak to something related to the high cost of rent. And so, you know, we know for people living in low-income households on fixed incomes, a large rent increase can mean displacement, being forced to leave the communities where people work, where they've built their lives, where their children go to school. We know that displacement leads to high rates of mental health issues, including depression, and frequent moves can affect educational outcomes for children too. It feels almost absurd to have to state things like this. I hope we can all agree that we should do whatever we can to reduce the displacement of families, especially when a pathway is so clearly laid out for us like this one is. Um, and so I won't restate any of the specifics of the bill or what it does is Amber so clearly laid all of that out. But I wanted to just, uh, emphasize on two just really quick points that others spoke to in public comment, but that On the idea that rent stabilization discourages housing production, and we can see from research that a well-designed rent stabilization policy does not discourage new housing construction. Rather, it is something critical to have in place as we're working to increase new development. So I see this as a really nice complement to some of the other discussions that we'll hopefully have in the coming months around increasing housing development. And because of the exemptions, it's an opportunity to make our community less vulnerable to profit-seeking investors who purchase properties and drive up prices. And it enables us to balance tenant protections with continued housing production. So I think that is absolutely critical. And then on the potential impacts on housing quality, Former rent control policies were said to have an impact on housing quality by disincentivizing repairs and improvement projects. However, this was not uniformly true. And it was found that proactive code enforcement has been shown to really mitigate this effect in a big way. And we've already implemented a rental registration and inspection policy here in Amherst, which, again, creates a good foundation for implementing rent stabilization. So I support this resolution because I support local decision making when it comes to issues as critical as the housing crisis. And I would look forward to having the opportunity to deliberate this and the details as a council and hear more from our constituents to ensure we're adopting a thoughtful, comprehensive local policy that reflects our unique needs. Thank you.

Thank you. Andy Churchill.

Yeah, we have the House co-sponsor here, and I had sent Representative Dahm some questions earlier today at the invitation of Amber, and so she indicated that she had some answers to those questions. I'd love to hear from her if that's okay.

Can you state your questions so that everyone knows what they were?

These are basically just looking to clarify how this would work. So number one, it would be an opt-in by any interested municipality, correct? Would all opting-in municipalities then abide by the same package of rules, or would it be different from town to town? So that's number one. Number two is, do you think it would reduce rents in some way or just keep them from going much higher than they are now? Number three, would all rental properties in a municipality, other than those types specifically exempted, be controlled, or would there be some rent stabilized and some others market rate? Four, do you think it would discourage development of new housing? Massachusetts and the Pioneer Valley have been identified as having a housing shortage, but maybe the exemption for new developments would keep this from discouraging new supply? Five, after new units are 10 years old, they would be rent controlled. Before that, could they charge whatever they want? Would there be an incentive to raise rent before the 10-year deadline? Six, how would a town like Amherst enforce rent control? How would we know who's charging what? And seven, I hear there's a, quote, compromise proposal also being discussed in the legislature. What's the status of that?

Thank you. And I will add one more. Andy said 10 years, but the bill itself that I pulled off the website says five. So I want, I'd like you to clarify that. So Rep Dom, can you come up to answer those questions?

Just make sure the light is on. I feel like I have a test tonight. I hope I pass. So I have answers. I took the questions that I got from Andy and also Councillor Shane, and I sent them to the Housing Committee today to get their read on it, because they're the ones that are actually deliberating the bill. So I can also read the answers to specific questions. Before I do that, I just want to clarify something in the legislation. When we talk about will it discourage new construction, new construction is exempt for five years in the bill. So it won't discourage new construction. I mean, it won't add a disincentive to new construction. I want to answer the compromise one just briefly. So right now there's been reported efforts to have a compromise that would prevent the statewide referendum from going forward and that this bill is becoming the way to stop the referendum. So in other words, It was reported in the Boston media that folks who were supporting this bill and the referendum were engaging in conversations with the anti-rent stabilization folks to not go forward with the statewide referendum if this bill goes forward. I don't know the status of those conversations, but I know that it's been reported. Each side has until about July 1st to figure out what they want to do, because by July 1st, the statewide referendum people have to submit more signatures to make sure they're on the ballot. So that's sort of the deadline for these negotiations between both sides. Does that answer your question?

Andy?

So there actually is potential for a statewide referendum on this, and this bill is an attempt to deal with that legislatively rather than through a referendum?

It's becoming a tool to incorporate this, a local option statewide instead of a statewide reinstatementization. I also brought fact sheets from the major sponsors. I brought enough for all the council members.

If you could just hand them to our council clerk. I believe they look similar to what Councillor Ken O'Martin emailed to the council.

But they might be helpful because it also specifies the exemptions that are in the bill. Okay, so let me get to your answers. So first question. In a property with high turnover, and this is both counselors' questions together, in a property with high turnover such as off-campus student housing, would the limit apply on the rent for new tenants? The answer from the committee, the current bill language would limit rent increases from year to year on leases, regardless of whether or not the tenancy turns over to new tenants or if the same tenants are remaining. The bill language provides a list of exemptions, including traditional student housing dormitories, but in terms of housing that would typically align with off campus student housing, the same rent increase rules would apply under the law. Two, has there been thought about how a town will monitor this? How would a town like Amherst enforce rent control? How would we know who's charging what? Answer, the proposed language would allow cities and towns to establish a rent control board, which would serve as the primary vehicle for reviewing the increases of rents, landlord tenant conflicts, et cetera. And it sounds from a previous speaker That Amherst already had this in place before the statewide ban went into effect, so it probably could be something to be looked at that's modernized and made more current. Three, it would be an, quote, unquote, opt-in by any interested municipality, correct? Would all opt-in municipalities then abide by the same package of rules? Yes, it is opt-in. The municipality would have to accept the local option within 180 days of the bill being adopted into law. And then they would have another 180 days to pass a local bylaw or ordinance that would put it into effect. The local bylaw would have to align with what is set forth in the legislation, whatever ends up being in statute. Four, do you think it would reduce rents in some way or just keep them from going much higher than they are now? Answer. The intent of the proposed legislation is to ensure that rent increases are done in a stable and consistent manner that encourage affordability, but they do not contain any specific provisions that would lower existing rents.

Five, is this okay that this is helpful?

Okay. Five, would all rental properties in a municipality other than those types specifically exempted be controlled or would there be some rent controlled and others market rate? Answer, according to the current bill language, the rent stabilization would apply to all rental properties unless they fall under one of the exemptions. Six, do you think it would discourage development of new housing? You might be asking me this personally, so I may give my piece after, but Massachusetts and the Pioneer Valley have been identified as having a housing shortage, but maybe the exemption for new developments would keep this from discouraging new supply. Answer, the current version of the bill has a five-year exemption for any properties that had their first certificate of occupancy on or after January 1st, 2021. The negotiations include an exemption for new builds of 15 years. Remember the bill itself says five. Negotiations around the language are ongoing between housing advocates and stakeholders, including developers, landlords, and realtors in order to ensure that a balance is met between the affordability issue and certain things like incentive to continue housing development. So I think that's the guts, actually, of the negotiations. If you're asking me, I think that the exemption for five years, potentially extending it, should not have any effect on construction. 15 years, I think, is being viewed because if a developer took out a 15-year mortgage to make a project, that's what they're counting on, right? That's part of their business plan is certain rents for that time period. But I think in a town like Amherst, it might have more of a limit on limited corporations buying houses. After new units are 10 years old, they would be rent controlled. Before that, could they charge whatever they want? Would there be an incentive to raise rents before the 10-year deadline? Great question. The current bill language does not include rent control and focuses on rent stabilization. The current version of the bill has a five-year exemption on rent increases amounts for any properties that had their first C certificate of occupancy on or after January 1st, 2021. the preliminary language that has come from negotiations between stakeholders includes an exemption for new builds of 15 years negotiations around the language are ongoing between housing advocates and stakeholders including developers landlords and realtors Additional information from the committee was the only surefire way economists argue to lower rents and create more affordability is to build more units and increase vacancy rates, as rent stabilization helps keep tenants in place, slow the cost of living increases, and can help prevent displacement. But the policy is hotly debated. And this goes back to something I said during public comment. In order for us to address the housing crisis, we have to produce units and we have to prevent displacement. We have to do both. So the legislature also has put in a right to counsel so that tenants have legal counsel if they're being evicted. That has not been the case previously. Now that is the case. We funded that. All of that is designed to keep people housed. But we also have people who aren't housed, who need to be housed. And I found the comments tonight really poignant because what we're hearing from people who are kind of doubling up is they want to live in our community they can't afford to be in our community so they leave our community that decline in population is like a death knell for a community so that's another reason to be thinking about this that means declining enrollment in schools that means declining population in census bureau that's declining resources from the state and federal government in addition to the fact that we want people to be able to live here and we want our community to be vibrant. Rent is mostly calculated in the pre-development and operational cost stages of a building unit. So rent is usually calculated to not only prove to financial investors how much a project will make over time, but it is also determined by bank, mortgage, loans, insurance costs, land taxes, Cost of maintenance as a calculations can be varied. It's a myriad of things, including comparative market analysis, cost of turnover, lease structures, et cetera. And this is why that 15 year is probably in the negotiation mix right now. I hear there's a compromise proposal also being discussed in the legislature. What's the status? There are multiple rent control bills before the committee with different variations, so it can get confusing. But the proposed compromise language by Homes for All, who are proponents of the ballot initiative, have been in negotiations with developers, landlords, realtors. The preliminary language that has come from the negotiation center around the exemptions that would be included. The compromise negotiations have not involved the legislature at this time, just the advocates on both sides. So I think we don't know what the negotiation status is, but I can tell you that because they're happening right now and we're coming up to July 1st, it's a very timely action to support the bill because it shows support for that part of the negotiation.

Thank you. Andy, do you have any further follow-up?

No, I appreciate the quick turnaround on this, and sorry for making you feel like you're taking a test.

Oh, no, it's good. I'm up for it.

I just really wanted to clarify sort of some of the nuts and bolts of what it might look like. And I also, I mean, we need to, you need to think about what's happening statewide, and we think about what's happening in Amherst. But I think, you know, I would ultimately be wondering what's happening statewide. But I think in Amherst, the supply is so constrained and the examples we heard of some of these really excessive increases is, I think in our context, it might be different than a lot of contexts where rent control has been discussed in various ways. So I think I'm I have a sense that this could be helpful in terms of certainly going to hold back some of those 30%, 40% raises, increases. And I think it also might restrain some of the interest among outside investors and LLCs in converting family homes to rentals because the payoff wouldn't be as big.

Council Member Churchill, with all due respect, I only think about Amherst and Granby on these issues. And the fact is that because this is a local option, I can bring completely my understanding about what's happening in Amherst and Granby to it. In terms of housing cost burdens, I just want to repeat the one statistic that was offered earlier. So being house cost burden means that you're spending more than 30% of your gross income either on a rent or mortgage. And according to the U.S. Donahue Institute, in Springfield, 50% of households are cost burdened. And in Hampshire County, it's one in four households. That's too many. So being able to stabilize those rents may help us drive that number down.

Thank you. Councilor Ryan.

First of all, thank you for taking the test. So far, I think you're passing. I've got one or two more questions for you. Listening to you, I'm getting the sense that if we vote tonight to endorse the bill, the language of the bill and the terms of the bill will be different than the language that we currently have. So what we'll be endorsing is not going to be exactly what we see tonight.

That's a really great question, Council Ryan. And yes, that's true because bills can change as they go through the legislative process. So right now, this bill is before the committee. It's not been yet released. When the committee advances that bill, hopefully, hopefully it doesn't, you know, it's a study, it could look different. And some of how it looks different is based on that committee and the chair of that committee's understanding from the public hearing that was held on it. So it continues to evolve. You would be supporting the bill as is, which I think is sort of, it's a symbolic vote for rent stabilization with the specifics in that bill. And so that might give the people who are negotiating a little bit more of a boost too. Not just the bill, but the negotiation.

Further questions, Councilor Ryan?

Two more quickly. How likely, and you may not want to answer this one, but how likely is a vote

It has not yet been determined. I always love to ask that question. Well, there will be a vote in the committee as to what will happen. I think the legislature right now is kind of saying, well, there's some negotiation going on, so let's see what happens. Because if there's a negotiation that these two very polar sides can come to agreement that the bill is the way to go forward, I don't see us standing in the way.

And finally, one quick question, if I may. If I understand this correctly, if you're a landlord and you want up to a 5% increase for this year, you can do that.

With this bill? With the current, right?

The current language, current bill.

Yes. And the statewide referendum, I think, says 5% or the consumer price index for inflation, whichever one is lower. The bill sets it at 5%.

The bill says the same thing.

Oh, sorry.

Yes.

So that means that like the consumer price index, I think last year, let's say it was 2.5%, then that would be what rent stabilization would be capped at.

And then the next year, the landlord could also propose a 5% increase?

That's the cap. And the next year? And the next year? It's a lot different than 5, 6, 7, 10%. I understand, but I just want to be clear. Right, there is, it's not capped by, and also that it's the same for one tenant to the next.

That's it. Thank you, Mandy. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm speaking in strong support of this resolution. Thank you to all who have spoken. And to those who oppose this resolution, I welcome conversation to understand more of your thoughts and your concerns. I live in Amherst in a two bedroom apartment, and I currently pay 52% of my income towards rent. When I look at my actual take home pay, that number is closer to 62%. That is double the recommended percentage of income to rent ratio. My income potential will not increase greatly as my life's work and commitment has always been to serve my community, we who are often too pushed to the margins, and a high income is counterintuitive to the work I do. Like many of us, I know what it means to work hard to serve others and still feel the ground shifting beneath me because housing costs keep rising. I love Amherst. I grew up here and raised my children here. I wouldn't have been able to do so without help from a state sponsored voucher and for that I'm grateful. But should that be the only way we can afford to be here in Amherst? I'm committed to staying here. I'm honored to serve this town as counselor, and yet I'm getting dangerously close to being priced out of even renting an apartment here, never mind having the wild dream of buying a home one day. This saddens me deeply, and I know of too many, and I've heard today, from people that have to leave the town they love. I want Amherst to be a town where people across income brackets can live, work, raise children, age, serve, and belong. We speak often and proudly of the many forms of diversity that make Amherst beautiful, and income diversity matters too. If only those with the highest incomes can afford to stay, then we are losing a part of the soul of this community. Rent stabilization is not the only tool we need, but it is an important one. Amherst renters, workers, seniors, families, and public servants need relief, stability, and protection from displacement. I support this resolution. I thank you, Rep Dom for all your work on it. And I want Amherst to remain a place where people like me and those with less than me can still call this town home. Thank you.

City Council Chambers, Thank you. City Council Chambers, I raised my hand, so that I can speak individually on to this i'm going to go against the grain and say that I am having trouble supporting this resolution, because I have trouble supporting the bill. City Council Chambers, A five year. City Council Chambers, exemption for new builds is not long enough for anyone who wants to build to get the financing they need to build. Um, and therefore the studies have shown, and I did a lot of reading over the last week on, on rent control on the past studies, um, that it does actually lower construction starts, um, because it's not a long enough exemption to get the financing. And if you can't get the financing, you're not going to build. Um, there was no provision in the bill. to be able to increase above the CPI when actual expenses increase above the CPI. We have seen debt exclusion overrides pass that increased costs above the CPI. We just ourselves tonight passed water and sewer rate increases above 5%. We have seen many towns just pass Proposition 2 1⁄2 overrides that in addition to their regular 2 1⁄2 property tax increase are increasing it even more. Nothing in this bill accounts for the actual expenses that are incurred by the owner of the property. It transfers all the risk to the landlord on those property uh, costs increases and takes it all out from the renter. Unlike to those who own their own home where all the risks still stays for all of those increases with the single family homeowners, for example. Yes, we absolutely need control of our rents. They are crazy, and I am not disputing that the cost of rent is a problem. I am just not convinced based on the reading of the bill and the reading of the research that rent control, rent stabilization, second generation rent control is its other name, coupled with tenant protections and vacancy controls will actually improve the ability for those who are not already housed in Amherst to find housing in Amherst. Mobility decreases, which lowers vacancy rates in and of itself and therefore the rents of those that remain Turnover go even higher, especially if they are uncontrolled. I'm just not at this point convinced that the bill as written, and as Rep Dom actually said, what we would be endorsing is the bill as written is something that would address our housing crisis. And I have to look at it as housing starts in our town already have a problem. We just saw the loss of potentially over, I think it was 150 affordable units when a developer decided not to apply for a 40 B application because of. Amherst resident opposition. So I can't also be convinced that we would actually support the housing production we absolutely need that everyone says needs to come along with rent stabilization. So I, at this point, I cannot support that resolution. Lynn Griesemer.

Thank you. And thank you for joining us this evening. You can stay where you are, please.

Not so fast, right?

I respect various opinions and so forth that people have raised tonight, both in public comment and on the council. I actually support this because I don't support the statewide question. I think the statewide question for many reasons is fatally flawed. And what I like most about this is the local option, which allows us as a community to have a conversation that includes all of those people that have a vested interest in this, both renters, builders, et cetera. And if that is lost, however, in the process of this bill, I will not be a happy camper at all. And we have seen other things lost for local options. One, most specifically, was when We wanted to make sure that we had owner-occupied rental for some of our rental units, and it got lost when the legislature overruled local option. We also have seen local option so far not happen when it comes to taxes on sales of things. So I share with you, Mindy, to me, the local option, meaning a local conversation, meaning something that fits the town of Amherst, is critical to any future support for this bill.

Thank you. Yeah, I think that this is a very significant breakthrough, that if this bill becomes the bill.

Make sure. Sorry, that was a different one. But can you make sure your mic is on? It is. OK.

But that's a very significant piece of this, is that it is a local option and it's something that apparently disparate parties can agree on that piece. That's not the piece that's actually up for negotiation. So maybe there's hope for a transfer fee as a local option.

Let me also mention, I've lived in a town with rent control. I lived in Cambridge. Actually, the place I lived was taken out of rent control because it was totally renovated up to a certain percent and therefore it was taken out of rent control. But I also saw what happened to Cambridge when they stopped doing rent control. They virtually had no place for anybody of low income to live there any longer. And all of that Lechmere area became high end and thus pricing people out of Cambridge. And they'll never be able to come back. So I really do see the power of rent control for allowing people to continue to live there. but I really want to respect the various statements that were made tonight by the various economists who have come tonight to speak with us and hope that they will be part of these conversations, as well as the gentleman over here who actually manages rental properties and owns rental properties and our renters. When I first found out that we used to have such a board and we no longer had such a board, I was like, wow, what happened there? we should have never given it up. So again, local option, local discussion.

Thank you. Jennifer Todd.

Thank you. And I do agree with Lynn about the local option. But I support this bill and resolution because it is rent stabilization and not rent control. And I think in terms of discussing it in the community, rent control can be a buzzword for a lot of people. for a lot of people. And rent stabilization is something that's very different. And I guess having grown up in New York City, where my mother lived in the same rent stabilized apartment for 51 years, there is a big difference between rent control, where at least in New York, you can never raise rents, versus rent stabilization, where when you renew the lease. And so those units are maintained in a way that rent control is not. But I think when we talk about the CP, like we're raising our water and sewer rates above the consumer price index, that's because in fact, we saw that our water and sewer rates were lower than some of the surrounding communities. That is not the case with our rents. Our rents in Amherst are exceedingly high because of the demand from a huge university. So I think in Amherst, if our ceiling to raise rents is the consumer price index, we're starting from a high level, unlike some of our other expenses. So I wholeheartedly support the resolution and the bill, although as it's written now.

Thank you. Councilor Ryan.

So I can see how this will be very beneficial to people who already are here in Amherst and are renters. But I do not see how it's going to help anyone who wants to get into the rental market. So I guess I'm asking not just Rep Dom, but maybe my colleagues, what would they be willing to do to help those who can't get into our market? Because this isn't going to help them. It'll help folks who are here, give them some predictability and some sense of what at least limit extreme increases. But it's not going to help anyone who wants to get into our market as far as I can see. So I think a yeah, maybe I'm wrong on that. Please correct me. But what can we do then to help those who can't get in this market?

Yeah, you have to let him finish. Rep Dom.

So I think that, remember that rent stabilization is about preventing displacement. So it's about preventing the people who are already here from having to move because their rent is raised an extraordinary amount. In order to get more people into the market, we need to create more units. I mean, you know this better than most people. But we need more units of all kinds. We need affordable, we need moderate income, low income, and market. And we need to actually flood the market with housing. And that's the way we get more people to live here. But rent stabilization is not designed as a way to bring in renters. It's a way to prevent renters from having to leave. I think that would be the distinction.

Thank you. We've been discussing this for about 45 minutes. Are we about ready to come to a vote? I see one more hand. Andy Churchill.

yeah i'm just uh the the fact that this would apply when renters turn over and we do have a number of uh people who are in school and they rent for a while and then they leave so it would also um keep uh rents from going up a lot between renters so that might make it a little bit easier for people to get in anna

Mandy highlighted something that I want to highlight, even though I've come to a different conclusion on this particular resolution, which is if we're looking at CPI and we're looking at costs keeping up, if we need towns to stop passing overrides, if we need towns to stop needing more money from the state, we need the state to start giving us some more money. Agreed. I know that you know this. I don't only know it, I agree with you. I love that. But I just got to throw it out there that I think this idea is wonderful. And this is all an ecosystem. And it's got to go along with cities and towns not needing to pass overrides to fund teachers. And so I think that this is where it all has to work together. And so hopefully that advocacy continues very strongly.

Thank you. I am seeing no other hands. So I think we are ready to come to a vote. This is a vote on the motion to adopt the resolution in support of an act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants as amended by adding a whole lot of additional community sponsors. So I'm not going to go through the whole list of 150 or so names. We start with Councillor Walker.

Yes.

Councillor Brevick.

Yes.

Councillor Kano-Martin. Yes. Andy Churchill.

Yes.

Anna Devlin-Gauthier. Aye. Lynn Griesemer.

Aye.

Mandy Johanik is a nay. Councillor Lord. Aye. Sam McLeod.

Abstain.

Pam Rooney. Yes. Councilor Ryan.

Aye.

Kathy Shane. Yes. And Jennifer Taub.

Yes.

That is 11 in favor, one opposed with one abstention. The resolution passes. Before we take our break, we're going to try and get through the last of the proclamations and resolutions, and then we will take our break. Thank you, Rep Dom, for answering the questions tonight. So we have one more resolution, and then we will take our break. This is a resolution. It's a motion to adopt the 250th celebration of the declaration of independence proclamation as presented. Is there a second? Second. Um, uh, counselor Pam Rooney, you, you have, you have sponsored it. Would you like to speak to it? No, you can second it. Would you like to speak to it? Yes, I would. Thank you. Um,

This is sort of a moment in time in the history of the country. 250 years ago, I'll acknowledge the white male land owners of Amherst voted to engage with their lives and their fortunes to support the cause of separation from Britain. The document itself is very idealistic. It was full of potential. And that said, it was still an enormous movement towards self-governance, which is something I think in this town we certainly can appreciate. This is a very short proclamation. It leaves out listings of all the injustices. But it does, in fact, sort of put in perspective the situation 250 years ago. The proclamation itself will be on the 4th of July. It is bookended by two other very different events. One is on the 3rd, the fireworks supported by the town, sponsored by the town. And on the 5th, the reading of Frederick Douglass' speech to the 4th of July. What is the 4th of July to the slave? And so this is just a moment in time. It will recognize history of America, and I hope you all show up and help read it with me.

Thank you.

Councillor Kendall-Martin. Um, yes, hi. So, um, when this came to last week, I had just, um, I know Pam, um, you were able to be there for a while.

And so pardon me counselor can a Martin. We have a. An issue with someone can't hear you. Could you speak closer to your Mike? Maybe.

Okay, yeah. Can you hear me?

Is that better, Pam? Yes, that is better. Thank you.

Yeah, so I had just expressed some concerns at GOL, particularly about, you know, those groups that you mentioned, Pam, and just understanding how folks are, you know, they were part of our community then and they're part of our community now. And I really had some concerns about how they might be represented in this proclamation. And we did do some updated language in GOL, which I think helped. But I did have some concerns about whether any local groups, whether they be Native American or African American, had been able to take a look at this language and if they felt comfortable with it. Because I really would like to see this be a proclamation that can represent everybody, including those communities that were really harmed during that period of history. So I just wanted to see if you were able to get any feedback.

do you have any response to that could you say that into your mic i have not gotten specific feedback from those organizations and communities thank you counselor brevik um

Yeah, I'm just looking at the timeline and seeing if there's maybe more time to get that feedback or run it by other groups. It's a pretty important piece of these types of events this year, I think, especially in communities like ours that understand that importance. I guess I have some issues with some of the language you know, saying things like the struggle and sacrifice of African Americans just feels like it vastly understates what happened during that time. And then the forcibly claiming ownership of lands feels like it's kind of like talking around the issue at hand. All that to say, I guess I don't know if If others feel that it would be worth taking more time with this and maybe bringing it back to the next meeting. That was June 29.

There is a meeting scheduled for June 29th at this time. At this time, there is nothing on that agenda. I've been waiting for the end of this meeting to determine whether that meeting would be canceled. But at this time, there is nothing on that agenda. So we were leaning towards canceling it. But I have not formally canceled it yet.

Another possible solution just is to think about maybe amending it to, say, recognition of the Declaration of Independence as opposed to celebration. I think that if we're calling it a celebration, I think it is inherently problematic. But also, you're calling on the residents of Amherst to examine the meaning and application of the Declaration of Independence, which I like that a lot. I like that sentiment. To call it then a celebration is kind of prescribing what we're going to conclude. Recognition, I think, is probably more in line with what it kind of seems like you're going for in the end there. And maybe I'll just stop there.

I think that was a suggestion to change the title word. I think it's only in the title from my quick read. Is that correct? From titled celebration, 250th celebration of the Declaration of Independence Proclamation to 250th recognition of the Declaration of Independence Proclamation?

And in the very last line, the first word of the last line, invite residents to join a celebration on Saturday, July 4, an event recognizing it. Yeah. You could just say event on Saturday, July 4.

So Athena, can we put this up on the screen so that everyone is sure to be on the same page?

So everyone is aware I had like two pages of explanation of what it meant to various communities and partners, et cetera, et cetera. And I was told to cut it down to one page. So this was a joint effort with my sponsors.

so um if we page down i'm going to try and avoid formal motions to amend if we can although we might have to do it so before we take that motion to amend i will it will be easier if we get everything potentially changed here so that it looks right so the proposal is change celebration to an event i think you have to add an n um in there um is a proposal and from celebration to i think it would be town of amherst recognition of the 250th anniversary because 250th recognition sounds kind of strange sorry i have a different title on my oh what what's the title you have in mind Yes, now that word celebration.

That works. Thank you.

Okay. I'm going to go to Andy Churchill before we make a formal motion to amend that to see if there's any other requests or comments on that.

Yeah. I actually was activated to, I mean, we all received the invitation to co-sponsor and I was activated by having just read a column in one of the papers about how reading the Declaration of Independence in our time had different meanings. And it was a useful context for thinking about our current world. And so I liked the last paragraph. Looking at the second to last paragraph or the last whereas, I think the language is a little awkward. And I'm wondering if we should just strike that paragraph.

Which one? The less than one month later, the official?

No, whereas the war for independence lasted five more years. Yeah, I may have lost something in translation. But if we leave that out, then it's basically saying... We have the Declaration of Independence. It's useful to think about it in today's context, and I could support that cleanly.

So there's a proposal to delete that whole paragraph. I see Councillor Kennel-Martin's name before I make the motion to amend this. So we'll end up with two votes, but it'll all be hopefully just two. Councillor Kennel-Martin.

Can I speak to the suggestion that Andy just made? Yes. Okay. Yeah. I mean, that, that was something that I had brought up in GOL as well, but then I also, then I was like, well, then we're making those communities invisible, you know? And so that's, you know, that's not great either. You know, we want to, you know, mention African-Americans and Native Americans by name and recognize them and name them. So that's, I did think about that too, but at the end of the day, I don't, I don't think that's the best solution. That's all I was going to say.

Councillor Bevick.

Yeah, I feel like I can't get behind the phrasing in this and that whereas and unless we want to be here, I think for a long time like hashing out the I don't want to erase those communities, but I don't. I don't know if I feel comfortable leaving it just as is Pam or anything.

I think the intent was to recognize that it wasn't all roses and that it wasn't an easy solution and it did in fact take years and years of struggle to make this imperfect union. I get pretty emotional about it because it's a pretty amazing event in the course of history. And as someone who tries to represent people of that age, you kind of put yourself in their shoes and you go, what the heck did they have to live with? And it applied to everyone across the board, whether whether you're a renter or a landlord, whether you had just arrived on the soil, whether you were brought here by force, it affected everyone and every ask, just listen to Ken Burns, right? Just go listen to Ken Burns. I wanted something that didn't just gloss over from, the declaration, which we will read together on the steps of the front of the town hall to just acknowledge that there was some action that happened after the declaration was read.

So, Andy, are you still proposing deleting that paragraph?

I don't really know how else to edit on the fly, but I mean, if people don't feel that this is, you know, ready, then they can vote against it or we can try deleting it and see if we can, I don't know how to. Yeah, I still support deleting that clause, but.

I think we're going to have to have two motions to amend, but Councillor Brevick.

yeah and that's not to take up too much space but i am first of all i appreciate all of the thought i wanted to say i appreciate all the thought that went into it and it sounds like it was there was a lot probably there originally that would have been nice to see um i think that I think that for some of our community members, the reading of this on the steps of town hall will be traumatic will be very difficult for certain people. You know, and so. Personally, I don't celebrate this. Specifically, but. And it is a very delicate subject, as I said. I don't think I can support remote. I think that at least having some mention of those communities in here in some way. Andy, I see where you're coming from, absolutely. But I think that it's really tough. if we're not going to do it right, maybe we shouldn't do it at all versus erasure of the communities that we want to make sure that we're acknowledging. Maybe just put it up for a vote.

Thank you, Jennifer. And then I'm going to make a few motions to amend.

I don't know. For whatever it's worth, I do think what this is also trying to express is that over establishing independence from the king, that this was a big improvement. The government that was established was a big improvement over what had been before that. I think that spirit is what is also being communicated. So I'm just, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but that was also, I think part of why it's emotional of this was an imperfect, very imperfect union, but it was the marking of you know, the first, this kind of a democracy. It was a major improvement over, again, the government that was there before.

Okay. So I'm going to make two separate motions to amend, given the conversation. The first one is a motion to amend the title to whatever the title says right now. Sorry for the lack of formality, Athena. And to amend the uh last be it further proclaimed sentence to remove the word celebration and replace it with event basically um so the two that were already shown on here is there a second to that motion second rudy is there debate on that motion seeing none we start with counselor brevik this is to do those two that were prior discussed yes counselor kennel martin Yes. Andy Churchill.

Yes.

Ana Devlin-Gauthier. Aye. Lynn Griesemer.

Aye.

Mandy Johanek is an aye. Councillor Lorden. Sam McLeod.

Aye.

Pam Marini. Yes. Councillor Ryan.

Aye.

Kathy Shane. Yes. Jennifer Taub. Yes. And Councillor Walker. Aye. Yes, that motion to amend passes unanimously i'm going to make another motion to amend just so we can resolve this debate is to amend to delete the last whereas clauses there a second.

Second.

That motion was made and seconded is there any further debate on that motion. Seeing none, we will take that motion to a vote. This is to delete the last whereas clause. A yes deletes it, a no does not. Councillor Kano-Martin.

No.

Andy Churchill.

Yes.

Ana Devongafia. No. Lynn Griesemer.

No.

Mandy Johanicki is a no. Councillor Lord. Sam McLeod.

Abstain.

Pam Rooney. No. Councillor Ryan?

Yes.

Cathy Shane? No. Jennifer Taub?

No.

Councillor Walker?

No.

And Councillor Breivik? No. That motion fails with two in favor, 10 opposed, and one abstention. So the whereas clause remains in it. Is there further discussion before we move to the vote on the main motion? Seeing none, we are now going to move to a vote on the main motion, which is to adopt the 250th celebration of the Declaration of Independence Proclamation as amended, including the title amendment. But that is essentially what the motion reads at this point. We start with Andy Churchill.

Yes.

Anna Devlin-Gauthier. Aye. Lynn Griesemer.

Aye.

Mandy Johannyke is an aye. Counselor Lord.

Abstain.

Sam McLeod.

Aye.

Pam Rooney. Yes. Councillor Ryan.

Aye.

Kathy Shane. Yes. Jennifer Taub. Yes. Councillor Walker.

No.

Councillor Breivik. No. Councillor Kano-Martin. No. The motion passes with four, nine in favor, three opposed, and one abstention. We are now taking our break. It is 837. We will come back at 943 or something like that. 940, 843. Sorry. I was only going for like six minutes, not an hour. 843, six minutes from now. Thank you for questioning that. It is 845. We still have the budget. So let's come on back to gathering so that we can hopefully end this evening at a somewhat reasonable time. So if you are online, I think that's Councillor Ken O'Martin and Councillor Walker. Can I at least see videos to make sure we know you're back? Thank you, Councillor Ken O'Martin. Okay, and we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine already back from our break in the town room and both on hybrid participants have seen I've seen videos. Thank you. So I know you guys are back at your computers and are hearing. we are going to restart our meeting and come away from break uh we start with action item 8a adoption of fy27 budget orders to remind everyone fy2702 the amherst pelham regional school district budget assessment was approved on consent so we move to items two and three bear with me as we move to these items they are probably interrelated and so i am going to allow during conversation after motions are made a little bit more leeway we are starting with the capital improvement plan program but i will allow a little more leeway per our our rules say all comments have to relate to the item under discussion which would be the capital improvement program but since that potential vote is also somewhat related to the fy 2704 a full operating budget i'm going to allow a little leeway for people to discuss thoughts comments views on both as long as it relates to the comments that are being made related to capital. We've got requests to decrease one. The finance committee vote was to decrease one and increase the other by the same amounts. If you want to talk about why you support both or one or the other, I'm not going to stop the operating budget side of that discussion during the capital improvement program side of the discussion. Hopefully that was clear to y'all. Bear with me as we go through motions and potential motions to amend. We will try to make very clear what the voting quantum on any particular motion is. The motions that are proposed by the finance committee that are in the packet, the capital improvement program motion requires a majority present. The operating budget motion that is in the packet requires two thirds present and voting and a roll call is required for our charter. We're required to do roll call anyway for all our votes tonight because we have people participating remotely. But the charter would require a roll call anyway. That is the vote quantums we are starting with. I will try to clarify them all as we move forward. We are going to start with the motion that is in the motion on the motion sheet that came from the Finance Committee. I will make it, and then we will see where the discussion goes from there. The motion is, having been referred to the Finance Committee on May 4, 2026, with the Finance Committee having held a public hearing on May 11, 2026, and submitted a recommendation to the Town Council on June 3, 2026, to approve appropriation and transfer order FY2705A and order appropriating funds for a portion of the Town of Amherst Capital Improvement Program equipment, buildings, and facilities for fiscal year 2027 as amended by reducing the sum total of the appropriation $120,000 from $4,590,893 to $4,470,893 Reducing the raise in appropriate amount $120,000 from $4,200,893 to $4,080,893 and reducing the order total $120,000 from $4,590,893 to $4,470,893 as shown on page 17 of the motion sheet. Is there a second? shane seconds kathy shane has seconded um we are going to go to kathy shane first for the finance committee report feel free to report on both of this one and the operating budget report at the same time i will um i'm

Hoping you all read with great fervor the overly long Finance Committee report, but I'm going to just focus on the two issues in front of us right now. We received guidance on what Mandy has just read, that there was one area of the budget, namely education, because we've adopted an MGL policy. that will allow us to increase beyond what was originally requested, as long as we find an equivalent amount to decrease. And it's because we're at the levy limit, so we can't just simply increase taxes without an override. So it has to come from somewhere. We had, I would say we devoted at least two full meetings to what to do about the elementary school budget and what you can see both in our report, but if you also looked at the back and forth, the written comments, which were very rich that we received in response to our questions, we had a lot of information to look at. We took three votes on the elementary school budget itself. One was to stay with what was in the town manager's budget, which was beyond 3.85%. Because the regional budget came in lower than 3.85%, the town manager's budget allocated the $69,400. some odd change to the elementary school budget. So it was an increase of 4%. So we took a vote on whether to increase it by 290, 120, or stay with it. And we unanimously came, after we went through those votes, to 120, which added to what the town manager budget has would be a couple hundred thousand when you add them together. This, when we were looking at what the school committee had done, is potentially enough to offset the required expansion in the preschool where there are children, more IEP children projected to be in and they have to see them. And that was adding about 182, 183,000 to the budget. So this amount would offset that and allow the school committee and the superintendent to go back and potentially look at math and reading interventionists we heard tonight. The other thing they were looking at was the specials, the music or library tech positions. We do not have any power at the council to say where that money would be spent, but we voted on increasing that amount. When it came to where to get the money from, The only place that looked like there was an ability to do this was the capital budget, and we had a brief discussion with the town manager and the finance director on a couple items where they could see $120,000 coming off that budget, and that would mean it's postponed those funds. but it wouldn't be detrimental. And that decision, again, is left to the town staff rather than this line item wouldn't be spent anymore. And you have in your packet the guidance that says for the Finance Committee, we just needed a majority vote on both of those. We did vote unanimously on both. For the council, we need a two-thirds vote, and since everyone's here tonight, that means nine people, right, Mandy, if I'm counting right, on the increase, and then a majority on the decrease. So that was an offsetting. And that's about as short as I can make a long discussion that we had. And we realized that is not the full amount that the school committee voted on. There's a lot of information in it, including things like the librarian actually would prefer having a para rather than another librarian, which is less expensive. So this is all would still be over in the school committee piece. Now, the only other thing I should note is this budget, the FY27 budget for the elementary school does not have in it the rent that has to be paid to the region for the fact that Chestnut Street Academy is in the middle school. We are able, because of some leftover money not spent yet for the sixth grade move, to use that this coming year for that rent. But it won't be there next year. So the elementary school budget will need to be greater by that amount. The other thing that the town budget doesn't have into it is at the point Wildwood is given up by the school, the town will have to take on the utility and maintenance costs of the building. And that's estimated in the 150. 1,000 to 200,000, you know, and it depends on how much we operate that building. So both of those are not in the municipal budget budget. We're going to have to find money for those. And there were some sources identified for but they won't be there for FY28. So there's some holes on the elementary school. And I think I'll stop there because we had a very long discussion and part of the attraction of where we ended up was that there's, it really is not in the school's control, the requirement to serve the preschoolers. And this was an unexpected increase that we didn't know about a year ago. And so this amount would be offsetting for that amount and then leave it to the schools to decide where to spend this extra amount of money. And hopefully that was clear. But that's, the preschool expansion is already in the base budget. So it's not that it's not, it just means this amount of money, one rationale was that was a match. So we went through a couple different numbers and we came out with this. where it was unanimous, although one member of the committee reluctantly voted for it. And everyone else thought this was a good place to come up with our recommendation.

Thank you. I raised my hand to ask a question of the town manager and the finance director regarding this reduction. Have any conversations or decisions been made that if the council votes this reduction, what capital projects knowing we can't identify and dictate what capital projects would be removed, have decisions or conversations been made to identify from the manager's point of view which capital projects may not go forward if this vote reduces the appropriation by 120,000. Assistant Town Manager Dave Zilmack.

Good evening, everybody. Happy to be here. I'm going to defer to Sean Mangano on this and see if Sean would weigh in. Sean. Sean.

Yeah, so no, no decision has been made. We have some projects that we would look at closely. I think Paul would talk with department heads who are the sponsors for those projects before making a final decision. But at this point, he hasn't decided specifically which projects would make up that amount.

Are you able to reveal which projects you have in mind?

I don't think we, because we haven't had conversations with department heads yet, I don't think we wanted to kind of put those out there. There's definitely, if you look at the list, there's projects that are, you know, planning, not planning department, but like studies or consulting type projects. There's some vehicle replacements that maybe are non-essential. So we didn't want to, I don't, I think it's too soon to get to specifics before we have those conversations with department heads.

Thank you.

Councilor Brevick. Can I add a couple of things from just reflections for being on finance committee? Yes. So just two points of clarification from Kathy's great and succinct explanation of our discussions. In terms of how we can or cannot direct where funds are spent, so if we vote to increase the idea that we don't have a say in what happens with the funds, I just did want to share, and it is in the packet, extensive information from the school committee where they share with us what they would basically be committing to doing with these funds. And they did also get legal opinion that confirms that the budget that they pass then is what the superintendent will be required to do with those funds. So it's not a complete, you know, we don't have any, it could go to, you know, a janitor instead of a teacher. It could go to, you know, so it I just wanted to explain that and add that extra context. And then in terms of the extra funds we would need for Wildwood for the rent and for the rent in Chestnut Street and the maintenance and upkeep at Wildwood, it was my understanding too that we were able to find those funds from past JCPC projects that weren't spent or closed out. And so that that was, is that correct?

Yeah, that's correct. So there are two separate issues. One, JCPC, the capital budget gave $450,000 for the sixth grade move, and not all of that's been used. So Sean got an opinion that that could be used for the rent side. The other piece is there are still some more than three-year-old capital allocations to Wildwood, Port River that can be closed out and used for the utility costs, you know, potentially. The school hasn't relinquished those yet, you know, so the issue was they wanted to keep them open when JCPC met because they are operating through the summer, or wild boar will be, in case an elevator broke or something major happened. But there's substantial amount of money there. And my point was just that that money's been identified, but in FY28, we're facing a different issue. So right now, FY27 is not a problem. It's just that a year from now, and I do want to emphasize FY28 is going to be worse. We're worried about what's happening at the state level, but some of the flexibility that we've had, pensions came in with a very low increase. Health insurance was better than we thought, even though it wasn't great. So the coming year, FY28 looks even tighter. But Jill is absolutely right. That money, those two pieces that aren't in the elementary school budget or in the town budget can be financed by projects we have.

Thank you. Just one more quick reflection, just having been part of both JCPC and Finance Committee and then to Mandy's question on what projects could be cut and thinking about timeline and thinking about that next year will be a lot more difficult. I know Anna and others have brought up timeline challenges that felt being a first time counselor, being part of those two committees, it was extremely glaring that we were making decisions on JCPC before seeing where the budget had landed and knowing where we might want to cut or what amounts we might want to move. It felt very backwards to me. So I think that's a challenge that I hope we can take on after this budget process concludes. Thank you. Sam McLeod.

Thank you, Mandy, and thank you, Kathy, for your explanation of the report. I just wanted to underscore what you said at the start, Mandy, which is that in order to increase the operating budget, we have to have the funds available, which is why you're discussing the capital project first, capital plan, but they're related. So whatever is, unless we're going to have a second vote, whatever is discussed in the capital plan here, the dollar amount is, I assume, unless we go back and forth, what's going to dictate the outcome of the operating budget increase. That's why in the finance committee we had a lot of discussions and we landed at $120,000. and we voted on the capital plan first and then the operating budget. So I just think it's important to recognize that if we have a final determination on the capital plan budget, whatever that, you know, the proposed motion is 120, you can't go past that in the, to my understanding, in the operating the school budget, thank you.

yes if if there is a decrease in the capital improvement program unless there's a different motion at the for the operating budget that also seeks to decrease other areas in the raise an appropriate column that is the maximum that an increase in the school elementary school budget could be made however they are different voting quantums and no counselor is forced or obligated to vote the same on any two or more motions um they are separate votes um so just in there may be some counselors that vote one way in one motion and You know support one say a decrease but don't support an increase or vice versa that that doesn't one one does not dictate how a counselor votes on another one.

Use your bank as a follow up mandy Am I correct that if and once we vote on the capital plan. That we will not revisit it and then because the order of the two motions.

It can be revisited under our rules there under rule 7.5 motions to read for reconsideration can be made by the prevailing side. At. on the day of the meeting at the same meeting or the next regular meeting following the vote. So a capital vote could be reconsidered if made a motion to reconsider is made by someone who has voted on the prevailing side on that vote.

Thank you for the clarification. I think it's significant.

Thank you. Lynn Griesemer.

I look forward to explaining my reluctance since I was the reluctance. And I will share that with you now. First of all, the council, yes, it was the previous council, but nevertheless, the town council passed a set of guidelines. We, in fact, had some serious flexibility stated in those guidelines with regard to the schools. And that is if money allowed, that we should now put the approximately $260,000 back, which was the 1% addition. And the town manager did exactly that. We didn't have to vote to do that. And then in addition to that, the town manager, seeing that the regional schools actually came in below budget because at the time they thought the ceiling was only 3.5, not 3.85, he also gave them that additional money. So the elementary school budget benefited going into the manager's budget by essentially 20, well, 260 and another 70,000, so over $300,000. People spend a lot of time on guidelines. I think the finance committee, which I was not a member of this last time, was very thoughtful in their guidelines and they played out various scenarios. And so what was very interesting to me was not only did the superintendent and the regional schools came in, not only within guidelines, but actually almost by work of timing, came in slightly below guidelines. And then for the elementary school, the superintendent came in at guidelines. And the school committee, as is their right, said, well, we don't like what you cut. But rather than say, maybe you could cut this to get here, or maybe you could think about this to get there, or for that matter, understanding that there are two significantly outstanding bills in the legislature that have significant education money in them. One is the disposition of millionaire's tax, which was supplemental, and the other one is the budget for FY27. So it's with great reluctance that I supported in the finance committee, the $120,000 additional, because I don't feel that in these economic times, and all we have to do is read the local paper daily, override passes by 12 votes, community split, Neighbors aren't even talking to each other anymore. And I run the risk by saying what I've said of being told that I am anti-education, which could not be more untrue. I am trying to suggest that my reluctance comes from looking toward the future and looking at all of the needs of this town, not just our schools, because I clearly support our schools. I could not be more excited about a new elementary school that we are about to occupy. Although I understand there's some people with tears in their eyes and leaving the other schools. But that's my reluctance. Thank you.

Thank you. Andy Churchill.

Jill's comment about timing also reminded me about part of the discussion that we had on joint capital planning, which was the need to develop a clear policy guiding how often we replace vehicles and on what basis. And in the joint capital planning, report in the executive summary on page two, it says that we suggest the beginning framework for such a vehicle policy and recommended the town manager convene a group to establish such a policy this summer, including a method to assess the condition of the town's vehicles. So that might be something to remind ourselves that the Joint Capital Planning Committee suggested doing that so that we have that in place for next year.

Thank you. Kathy, Shane.

So let me, Andy gave me a segue, which is a little different than I expected. But in finance, we are going to directly be discussing that. And Sean McDonough, the finance director, has already started to work on it, because it also came up with how many vehicles we insure. When you count up how many you insure, you don't want to insure vehicles if you don't need them all. And that's part of the pressure on next year's capital budget. So the comment I wanted to make is Lynn made, stressed strongly guidelines. In guidelines, we left flexibility on the capital budget. We said 10 to 10.5%. With this reduction of 120, we're at 10.3. So we didn't ignore the town guidelines on this. And when we went to 10.5, we were warned. At 10.5, we needed to do the large buildings, to do maintenance, but it was also going to put a huge squeeze on operating budgets because our revenues are just, the projected revenues are, we're going to be lucky to get a 3% increase next year. You know, so that's the world we're living in is unfortunately that our expenses are going up faster than our revenues. and it's doing this crunch. But I just wanted to say that the reduction in capital is still within the guideline limit was the only minor point I'm making here. And Mandy, you asked about the specifics. During the day we talked about it, there were three or four line items. that didn't have the same level of urgency in them and that they could either be done at a lower amount or could be done later. So there wasn't a sense that we were undermining planned building maintenance or envelopes or a vehicle that's actually falling apart and needs to be replaced. So it was looking at some other lines. And I can understand why Sean wants to first go back and really look at that set. But it looked like there were some areas for that. So we felt fairly confident on the capital side. So the only other thing I want to say is about the sequence. I'm not quite understanding why we wouldn't first vote on the operating budget side. Because if we don't positively, nine of us, say yes to 120, there's no reason to cut the capital budget by 120. So then we would have to go back and undo that vote. The reason that that reduction is there is to fund the 120. So I'm just asking, you know, we wanted in finance to do one motion. We are increasing this and decreasing that, but we ended up having two motions sent to you. So that was just my, because otherwise if people are gonna vote against that increase, there's no need to decrease capital. So that is just that sequence. Why not first vote on the operating budget?

You cannot first vote on the operating budget because the law requires, if there's no levy capacity, that a reduction in the raise and appropriate of some other part of the budget must be made in order to increase the school committee. And if the choice is to make it out of capital, since they are two separate financial orders, the capital order must be voted first.

That makes sense to me. And we can't put them in one long sentence, unfortunately.

OK. Sam McLeod. Point of clarification. Yes.

What you said earlier, Mandy, when you introduced this was that we discussed them together so that we essentially, we know when we're voting for the decrease, we essentially...

I said I would allow people to talk about both, why they might support one and support the other. I'm not going to be strictly limiting this conversation despite the motion on the floor being capital to... capital only because I understand that the proposed amendment to reduce the capital allocation from what the manager's financial order says in this instance appears to relate directly to upcoming votes. So I'm not going to hold us strictly to capital discussions. Any motions made must relate to the motion on the floor, but in terms of content of the discussion, I'm not limiting us solely to capital. Pam Rooney, I'm sorry, Sam, but Pam Rooney has not spoken yet. So under our rules, I go to Pam.

Thank you. I did want to express appreciation for the extensive report from the Finance Committee and the work that went into that. The juggling, the recognition that there were additional costs that the school would be facing I appreciated very much that the Finance Committee discussed the options for contributing to the school and personally appreciate the line that was, the balance that was drawn by suggesting that we contribute 120,000 more to the school budget and find I'm okay with the 10.3% capital. I think that's a very nuanced reduction in that amount. So I can support that change and appreciate the work that went into it. Sam McLeod.

Thank you, Mandy. And thank you for clarifying that we can talk about both potential votes because they relate to the same subject. In essence, really what our finance committee talked about and what we're talking about here is what do we want to do with the operating budget? And we, based on what we decided we wanted to do with the operating budget for the elementary school, we came up with a capital plan number. That was the order that we did it. And the discussion really was revolved around the specials and varying categories as well as the fact that as Kathy mentioned the preschool is a new requirement for the elementary budget one hundred eighty thousand. That's why in the operating budget discussion for that elementary school I move that we increase that budget one hundred eighty thousand. It wasn't for the school the preschool. It was that for me And we all heard the pain and we all feel the pain of what's going on with the schools. But for me, when I heard, read, and received comments from the school committee that they were going to be cutting 2.5 reading and math interventionists and what the caseloads were, it was simply a bridge too far for me. This is our school system. uh what's the most important thing aside from perhaps socialization uh reading and writing and and math uh and if the letter we received from the school committee regarding the cascading effect that that can have on the kids as they move forward. Uh, it's absolutely true. I remember I wasn't much of a reader when I was young and I'd sit in the back of the class in middle school until I finally honed in on it. Uh, that resonates with me, uh, strongly and there's pain regarding some of the other specials, but that was the thought process behind the end, uh, determination, at least my vote on the finance committee of 120 was that I wanted to ensure under any circumstances and not rely on the school committee's potential to grab frumps from another location to alleviate the reading and math interventionists. And that's the logic and, reasoning behind how I proceeded. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Kennel-Martin.

Sorry, I'm struggling with my voice today. So yeah, I mean, just speaking to this motion in general, I think I was actually in favor of funding the elementary schools a much higher amount, which will probably be a surprise to no one. I think that we should have given them the full 500. If not that, at least something more in the middle between zero and 500. I'm going to explain why. I think first, I center this conversation always in values, in valuing our community's children. I think it should be one of our top priorities, if not our very top priority to educate our children. You know, despite all the terrible things that are happening at the federal level, at the state level, in terms of education funding, all of us, or should be if we're not already, but most of us, I think, are already engaged in those fights to try to preserve public education, both at the federal level and the state level, in spite of all the forces that are closing in on us. So I know we're making all of those efforts, but it's also incumbent upon us to do everything that we can to provide what our children need in terms of an education you know these are our very youngest children these are elementary school children um and as as sam mcleod mentioned if we don't provide them with the supports that they need right now that is going to catch up with us later right because they're going to get to high school and they're not going to have gotten the the key skills that they needed as elementary school students to succeed And so that becomes more and more, if you want to just look at numbers and not humans, that becomes a lot more money later. And we're also talking about human beings who are not getting the education that they need. We also have a value in this town about equity and equity means the very definition is that everybody gets according to what they need. Not everybody gets the same thing. So, you know, a lot of times when we do these financial guidelines, I was not On the council at the time, those were made. I certainly think I tried to make an effort to weigh in at the time, but, um, you know, giving every department the same amount is not necessarily equitable. Is it equal? Yes, because everybody got the same percentage, but it's not going according to need. And part of our job as counselors is to not just weigh those numbers, but to weigh the human impact of those decisions that we're making. So. I want to focus on values and then I want to say a few specific points about what I heard when I listened in on the school committee meetings and on the finance committee meetings from our school committee folks was that and from teachers actually because teachers took time out of their very busy days teaching our children to then attend evening meetings at the council and at the finance committee to give testimony because when they ran the numbers themselves, they realized how high their caseload would be for the math and reading interventionists, they realized how high their caseloads were going to be for the special education teachers. And the specials teachers themselves have been in a quandary because they're asked to teach double the amount of children in the same amount of time because now we only have one specials teacher for double the amount of children. So that's clearly not sustainable. So what are we losing if we do not increase this number? We're losing special education teachers. So we're going to have a higher caseload, which teachers came and gave testimony to us about how detrimental that would be. And we are losing para educators for our specials. So that literally means we are making the decision to decide that some children will not have access to specials in our schools because they need a para to do so. And we're not going to provide them with that para. So these are the impacts that our decision here tonight will make. We're not the school committee. We're not the superintendent, but we are voting on what is before us right now. that's all we can do and so under what we have seen and what we are voting that is what is being lost and that is not acceptable a community should not decide that those things are acceptable that some of our most vulnerable children don't deserve the resources that they need to succeed in school so that is why i support a higher amount again i don't think that 120k is enough but i think we should strive for more and that's all i'm going to say thanks thank you counselor ryan

So I think part of our duty as counselors is also to remember what has been done in the past and to think about what is coming in the future. So I spent most of today rereading the Finance Committee reports for the last four years. Again, much thanks to the current Finance Committee and the work they've done for this report. So I read the similar reports for the last, four years going back to 2023, looking just at the school section. So just a little history for anyone who's interested. For the fiscal 24 school budget, there were $500,000 in ESSER money that were needed in order to make the budget whole. And for those of you who don't know what ESSER is, it's the one-time federal money that was made available to schools during COVID. And in the report, it says that the school superintendent at that time was Mike Morris. He acknowledged that there are going to be future challenges since this budget includes a little over $500,000 in ESSER funds. Next year, the elementary budget needed $400,000 in ESSER funds to avoid reductions in staff in order to hold the budget to a 4% increase I'm quoting from the report. The committee discussion focused on what is planned for fiscal 26 and fiscal 27 budgets when such funds, which will no longer be available. This includes potential savings when the new school opens in September 2026. yielding potential staffing efficiencies and reductions in operating expenses such as utility bills in the new net zero school. We, the Finance Committee, were told that such projections are not yet available. So that's $900,000 that was put into the elementary school budget over those two years, and those are all one-time monies. I've never seen any accounting of how that money was spent, but my understanding is that most, if not all of it, was spent on recurring costs. If that doesn't blow a hole in your budget, I don't know what does. Next year, fiscal report, financial report. This was the infamous year of bridge funding. The council voted to take from free cash $269,704. That was described as, quote unquote, bridge funding. Bridge to what? Well, I'll read the report. The elementary budget for fiscal 26 relies on free cash to bridge fiscal 26, which is the last year that three elementary schools should be operating. The use of these funds is against our financial policies, but the council has assumed that there will be operational savings when the new school opens in fiscal 27. The school superintendent has not affirmatively endorsed this assumption. The free cash being used to aid in funding the elementary school in FY26 is only available in FY26 and will not be incorporated into the FY27 budget starting base. That money was, in fact, incorporated into the budget base. Now, this year, we're looking at a proposal to take even further funds that are desperately needed yet again. When does this stop? When do we actually see a fiscal plan from the school committee that recognizes the actual needs that this community has in a whole host of other areas? And I've got a list of five or six here. I'll start with one simple one. We have trouble hiring an inspector, crucially needed, because we don't provide a car. You have to have your own car. So people say, I don't want that job. We all know that we've had trouble attracting and maintaining DPW workers. While pay isn't the only issue, it's certainly a key part of it. There are other points that were made in that report. You can look at it for yourself to see other pressures that our departments are under that don't have people coming here and telling us how we don't care about education, care about teachers, care about schools. And they're under enormous pressures, but nonetheless. So if you do the history, what you see is a recurring theme over and over again. So this year, the school committee wants $500,000 of extra money. In addition to what the town managers put into it, and in addition to what now is being offered by the Finance Committee. So that's the history. You might want to pay attention to it. And you might want to ask when we're actually going to see a fiscal plan that makes some sense. I would support the school committee if they actually had a plan that took into consideration what they've been told over and over again, that we are a community that cannot sustain these kinds of increases. And yet once again, these kinds of increases are being requested of us.

Thank you. We are now on to people who've raised their hand who have already spoken once. I am first on the list. I am going to make a motion. This motion is to amend the motion by deleting the phrase As amended by reducing the sum total of the appropriation $120,000 from $4,590,893 to $4,470,893, reducing the raise in appropriate amount $120,000 from $4,200,893 to $4,080,893, and reducing the order total $120,000 from $4,590,893. An 893 to 4,470,893. Is there a second on that motion to delete that phrase?

Excuse me, but did you just delete the reduction of 120? That is my motion to amend. So we're not voting on the motion?

No, this is a motion to amend. So we would vote on a motion to amend that deletes the phrase, and if that motion fails or passes, we would have a new thing. but it is the motion to amend that I have made. There has been a request up there to put the text out, but I am still, have not heard a second. Is there a second to that motion?

Second, Griesmer.

I ask the council clerk to put A red line version of the motion, the main motion with the motion to amend showing what would be deleted up on the screen so everyone can see what that motion to amend is. The effect of the motion to amend would be if the motion to amend is voted yes, it would be to the main motion on the floor would be the financial order as presented by the town manager. If the motion to amend is voted no, the original motion as proposed by the Finance Committee would be the motion on the floor still. It would effectively be the same as, yes, as I heard under the voice comment. I will speak to my motion now that it has a second. We've heard a couple of counselors speak to this. For the last eight years, I've noticed a structural flaw embedded in the work of school committees and councils that turns responsible governance into an annual public battle over money. School committees recommend and approve their district budgets, but the manager and the council set a total municipal budget, including the absolute amount school committees have to budget. The core tension is this, the school committee is legally required to consider only the elementary schools. It has no mandate to weigh the needs of a fire department a police, a CRESS, public health, public works, senior services, I could go on, there's more town departments, or our town's capital and infrastructure needs. So each year the school committee does exactly what the system incentivizes it to do, recommend the largest budget it can that it believes is necessary for it, regardless of the consequences if it were adopted to the other town departments. That's not being irresponsible, and I'm not calling the school committee irresponsible. It is what the structure incentivizes and what their task is. But the manager and counsel, by contrast, we are legally and morally responsible to the entire town. We must fund public safety, maintain our infrastructure and capital needs, and plan for pension obligations, debt service, and reserves. We've heard other counselors say this keeping the Amherst school districts budget in compliance with our own guidelines to fit fiscal reality, address the needs of all municipal departments and infrastructure needs is not heartlessness or uncaring for schoolchildren. It's governance. In my opinion, it's the result of a system perfectly engineered to generate our conflict that we are seeing tonight. My biggest problem with this proposal, which is why I'm moving to amend to delete the amendment that would reduce capital, is that the reason for reducing capital is to add money to a school district that we don't even know how it will be spent. And there is conflict between our committee and what I've heard, the school committee and the superintendent on how it will be spent. The superintendent, has indicated through their answers to the finance committee from the best I can tell that the superintendent would add classroom teachers first. Under the school committee that voted, that would be allowed because their cost center included that increase. The school committee, as we heard one member speak tonight, proposed an increase primarily for additional music art technology and library educators. As well as math and reading interventionists but it appears from everything i've heard their emphasis on is on additional music art technology and educators and library educators. Whereas from what i've heard from the finance committee report and the committee's deliberations and tonight, the emphasis is on interventionists. None of the information we've received indicates that's where it would actually go though. So we'd be voting against our guidelines for specific support that likely wouldn't even be realized. And it would contradict the promises we made to the residents as counselor Ryan indicated when we asked them to support a debt exclusion for amethyst brook school, a promise that a new consolidated school would save taxpayers money in school operations through increased staffing efficiencies as well as decreased operational costs on utilities. In my mind, voting for this increase is directly contradictory, resulting in the highest year over year increase in the eight years I've been on the council despite consolidation happening in just under two months. I feel like a vote to support an increase signals that the council doesn't put force in its own budget guidelines. It almost implies that any of the other bodies can ignore them because we're willing to. next year why would the library trustees or the managers or either school committee try to follow them if we so easily and i'm not saying the vote is easy but if we disregard them ourselves so i also can't support a decrease to the capital budget that this proposes when our roads and sidewalks continue to deteriorate we constantly hear about our infrastructure needs and deferred maintenance as much if not more than we hear about school funding concerns That could be because we are the council and we are not the school committee. But we got to this point on deferred maintenance and infrastructure needs because past town meetings were willing to decrease investment in capital needs to prop up operational needs. I can't support restarting that path to taking from capital to support operational needs, especially when the operational needs are contradicted by the positions of the superintendent and school committee. and our own assertions that there are efficiencies that should be gained and were promised to the residents to be gained in elementary school operations by opening a brand-new consolidated school. It is why I proposed this amendment to remove the reduction in the capital budget. Thank you. We go to Andy Churchill.

There's been several folks have mentioned that we're consolidating from three elementary schools to two, but that's not actually the case. We are still going to have three elementary schools. We have the Amethystbrook sixth grade. which for whatever you think of it, it is an elementary school and it is a cost center. So I think some of those anticipated, there will be some of the anticipated efficiencies from going from Wildwood and Fort River to the new Amethystbrook School, but the Chestnut School, academy will work against that so i think we still have to think that we have three elementary schools and i noted in the finance committee a suggestion that we work again with the other three towns to figure out how we can have a middle school that includes the other three towns so that we don't have to have this um you know jury rig system that we have now um i think that the 120 000 compromise is a compromise. I think it's I appreciated the deliberation of the Finance Committee and I appreciated the focus on reading and math interventionists because I think that's an area that will reduce costs down the road by you know limiting future special ed costs that would that would be likely to happen if you don't have those folks and i know we don't have control over that but i think signaling that as something that we feel is important is a good signal um i've also heard um from i think senator cumberford that there's likely to be additional funding coming into the district um for um through the millionaire's tax and through the budget. So I think that with the additional money that's likely to come from the state this year, since the millionaire's tax is at $3 billion instead of the expected $2 billion, that we're likely to get some additional funds. So with the $120,000 and additional money from the state, I think we're getting in a ballpark that's probably halfway or more between the original guidelines and what the school committee was asking for. So I think it's a good compromise. I think it's reasonable to expect. And I think it's also, you know, when you're doing budgeting, it's an inexact science. So, you know, we're talking almost $30 million for the elementary schools and we're going back and forth about whether it should be 120 or zero or 500. But I think within that, Given that within the context, I think it's a reasonable compromise. So I won't be opposing this motion.

Um, so I would be opposing this amendment. I did want to just make a point of clarification to on the line items that the intervention is and special teachers are on there on two separate line items, regular instruction versus support services unless someone can correct me if I'm wrong. If the school committee votes on those line items, then the legal opinion they got confirmed that the superintendent couldn't spend that money on a different line item.

But they could spend it on any other regular instruction line item since they vote a cost center of just regular instruction.

But if they were voting to increase the interventionists, it would be on the support services line item. One of them is.

The other two are regular instruction. Interventionists? Yes. under the document that was provided the finance committee from the superintendent.

OK. I do want to reiterate that the school committee has made very clear how they would spend that money and what their priorities are. And I think that that is something that we need to take into account. So I'll just say my piece at this point, I suppose. in finance committee raised a motion to increase the elementary school's budget by $290,000 that I felt like was a good middle ground. The middle ground, my number then became the top of the discussion, zero became the bottom, and this 120 became the middle ground. And I think people were seeking a middle ground. I wanted to speak a little bit to why i believe that other piece of the puzzle is important um so we i think we've all heard about the interventionist positions the 120 going to that from our finance report the rationale for this was the evidence that such interventionists make a positive difference for young children with notable gains in skills and confidence and the idea that those types of positions typically lead to cost savings down the road. That part was unanimously supported at finance committee, but it actually wasn't unanimous that that was all we should restore. And I think the preschool growth alone at about $330,000 and the sixth grade being a very expensive model are two key factors that we need to think about that are running our K to five budget extremely, extremely thin this year in this year of transition. And I do understand the bigger picture points that many counselors have made were very well said and very well thought out. And I agree with a lot of that, but I, as a parent of a kid going through the two kids going through this transition, And just what I've seen and heard, the testimonies at school committee, the parents who've come out, the teachers who've come out to talk to us, I think not considering the huge impact that an additional, let's say $130,000 would make. I understand that the capital budget is also tight, but there are areas that are not critical This is a critical year for our elementary schools. There are things that were approved and recommended by JCPC that are not critical, would not cause things to fall apart if we were to defer certain projects or vehicle replacement. This year, to have this void in support for our art, music, phys ed, technology, our classes that are the heart of the school, I think what we would be doing by giving an additional amount would be to enable flexibility in decision making in a year that will really need that flexibility. That would recognize that there is a learning curve in adapting to a significantly larger school and student enrollment that the practical reality of a weekly roster of 575 students, close to a quarter of whom have IEP accommodations, that is gonna take some flexibility and some learning. And I think to keep it this tight, with one teacher in each of those areas. Teachers have said that with this kind of teaching load, it becomes impossible to do many of the incredible things that they do, from read alouds with the community to build confidence in kids to adaptive specials that we have heard about, to even just sitting with a kid who has sensory sensitivity or anxiety in the music room during lunch so that they can get used to that new space. My children are so anxious about this move. So many kids are anxious about this move. And then think about the children who have other sensitivities that will make this even more difficult. And eliminating the ability for those teachers to accommodate enable all children to participate equally in our specials classes. I think that that is something that, as a community, we value. And I think taken all together, the interventionists and the specials, and again, allowing for staffing flexibility to ensure that all students can participate, is what will reduce future special education referrals and sustain student success in the upper grades. Again, we're forward thinking about what will save us money down the road. Um, this is an opportunity to put our elementary school department on strong footing as they actualize a change that is a decade in the making. Um, it's an opportunity to support our superintendent and central office staff who've navigated an absurd number of challenges. Uh, and and it's just I think I understand that people are tired of hearing every year is this and every year is something else. But we know that this is a massive change that has been talked about for, I think, a decade. And it's happening this year. And it is not a massive amount of money in the scheme of what we're talking about, the type of impact and the type of supports it would allow for our students, our most vulnerable students and our teachers and the whole school community.

Thank you. Kathy Shin.

I'm just going to say I will be speaking against this amendment. You explained to us in the elementary school budget if we can't do it in the opposite sequence. And I think there's a strong reason this year to go up by at least the 120,000. We did think we were consolidating to two schools. We managed, because of a Desi ruling, to have the weirdest structure you can imagine for our sixth grade academy. And there were excess administrative costs in the way we're doing it. And in fact, the contortion... gets in the way of even thinking about integrating. For example, the class schedules are arranged so that they're never in the hallway at the same time. So if a sixth grader might be able to take a music class or music instruction, they can't because their class... There's no reason to do that, but that's what has been structured right now. So revisiting the structure of it is really important. We have... We had no ability to do much of any of that and finance evidence to see what was being delivered to us. Revisiting the original DESE decision where there is a new leader of DESE, our legislative rep is willing to go in with us. Not all towns have to come in for sixth graders. Other districts, regional districts, have odd configurations. You're prorated with your share. So there's a strong recommendation to see whether we can go in with a few other towns to do it the right way. It was supposed to be a sixth through eighth grade middle school. That was what's envisioned. So instead, we've got a little piece of a principal, a piece of different things. Administrative costs, not teaching costs, not teaching costs. And it's $197,000 paying paid to the regional school because we just took a piece of, without adding their staff, we gave them some money that offset some of their costs, and they don't even have our rent money in yet. So we really have, as Andy said, we have a funny third school rather than consolidation. And the consolidation really did think of a real 6th through 8th. We also had this unexpected, probably couldn't have been easily predicted increase in the preschool kids and were legally required to serve those children. So however you get to the number we got to, and there was an argument for interventionists, there's clearly an argue from math, music, some part of a librarian where a librarian in a large school is gonna spend a lot of her time reshelving the books if she doesn't have a para. But that is something the school committee and the superintendent could do if they start looking at their budget. So I think we can't vote to take the money to get rid of the capital decrease because then we have nothing to vote on. The second thing we have to have that money. So putting the horse before the cart or whatever the analogy is, we have to vote. down this amendment to leave the 120 in. And then Jill is prepared to say we need more than 120. Then we would have to go back to the capital side. But that's, right now, that 120 gives us the ability to vote on the extra 120. So I will be strongly voting against this amendment to the capital budget change. Sam McLeod.

Thank you, Mandy. I'd like to... you know, lend agreement with comments regarding the implications of this particular year that Councilor Breivik made and also the comments that Councilor Shane made regarding that this is a vote to essentially say we're not going to increase anything in the school budget i just want to reiterate that yes it it's a troublesome situation that there's insufficient funding but we were and we are where we are we've been presented with the We've been presented with the school committee's request and the comments and the allocation from the superintendent. And when I look at all that, what I see is pain in the schools this coming year, unequivocally, for whatever reason. it's possible that some of it is a prioritization internally. But what I really see, and it's not, you know, the vote here is not some grand giving everything that the school wants. It's not. And I trust the communications of the school committee members, who I have great respect for, who have indicated they're going to make it very clear where this should go. I can't fathom the town of Amherst or in this situation not providing funding for 2.5 interventionists for reading and math that we've heard from everyone are greatly needed. I can't imagine this council not allocating that funding. I can't think of a greater allocation because the impact that reading and math have on future years. And this is a critical time and maybe there is some confusion with the three schools some inefficiencies perhaps with the third one with the new administration. But this is the determination of the Finance Committee was targeted with a reason, and it wasn't that all members wanted it. As Councilor Breivik indicated, some councilors wanted more, but I just urge my fellow councilors to support at a minimum the funding that the school committee, the finance committee has recommended for reading and math interventionists. I think it's, just absolutely crucial. Thank you. I'll be not supporting this amendment.

i really need us to please let go of the argument that we will not know how additional dollars will be spent by the schools we never will that is not a failing of the school committee or the superintendent that is the nature of the bureaucracy at play we cannot change whose responsibility it is and so i ask that the argument of we don't know whether they'll hire a classroom teacher music teacher instructional aid We got to let that go. It is too easily and often used as a scapegoat to not fund the schools adequately. If someone wants that level of control over how dollars are spent in that school budget, they should run for school committee instead of town council. Frankly, I am fine with this going to interventionists. I'm fine with it going to classroom teachers. I am really fine allowing the school committee and the superintendent to hash it out. We do not dictate this exact staffing in other areas. We leave it up to the responsible party, Paul. And I don't think that we should be jumping in at this level here either. Frankly, all of those positions should be funded and I am fine having the elected and appointed officials with that expertise hash it out. I also feel that this amendment drives us further towards needing to go out for an override for our schools. Continuing to draw these rigid lines in the sand without considering the flexing of need over time is not going to help our community in the long run. Trying to find a middle ground is what is keeping us from needing an override this year. And I hope that we can continue to work with this middle ground that finance worked really hard to find, because as you heard, it was very much a compromise already. I will not be supporting this amendment.

Thank you.

Councilor Ryan.

So where I'm having a little bit of a problem, and maybe I can get it clarified here, is that it seems like the school superintendent in presenting her budget didn't share all these doom and gloom scenarios that I'm hearing from some of my colleagues. So did I miss that? I believe the superintendent presented a budget that she was satisfied with. I'm sure it wasn't ideal, but she felt that it would be fine. But now we're being told that, no, it's not fine. And we need to give even more money. Of course, what will happen next year? I mean, maybe Councilor Churchill is right. The state will send lots of money to the schools and that will solve the problem. But did I misunderstand that? Didn't the school superintendent actually bring a budget that was within the guidelines?

The initial budget presented to the Amherst School Committee prior to the budget hearing that they held was within our guidelines.

So I guess I'm struggling with the thought that somehow the school superintendent sees it one way and the school committee sees it another. And given, as I've just read some past history to some of you, I tend to support the school superintendent.

Jennifer Taub. My understanding was that the school superintendent was given a budget and she worked within that and it wasn't. It wasn't for her to say whether. it was an ideal, she made the decision she had to make to be within that budget. And when she presented it to the school committee, they said, we can't, there are too many cuts in the services our children need. So the school committee wasn't comfortable with all the cuts that the superintendent had to make. So I guess what I'm saying is because the superintendent worked within the instruction she was given doesn't mean that the superintendent felt that was the budget that best served the students. She was doing what she was tasked to do, presented that to the school committee and the school committee felt that they couldn't that it was not responsible of them to approve that budget with so many cuts and services children need. So I don't think we can all to say, I will not be supporting this amendment. And I think we can't assume that the superintendent was pleased with the budget she was initially given, but she had to work within it. And then it's the school committee to decide if that's you know they thought it was responsible to approve that budget with the cuts that it didn't they that budget entailed counselor kennel martin

Yeah, I mean, I can speak to that a bit counselor Ryan, I mean, I spent, I was trying to understand the same thing, because I discovered by reading and listening to the testimony of the teachers that we're sounding the alarm about their case loads, especially, like, as we mentioned, reading and math interventionist as well as special education teachers that. what they were saying to us did not necessarily match what had been presented to school committee. And the way that they had come up with that was that they actually surveyed each other to figure out who was staying on and who was basically pink slipped in order to come to the numbers of how many teachers that they would actually have to cover the amount of students that they had. And then from there, they were able to calculate the caseloads. And so unfortunately, it feels like the correct information was not necessarily presented to the school committee. And that the information that they did receive was probably incorrect. And so I personally would trust the teachers on the ground who are doing that work and doing the math themselves. And I would refer anyone to any of the emails that they sent. So as they actually show you step by step how they got to their calculations, and it was it was done very methodically. So I think that's how that happened. Partially. Lynn Grisomer.

If the superintendent of schools had come in with a budget within guidelines that included cuts to central office, cuts to, I don't know, maybe maintenance, maybe maintenance staff, none of us would be sitting here crying foul. And that's the game that Ana said, let's not play. Because the reality is, and I don't know how many of you have ever dealt with a $29 million budget. I actually have. And if I can't find $120,000 in a $29 million budget, then I'm not worth my salt. And it wouldn't be at the expense of kids. And it wouldn't be at the expense of teachers. I'd be finding it in my administration and other places. It wouldn't be. So the game that's played every year is find something that you know the teachers and the public will cry ouch about instead of finding other places. And maybe it's halfway in between. But that's one of the things that bugs me about these conversations every year. It's always something that they know the public will come out about. It's never about other areas. But frankly, the public's probably looking and saying, hmm, maybe you could cut there.

councilor brother. Just a small remark on how we talk about the school department and how it differs from I think other municipal departments in the this they verse us, and I think. I think the reason that we see these difficult decisions that we have to make each year is because of the constraints year over year after year after year on the schools that is an issue that we need to address as a town. We, as a council, need to figure out what's going on and not down to what teacher should be, not on that line item level, but there's clearly a problem. I saw it the second I moved here. I saw, I mean, it is glaring that there is a deep, deeply rooted problem I understand compounded by the external factors that are upon us. But I don't think that it's helpful. And I'm not directing this at anyone. I'm just saying in general, I find myself sometimes doing it too, that they're doing, they put this to us. And I feel like these are our problems that we also should be trying to solve. We should be trying to make sure that we are not in this position next year. And I think that that reframing is really important. Okay.

Ana Devankath here.

I agree with how we have this conversation and that needing to shift. I think, you know, Lynn, I'm having a very strong reaction to the way that you just framed your comment. And I think What I'm hoping is that what you said is not the case because there are real humans in those jobs getting pink slips. And I don't believe that anyone is trying to play a game. I don't believe that anyone is trying to play a game. I want to make it very clear. And gambling with those people's jobs. Like you said, this occurs every year. We hear about cuts every year. You stated that you claim that it's found other places, but that is not to say that those admin roles or whatever other places are not important and are not also having a trickle-down impact on our students. And my gosh, if it's been happening, like you said, year over year over year, do you really think that there's that much more to cut in those areas? Because at some point, it is going to hit the places that it's talking about hitting this year. And it has. We have seen those student-facing positions. They haven't just been cutting admin. We've seen student-facing impactful roles getting cut. We've seen roles not being replaced if someone retires. And I would like to counter what you said that none of us would be up in arms because I absolutely would be, especially if the school committee, like they did this time, said, no, this is a problem with the budget that they presented. Please don't make claims that all of us wouldn't be doing something. I still would. I hope that what you said isn't the case. But if the school committee and the superintendent are having differing approaches, I also don't think that it's because, like Jennifer Taub said, this isn't because the school committee likes the budget. I mean, the superintendent likes the budget she had to put forward. The school committee did their job. The superintendent did hers. That's why we're faced with something different.

Councillor Ryan, then I'm hoping we can move to a vote on the motion to amend.

I'm sorry, but it's our job to try and make clear to the school committee and to the community what our budget realities are. And that message doesn't seem to be getting through. And again, I note that everyone's ignored the history lesson. As far as I know, and I'm happy to be corrected, but no one has ever, ever given me any accounting, or any of us as far as I know, $900,000 over 2 years were put into the school budget to address recurring costs with one time money.

On is your Henry raced. Just George reminded me of my favorite hill to die on. We are constantly in this predicament because the town council unilaterally creates financial guidelines. We do not use our budget coordinating group as it is supposed to be used. Budget coordinating group has never been convened to draw up financial guidelines as it's supposed to do per the charter. So when we start to get back into this and we start to find ourselves in this catch 22 every year, I stand on top of my little hill and I put my little flag there and then I prepare to die on top of my hill because budget coordinating groups should be convening and talking through those financial guidelines. The town council can't convene budget coordinating group. That's the responsibility of the town manager to call that group to order. However, Once again, I will remind folks the charge of the budget coordinating group talks about creating financial guidelines. That group needs to be talking about the financial realities, as well as unexpected needs or changes or the realities of the world that each body that comes to the table there is facing. We have the opportunity to actually create a bit more of a proactive process in this so that we don't find ourselves in this exact situation every year. And we have yet to take advantage of it. And I would really love to be alive and walk off that hill for once. And I would encourage this council to continue to advocate to convene the BCG, the Budget Coordinating Group, which has members from the schools, from the town council, from the libraries, both elected and appointed, and start actually coordinating ahead of time instead of one body doing those. I see you shaking your head. It's fine. We can talk about it outside. You can kill me on the Hill. It's fine.

We've been having conversation on the budget votes for about an hour and a half now. We have one more hand raised, and I'd love to move to a vote on the amendment itself so we can move on to other parts of the debate and deliberation. Andy Churchill.

I just raised my hand to call a question, but that's not necessary.

There are no other hands raised. It's preempted. The motion on the floor is a motion to amend to delete essentially the amendment that would decrease the financial order. An aye vote would remove the decrease. A no vote would keep the decrease in the main motion. We start with Ana de Van Gaffier. No.

No.

Lynn Griesemer.

Aye.

Mandy Johanneke is an aye. Councillor Lord. Nay. That was a nay? Okay. I want to make sure I heard that correctly. Sam McLeod.

Nay.

Pam Rooney. No. Councillor Ryan.

Aye.

Kathy Shane. No. Jennifer Taub. No. Councillor Walker.

No.

Councillor Brevik. No. Councillor Kano-Martin. no andy churchill no that is three in favor uh 10 opposed that motion fails we move back to the main motion that is on the floor um are there any other discussion counselor brevik i would like to make a motion to amend go right ahead um athena has it if you could put it up on the screen

Sorry to make everybody listen to me read this out. I'm raising this motion to amend to give an opportunity for counselors who feel that a higher number than the 120 is a more appropriate middle ground option. And so I chose the figure 250, the amount that the school committee identified as the gap was $505,000. So this is somewhere around half. So my motion is

Point of order, I can't hear.

She hasn't started reading it yet.

Sorry, I couldn't tell.

My motion is to amend the motion by replacing as amended by reducing the sum total of the appropriation. Do I have to read this whole part? Just 120,000. Blah, blah, blah. Great. Thank you. With the following... As amended by reducing the sum total of the appropriation 250,000 from blah, blah, blah. Thank you.

So it would change all the 120s to 250 and all the 4 million numbers lower by another 130,000. Correct. And it is shown up on the screen that has been shared so that everyone can see it. Is there a second to that motion? Second. That was Councillor Cano-Martin seconding it. You kind of already spoke to it. Do you have anything else to say to that?

No, I don't have much to add. I've already said my piece.

Is there any discussion on this motion to amend to essentially increase the 120 number to 250? Councillor Cano-Martin.

Yes, I'm not going to speak very long because I think I made my views clear before. But I do think that given the size of the gap that we were faced with and the things that we knew that we were losing because of that gap, I think that choosing 250K is meeting in the middle. I think it's reasonable. And I think that it can be something that we can hopefully all come together around. So I hope I will vote yes. And I hope that others will vote yes as well.

Councilor Walker, thank you. Mandy Joe. I think folks have covered much of what I would say sort of in support of this increase. It's similar to the support of the smaller increase, but I did just want to add a couple of things. I think we're all really excited about the new school building and sort of this chapter and what that means for our town. But I think it's really important that we stay grounded in what the school building is for. So if we're willing to invest into a building, the physical building itself, we need to understand that what's happening inside of the building is much more important than that. And so I think this is an extremely important investment. Also, my children are inside of these schools, and I think it's really important to understand what's happening on the ground. so if you have not been listening to the the comments made at school committee i really encourage you to go back and listen to the experiences of the staff inside of these buildings the teachers inside of these buildings and the students and the families because it has been it has been a challenge it has been a very big challenge and speaking for myself i am the parent of three children who all are neurodivergent, all have IEPs, and it has been a struggle to get the resources and supports for my kids now. And so I am extremely concerned with what is being proposed for the transition to a new school building, thinking about my children who already have challenges with transitions, period, to be transitioning to an entirely new building with entirely new staff and to then also not have the support that they need to be successful or to be able to even access the parts of the school day that sort of ease the tensions and the stress around regular academics. which would be like specials and other extracurriculars are just having those supports in need. And so I'm concerned about what this will mean on the ground. And I think one of the reasons why I ran for office, one of the reasons why I returned to school for public policy is because I really believe strongly that policies need to be grounded in the lived realities of the folks who will be impacted by those policies. We cannot continue to be so rigid around school funding simply because of our budget constraints. The budget constraints exist. They're going to continue to exist. We need to figure out the solution. This problem is not going to go away. I understand that giving the extra $250,000 is not going to solve this problem for the future. I think it is the least we can do at this moment. This is a compromise, like Councilor Breivik said. I think this is an extremely reasonable compromise, and I think we need to take additional steps. Counselor Devlin Gothier mentioned some of the things that we can do in terms of more planning for the future and more continued planning throughout the year and not just during the budget season. So I would support all of those things, and I'm going to support this increase as well.

Thank you. Is there further conversation on this motion to amend to essentially change all the 120,000 in the motion to 250,000 and amend everything else appropriately? Seeing none, a yes vote will change the number 120,000 to 250, and no vote will keep the number at 120,000. We start with Lynn Griesemer.

No.

Mandy Johanicki is a no. Counselor Lord. Sam McLeod.

Nay.

Pam Rooney. No. Counselor Ryan.

No.

Kathy Shane.

No.

Jennifer Taub. No. Counselor Walker. Yes. Counselor Brevik. Yes. Counselor Cano-Martin. Yes. Andy Churchill.

No.

Ana Devon-Gauthier. Nay. That is four in favor, nine opposed. That motion fails. We move back to After all of that, we are at the original motion made. No amendments have been made. I have heard a motion to call the question. Is there a second to calling the question?

Second, Ryan.

The motion is not debatable. So we move directly to a vote on calling the question. On that motion, we start with myself. I am an aye. Councillor Lord?

Aye.

Sam McLeod?

Aye.

Pam Rooney. Yes. Councillor Ryan.

Aye.

Kathy Shane.

Yes.

Jennifer Tobb. Yes. Councillor Walker.

Yes.

Councilor Breivik? Yes. Councilor Canno-Martin? Yes. Andy Churchill?

Yes.

Ana Devin-Gloffier? Aye. And Lynn Griesemer?

Aye.

The motion to call the question passes unanimously, so we move immediately to a vote on the main motion that is on the floor, which is to The in summary it's to adopt the transfer appropriation transfer order FY 25 oh five a with amendments to reduce the original order by 120,000 in raising appropriate and the total appropriation by 120,000 so that the total appropriation will be 4,470,893 we start with counselor Lord. Ask your question.

But the $120,000.

No, not yet. This is so, no, we go to them after we vote this. This is reducing the capital appropriation to, which would allow an actual vote to increase money for the schools. If the capital appropriation is not reduced by that $120,000, the schools cannot be increased.

Aye.

Sam McLeod.

Aye.

Pam Rooney. Yes. Councilor Ryan.

No.

Kathy Shane.

Yes.

Jennifer Totten. Yes. Councilor Walker. Yes. Councilor Brevik. Yes. Councilor Kendall Martin. Yes. Andy Churchill.

Yes.

Ana Devongathie. Aye. Lynn Griesemer.

No.

Mandy Johanicki is a no. Ten are in favor, three opposed. A majority present was needed. The motion passes. we move on to item 8a3 i'll make the motion having been referred to the finance committee on may 4th 2026 with the finance committee having held a public hearing on may 11th 2026 and submitted a recommendation to the town council on june 3rd 2026 to approve appropriation and transfer order fy2704a an order appropriating the town of Amherst operating budget for fiscal year 2027 as amended by increasing the elementary schools cost center $120,000 from $29,478,590 to $29,598,590, increasing the raise and appropriate column of the elementary schools cost center $120,000 from $73,230,000 Is it 73 million?

It is 73,230,851 to 73,350,851.

And increasing the appropriation order total 120,000 from 91,898,700 to 92,018,700 as shown on page 18 of the motion sheet. Is there a second? Yes. So it's it's the reason appropriate column. Not just the elementary schools that 73 millions the bottom number in that column. Just to be clear, which is what threw me and then the bottom number in the total column is the 92 million number over there Athena is soaking it is circling it, who was the second. grace more. When okay. Is there a discussion on this motion? Lynn Griesemer.

Very briefly, I will be voting yes, because to vote yes means I approve of the manager's budget, even with this slight change. Otherwise, I would be voting against the budget for this year.

Is there any other discussion? Sam McLeod.

Just to confirm, because I didn't hear everything that was said a moment ago. Am I correct, Mandy, that your motion essentially is increasing the elementary school budget $120,000?

Yes, the motion is the motion that was proposed and voted recommended by the Finance Committee, which given the motion for the capital budget, this one would increase the elementary school budget by $120,000 as recommended by the Finance Committee.

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing no other hands, we start with Sam McLeod.

Aye.

Pam Rooney. Yes. Counselor Ryan.

Aye.

Kathy Shane.

Yes.

Jennifer Taub. Yes. Counselor Walker. Yes. Counselor Brevik. Yes. Counselor Kano-Martin. Yes. Andy Churchill.

Yes.

Ana Devongathie. Aye. Lynn Griesemer.

Aye.

Mandy Johanik. He is a nay. Counselor Lorden. The motion passes 12 in favor one opposed by the way it needed two thirds present and voting voting, which in this case was nine and it received that. We move on. We have finished our action items for the evening, we have one appointment to. To address, let me move down to that. I move to appoint Sarah Morton to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a full member term effective July 1, 2026 to expire June 30, 2029. Is there a second? I heard Councillor Ryan's name first. Is there discussion on this motion? Pam, as chair of CRC, would you like to give a brief report on this, or are we okay going right to a vote? The chair has said we can go right to a vote if there is no discussion. Seeing none, we start with Pam Rooney. Yes. Councillor Ryan.

Aye.

Kathy Shane.

Yes.

Jennifer Taub. Yes. Councillor Walker.

Yes.

Councillor Brevik. Yes. Councillor Ken O'Martin. Yes. Andy Churchill.

Yes.

Ana Devlin-Gauthier. Aye. Lynn Griesemer.

Aye.

Mandy Johanicki is an aye. Councillor Lord. Sam McLeod.

Aye.

That vote is unanimous. Where are we? We move on to Committee and liaison reports, it is 1024 in the evening, I urge everyone to be as brief as possible. We start with town council committees are there any town council committees that have any reports. Seeing no hands we move to town committees with counselor members. Pam Rooney and then Kathy Shane.

Thank you, sorry for the hand. I just wanted to report that the DPW committee will be meeting on June 23 to interview the top three choices for designer and it is moving along. So we will hopefully at the end of the 23rd have in mind the firm that we would like the town manager to hire. Kathy, Shane, do you have a question for that?

Okay, I will come back to you then because I think we've got a hand raised with a question for Pam. So, Councillor Ken O'Martin, is there a question for Pam?

Yes, a question and a comment. First, thank you to the town manager for appointing Jason Scales to the DPW building committee. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Pam was Pam was making the sign.

Yeah, no, I just wanted to say, thank you for the to the town manager for sending us that appointment. I don't know if we voted on it. We didn't. We didn't. Okay, but we will.

No, we did it. It was made in consent.

Okay. Well, yay. Congratulations. Thank you. Everybody. That was great. Um, and then I just wanted to ask Pam, is there any progress on getting these meetings to be hybrid? Um, because I know that was something that we've been talking about for a while, too.

Pam. It has been asked several times, and I believe that once the 23rd and the interviews will all be recorded, and there is strong pressure to, after that, start meetings with hybrid coverage.

I will note that In my weekly meeting with the town manager, I also urged him to since he is the one that formed the committee to find a way to get that committee, at least on zoom broadcast, if not fully hybrid. Any other questions for. town committees with Council remember well for Pam on dpw seeing none we move to Kathy shame.

Just a brief report, the elementary school building committee met on last Friday and the school is on track to open, including timetable for furniture moving in, but there is a glitch that the town is gonna work on full force and our legislators are that Eversource change the rules on what it takes to hitch up PV. And we played by the rules and got everything in in January, and they changed them in March or April. So there is currently a chance that PV, Solar panels won't be connected at the point the school opens, which means they won't be offsetting. But there is a full press to get that changed, including our representative said she just needs the details and she'll go in. So the town staff is also working on it. I know Deb is bringing this to the school. But I've never heard of changing the rules after the date at which you complied with the rules, which was, everyone went, what? But in any case, that is a glitch that was currently not beyond in our control. Right.

And the manager is working on providing that information to both Senator Comerford and Representative Dom to get their help on this issue. Liaison reports. Are there any liaison reports? Seeing none, we approved the minutes of the two meetings. Assistant Town Manager Zomek, do you have any report?

Given the late hour, I do not. I'm sure the town manager will have updates for you at the next meeting.

Thank you. Town Council comments. I don't have much for the President's report. You saw it in writing. Only five councillors responded to the survey regarding potential tours of the library building. Given those responses, I will be contacting people and contacting the library director to tentatively schedule tours for July 6, 13, and 30 at noon. Once I determine how large the groups can be, I'm going to need to assign dates to specific counselors. So if you have not filled out the survey, this is a final reminder to do so. I will assume anyone who has not filled out the survey is not interested in taking a tour of the building a hardhat tour. The groups have to be kept small, so you're not just going to be able to show up because you might not be allowed to tour. Pam? July 6, 13, and 30, those were the ones that had the most people able to attend. I will confirm tomorrow, but... I think I can try and confirm it tomorrow. My goal is to confirm tomorrow. As far as I know, we have nothing... pressing given we finished the budget and we finished reappointments and planning board and ZBA appointments at this time. I am expecting to cancel the June 29th meeting, but I want to speak with people after this meeting or tomorrow to make sure that that is the case. So I will confirm that later and I'll confirm that by email.

such that our next meeting would be july 20th uh are there any other counselor comments or future agenda items sam mcleod just a comment uh just wanted to let folks know if they aren't already that uh there's a anna and i will be having a district five meeting tomorrow evening at six o'clock at the munson library in person uh the agenda is on the uh town calendar thank you

Thank you. Seeing no other hands, there are no topics not reasonably anticipated. There's no executive session. I move to adjourn the meeting.

Second.

Kathy Shane seconds it. We start with Councillor Ryan.

Yes.

Kathy Shane.

Yes.

Jennifer Taub. Yes. Councillor Walker. Yes. Councillor Brevick. Yes. Councillor Cano-Martin. Yes. Andy Churchill.

Yes.

Ana Devlin-Gaffia. Aye. Lynn Griesemer.

Aye.

Mandy Johanicki is an aye. Councillor Lord. Sam McLeod. Aye. And Pam Rooney. Yes. 13-0. We are adjourned at 10.30, 1 p.m.