ing to figure out since I have been told, try to stay away from reserves, what other ways can we accomplish the same thing? So essentially I am still trying to accomplish the same goal as with my other motion with Paul's new proposal. I think this adding this language then assures that eventually there will be an additional 5 million. And I think the language as is doesn't actually assure anything just that we will look into these things. Okay. Anika. Yeah, so I also wanted to appreciate Anna's questions in regards to the numbers there and the numbers and dates and what is the actual, what would be the impact on the difference? And also the question, I have a question in regards to, I think that as we know, unless I'm mistaken, this whatever amount it is is going to impact like the top tax payers in town more than anyone. So like what provisions or avenues and this could be for later discussion we'll help and assure that this money goes to those who are the most vulnerable because we have a lot of talk about symbolic and symbolic gestures, but one cannot eat or pay a bill or buy medicine with symbolic. So I'm assuming these will come through and in later discussion just to ensure that, you know, we're, this is more than just gesture. And sign. I'd speak to that, but the motion on the floor now is an amendment and that amendment asks that we shorten the time period to October 2nd and it asks that we at that point take the money. Okay. So that's the amendment. Anika, further question? No, I just forgot to put my hand up. Okay. Mandy Jo. Yeah, looking at the language specifically, I see it as trying to do the exact same thing this council just voted nine against and three in favor of. It says if funds are not guaranteed and secured in six months, not if they haven't been identified. So it's basically giving Paul six months to work at the state level with a budget and stuff like that or other things. And then, oh, well, if it's not there, pull it from stabilization yet again. And this council just said, we're not ready to pull from stabilization. We need more information. We need more stuff. So I did for all the reasons that, you know, were said that people weren't in favor of the last motion. I see those exact same reasons as to not be in favor of this one. So I will not be supporting the motion to amend. Andy. Yeah, I'm just gonna add to what Mandy said without repeating what she said. By the identification list of examples it was given were things that were gonna take some time to actually secure funds. It was to come up with a credible plan for where we could get the additional $5 million. And the, but things like securing a donation from Amherst College, for example, would take more time. So there's that problem that it makes this essentially, we're back to where we were before. And in addition, it seems that what we're really going to be back at is just funding the, to do the impossible where I think that we need to recognize that what we're promising our voters is that we're gonna make every possible effort to reduce the amount of money that we're gonna actually have to borrow and that they're gonna have to pay back. And if we do that, as is pointed out by Sean at the beginning, we really have about three years to do that, it's not that we have six months to actually secure the funds. If we have a credible plan and secure the money in three years, it does the same thing. So there's the flexibility that we're losing in how the whole thing was structured by this proposed amendment. Dorothy. I think that the October date is just too soon to do anything given, just think about how much we have, we have accomplished some things this in the last six months but think about how long it's taken us to do every single little thing. And I am willing to trust longer time and we've been told that that money is not needed immediately. I guess I don't mind and I don't have a word or two in mind but I don't mind firming up the town manager's motion a little bit, but I think the flexibility and the time are very important. I am hoping and expecting that wonderful things will happen and that opportunities will open up and we will take them. I mean, just think about how this town has found so much money and put in applications and gotten grant money for all over the place but that takes time. So I just don't find the October date realistic. I support the town manager's motion and I don't mind it being firmed up a little bit but I think we have to stay in the realm of possible. Why would we tie that money down completely if we don't need to? That gets rid of flexibility. We do need to keep the flexibility in the budget. So I don't support that amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Dorothy, Alicia. That's okay, thank you. I appreciate that and I just wanna note that I only changed the date by one month and so I do understand that it is very soon but again, this project we're voting in May and originally I had hoped to have answers for constituents before the vote but I am being told that that is absolutely too soon and I completely understand why that is too soon. I'm not understanding why we can't reassess in six months and why it needs to be pushed out. I'm fine too. I'm okay with changing the language a bit so that it doesn't need to be the commitment by that date but I think we need to be reassessing this sooner because again, the vote is happening in a month and so I understand that these bills are not going to be hitting until 2025 which is in two years which is more time but still not that like that's not a long period of time and so I think we need to be continually reassessing to ensure that this happens and so again, I'm happy with being flexible here. I know we wanna move to consensus but I think there needs to be something that happens if the money is not found because that's what makes me uncomfortable with the original motion is it just says we're gonna look into things. It doesn't guarantee any additional funding to be put towards using the burden on taxpayers and I'm looking to get a guarantee tonight that we will do more and not that we will just look into it but that we will tangibly do more. We will apply more funding to this project. We will help to ease the burden and I hear Anika in terms of symbolic and that's not what I'm trying to do here. This is not symbolic to me. This is actually real impact and I understand that just because of the way the debt exclusion is set up that a larger number of dollars will be taken off for the higher people who pay higher taxes but that is just the nature of the debt exclusion. That is how it's going to work no matter what because houses that are assessed at a higher value have higher taxes. So there's really like not too much I can do about that in this specific instance. I hope the town will continue to look for other ways to offset the debt and we'll continue to find other ways to help low income or fixed income families and peoples but I'm trying to see what we can do in this moment with this particular initiative to help constituents. Sean. Yeah, I just wanted to provide a little more background for the date. So the reason that date was chosen is that it allows us to close another fiscal year which typically happens during October. It also allows us to get our next pension schedule which is one of our bigger costs. So allows us to kind of see what the new trajectory is for our pension assessment. And then the last thing is it's shortly after our financial indicators presentation. So that's why that date was picked because there's sort of a number of things that happen in November and late October. Thank you for that Sean. Shalini? Yes, I agree. I want to just agree with what Mandy Jo said and Andy and the Dorothy Pam especially about flexibility. I think leaving it more flexible in the original motion gives us an opportunity to be more creative around like what portion of these resources can be directed towards CDBG or I don't know like some other way. So it's more focusing on the people who really need it. Some of it can be directed towards bringing down the debt exclusion for all the residents. But I think some of it if we can find in the meanwhile during these few months if there are ways to really funnel the resources to towards people who really are gonna be impacted the most. So I want the flexibility that yeah, that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Michelle? Just a couple of things. First with the date, I just put this question out there in terms of how given that we'll be turning over councils just how close that gets to the time that we would only have maybe a meeting or two after that before a new council. So just something for us to think about in terms of new councils. I, it's really interesting. I have, I was very much in favor of adding teeth to this in the sense of wanting to ensure that if we didn't reach or identify, you know, five million in alternative funding that we would have some way of making sure that we reached the goal that I had hoped we would reach. And now I've listened to some of my colleagues and I feel that there is a real benefit to keeping things more flexible. And I'll add, and I think please correct me if I'm wrong that at any point a counselor can bring forward a request to the town manager to appropriate funds outside of the budget. So it's not to say that if we, if come October or November, if we get the sense that there's nothing that's been identified or for whatever reasons a counselor may have to bring forward that request to the town manager, that's never off the table. And I sort of forgot that on my own. So I just wanted to, in case that's something that other counselors also forgot that that's important, that we do, we still have all sorts of possibilities, I think at least for myself sometimes I get limited in my thinking around that. So thank you. Michelle, thank you. Pam, Rene. Thank you. Just posing this a different way, is it really a problem to state if we don't obtain or at least identify various sources for approximately $5 million more, knowing that in fact we have two years or a few more years beyond that to actually lock down what we are going to be borrowing, is it a problem to fill in the blanks later? So if they don't all materialize by November 30th, why is that a real issue? We have the time to identify them, we have the time to secure them. And in the meantime, we were able to go forward and start the process of negotiating the loans with a backup and within the two years or three years before we actually start to, before we have to lock that in, all of this is resolved. So I'm not sure why we can't approach it as a backup plan. Okay, thank you, Anika. I just wanted to clarify for Alicia that first I believe your goals are just as you said, and I know that you're trying as hard as you can to lessen burden of the tax of a ride. So my symbolic statement was not directed to your amendment or motion, more that we've heard this over and over again that it would be important to make a symbolic gesture and whether that's come from council or statements from community. And so I'm just very cautious that symbolic really does nothing for a struggling household, a struggling household that's trying to make ends meet. And, you know, but also, you know, just looking over there, many that are outside of maybe the low income that this could affect, but just so we are well aware of where this balance falls in general, that's it. Thank you, Jennifer. Yeah, kind of a process question. So when Paul comes back, if he's identified funds, whether we decided it's October or November 30th, does that require a two thirds council vote because we would have to vote? It depends on automatic. Right, that's a very good question, Jennifer. The funds may be in various different forms and therefore they may require various different kinds of votes and actions. Some of it might be voting free cash. Some of it might be, hey, we got this extra money from the state. Some of it might be, you know, gee, the formula for pilot changed and therefore our budget has more money in it. So it's hard to say now, but where the council has to take action, we will be asked to take action through the appropriate measures that are brought forward to us. Okay, so I would just like to ask, this is jumping ahead, but since there's a bit of, you know, trust me to the town manager, which we do, that when he comes back, having identified some that we will all support it because that's the next step. I mean, I'm not asking for people to, you know, write anything, but just that we will trust Paul that if he is recommending it, that we support it. That's just my request. Thank you. Thank you. Pam, yes. Yes, thank you. I had a follow-up question. So if, in fact, we passed this amendment with some more structure, does that in itself then require a new financial order? You don't think so, Paul? Maybe I'm not understanding the question. A new financial order tonight or in the fall? It would require a new financial order in the fall. It would, yeah, any appropriate funds would require a financial order. It would not require a new financial order tonight, but as I mentioned when I was answering Jennifer's question, depending on where the money is coming from, we may have to vote a couple financial orders. As we do, for instance, if you remember last fall, when we voted, we created the stabilization fund, we moved money into it, we added additional money into it, and then we voted money for the reparations fund, and then we voted, and all of those are separate votes depending on what form the money is in, and depending on what form the money is in and how it's being transferred also dictates what the vote quantum has to be. Okay, that actually didn't clarify it for me. If we voted to require that stabilization funds be used, if we didn't find the new monies by November, or at least identify the new monies by November 30th, we've had a great discussion about the financial order couldn't be adjusted today. It would require a new one that would take time, and I'm saying would this amendment very specifically requiring a new financial order in the fall? It would be in the fall. Okay. And the answer is yes. Okay. Yes, Anna. So I'm struggling with this. I think I'm uncomfortable falling back to the reserves. I think that's a, it feels like a roundabout way of getting at what we just voted on. And I'm struggling with it because I don't actually feel that this motion is the best, nor most effective, nor really effective, medium effective, at addressing what we say we want to address. And we talk about how we want to support our lower income residents and our renters. And yet we're not creating programs. We're not saying that this, we're saying general tax relief. And so while I recognize that the importance of that, I think that we should be focusing on what we're actually saying we want to do, right? And we keep falling back to this idea of kind of the blanket application of funds when I believe our time, energy and resources in terms of seeking out new resources will be better spent supporting the people who need the support. My other question is a little bit about what precedent this sets. I think my concern here is that we seem to be writing something saying that we're acting like Paul isn't going to be looking for funding to support these projects. And I don't believe that that's true. And so does this mean that anytime we need a project to go forward, we have to pass a motion saying, hey Paul, please make sure that you find as much money as possible to pay for this project. Like, of course he's going to do that. That's part of his job. And so I think I'm struggling to figure out, I recognize how this is different than a general capital project that we might be hopefully paying for with the reserves that we hopefully will keep. But I am struggling a bit with the precedent that this sets of stating an additional extra expectation that I don't actually think is getting at the need that we say we want to be getting at. I'm going to call on Sean, but I also just want to say we're now, we're talking about the amendment to the motion. I know I recognize that my mind bordered and I apologize. Okay, Sean. Yeah, just two things real quick. So I think to your point, Anna, I think the idea behind this was that it would be a creative plan. It wouldn't necessarily be $5 million of general across the board tax relief. Number two in the memos talked about identifying, developing the programs to aid renters, looking at CDBG and CPA. So I think exactly what you're describing, that would be part of the plan. And then the second one, just a clarification from before, I don't believe I could be wrong. I don't believe the council can vote. They can vote to ask Paul to bring back a stabilization order, appropriation order, but I don't think it's binding in a way that Paul has to. Again, appropriation orders originate with the town manager. So it's a strong suggestion, I think, if that's included in the wording of the motion, but I don't think it binds the town manager to do so. Thank you for the clarification. Michelle. I'm sorry, can you come back to me? I apologize, I just need one more. Kathy. I just want to emphasize what Sean just said, because he said it really quickly. We talked about CDBG, Community Preservation Act, other sources of money that actually target where the problem is, as opposed to just dipping into reserves. So I do think this is going back to the reserves as the only source. And for that reason, I'm not supporting the amendment. I think we need to leave it flexible. And with the challenge of doing this, and it's a broader challenge because this is not, it's tangential to the school, but we don't have a lot of support for people at the lower middle and middle group. And trying to think about how we do that better is what I think we all need to be challenged to do. Michelle, I'll go to Alicia and then come back to you. Alicia. Yes, thank you. So I just wanted to say, again, my reasoning for wanting this amendment was to not say that I don't or to add extra expectations for Paul, but to guarantee that something tangible happened. And so, again, I'm very hopeful that Paul will be able to do all of the things that are listed in that memo and that he will come up with the five million and then great, nothing else needs to happen. So this is just adding an additional backup plan for if in the event that those things don't happen, which again, like I said, I'm very hopeful that that won't be the case, but for me to feel comfortable, that would be what would make me feel more comfortable with this motion. And just a little bit because I think also, one of the biggest issues for residents in Amherst, we know, is housing affordability or lack thereof. And so, and then I know I've heard a lot of people say like this isn't addressing what the actual problem is, that's actually not what I'm trying to address with my motion. And so I want to make that very clear that there's no way that with this one project, we would be able to have an impact on the issue of housing affordability in Amherst. That is a huge issue that honestly has little to do with this project itself. This is another additional thing on top of it. And so what my real goal here is to reduce the impact of the debt exclusion override simply. Like my goal with this motion is not to create more affordable housing. Those are all initiatives that I would love to see the town, I know the town is working on, I'd love to see them do more things. And that has literally not much to do with what I'm proposing right now. We have a regular 2% increase on housing taxes. We have increased the sewer and water bills. And now we're asking taxpayers to take on an additional increase. And I'm trying to say we should not increase, like we should lower that to the extent possible, the lowest amount of an increase as possible because there will already be increases. Nobody is saving here regardless of what happens with my motion. Even if it were to pass, every single taxpayer is going to see an increase. The point of this motion is not to create more affordable housing. Like, yes, the point is there are people who live in this town who really cannot afford the increase. That is the point. But with this motion, my goal is not to actually address the actual problem. I think much more, much, much more needs to be done to address what the actual problem is. This is one very small thing that we can do to help alleviate and help, and to not add to the already existing issue because right now we're just adding to it. Thank you, Michelle. I do have great confidence in the town manager and in Sean. And I feel confident that we'll actually exceed the 5 million. However, I also understand that as we're building confidence in each other and with the community, that there is some maybe assurance is not the right word, but maybe some assurance that is being seeked. And Alicia, you had said that you were flexible in changing some of the language of this. And I'm just gonna attempt one time here to see if there's some language that we might be able to work with or if you like to keep it the way that it stands. Do you have an amendment you'd like to propose, Michelle? I do not have an amendment. No, I do not have an amendment. All right, so there is a motion on the table. That motion has now been amended. The amendment has been seconded. And I'll ask the town clerk to put that, I mean, excuse me, the clerk to the town council to put that up on the screen in a moment or right now. And if you can also show the original motion. I don't know if that's possible. Okay. Alicia. I guess, sorry, I don't know if Michelle's, I think it was a direct question to me, so if I can answer that. I am open to an amendment if there's one. Again, like my goal here is, like I would also like for there to be consensus tonight. One very clear thing to me that I would be okay with amending is changing the date back. I don't know if there are any other amendments that would make other people feel more comfortable with this, but I am not comfortable with the motion as is. And so again, I'd be happy if there's anything else. I'd be happy to leave the original date and just move to amend the language. So, Michelle, if you had something in mind, I just wanted to state that.  Yeah, I was just gonna ask to call the question. I think we need to take a vote. Second. Okay, the question's been called and seconded, that's not debatable, so we're going to move immediately to a vote on the calling the question, not on the motion, on calling the question. Okay, and I'll start with Mandy Jo Hanneke. Aye. Anika Lopes. Aye. Michelle Miller. Aye. Pam, Dorothy Pam. Yes. Pam Rooney. Yes. Kathy Shane. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Aye. Jennifer Taub. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalini Balmille. Yes. Pat D'Angeles. Aye. Anna Devlin-Gothier. Aye. And Lynn Gries-Mersen. Aye. So we move immediately to the motion, the amendment to the motion that is on the screen. You're voting only on the amendment. The amendment is to change the date from November 30th to October 2nd and to add the following language and should funds comprising that additional 5 million not be secured and guaranteed by this date, the town manager shall be requested to direct an amount equal to the difference between the 5 million and what has been secured, but not to exceed a total of 5 million to be drawn from stabilization accounts to fund the elementary school. Should any alternative to funding opportunities emerge at a later date, those dollar amounts shall as possible and appropriately go back into stabilization funds to replenish those accounts for future capital needs. That is the question. We're voting, you're done with debate. Kathy, you have your hand up, is there? Okay, thank you. So we're gonna begin with the vote. The vote is on the amendment, which is the one that has the yellow on it. I'm starting with Anika Lopes. No. Michelle Miller. No. Dorothy Pam. Did you hear me? No, I did not. No. Pam Rooney. Yes. Kathy Shane. No. Andy Steinberg. No. Jennifer Tobb. No. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalini Balmille. No. Pat DeAngelis. No. Anna Devlin-Gothier. No. Lynn Griesmers. No. Mandy Jo Hanicky. No. Votes two in favor and 11 against the vote fails. We're back to the original motion and that is to request the town manager develop options to reduce the financial impact of the debt exclusion for the elementary project on residence by proposing a financing plan that identifies an additional 5 million of alternative funding to be presented to the town council by November 30th, 2023.  Yes, I would like to propose another amendment to this motion. Okay. And so I just sent it over to Athena so she might not have had it before but I can just read it. So I propose to add the following language at the end of that motion and should funds comprising that additional 5 million not be secured and guaranteed reimbursements received by the town ministers related to the elementary school building project so shall be used to decrease the amount of the debt exclusion. Athena, do you have that? Athena, we'll put the motion on the screen in just a moment. Thank you. Point of order. I will see a second as soon as we see it on the screen to amend by adding the filing language and should funds comprising the additional 5 million not be secured and guaranteed by this date. Any rebate or reimbursement received by the town for measures related to the elementary school building project shall be used to decrease the amount of the debt exclusion. Is there a second? Second, Miller, I'd like to hear council walkers speak to this motion. Alicia, please speak to your motion. Yeah, so essentially I'm still just here trying to think of what could make me feel more comfortable and to bring me on board for consensus tonight. And this was another idea that I had. It seems like there is generally uncomfortable for me to be touching reserves it seems at this point beyond the five that we have already put in the financial order. And so I'm proposing at this time that if Paul is unable to identify an additional 5 million from all of those options listed that, and this would happen once the school is built and there are rebates or reimbursements for the school that that money's however much it be, be applied to the debt exclusion directly to decrease the amount of the overall debt exclusion. And that this, in my opinion, achieves a very similar goal without touching additional reserves. Okay, maybe Jones. I believe this would have the unintended consequence since we have not actually voted Kathy's proposed reimbursement of the IRA money to go into stabilization that this would have the unintended consequence of sending all of that IRA money into the debt exclusion decrease and not back into stabilization to reimburse the stabilization. Okay, Anna. Well, Mandy said may have just thrown me off a little bit. I think, oh, sorry, could you put it back? I'm so sorry. Thank you. I think as I'm reading this, what I'm trying to figure out is if it weren't secured, if it were secured, does that mean where does the money then go? The rebates and reimbursements. And so what Mandy is saying is that the way the motion, the financial order is currently designed is that it goes back to the capital stabilization fund. The understanding from finance is that that is going to the project. I'm talking in circles because I think what Mandy just said through me a little bit. And so I'd like to hear it explained a little bit more. Sorry. Mandy, Joe, did you want to explain that a little bit? Sorry, it didn't need to be for Mandy. I think I just want to hear the discussion. I can try my thoughts. So we have a financial order on the table that simply says we're pulling $5 million from stabilization. Right now, there has been no motion to the town manager or to amend our own financial guidelines that says if we received money from the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, that the town manager is supposed to reimburse the capital stabilization for this project. And so without those motions having already been voted, I read this as saying if we receive money from the Inflation Reduction Act, we must use it to decrease the debt exclusion instead of reimbursing the capital stabilization fund. Alicia? That is correct, Mandy, Joe. So that's actually exactly what my intention is with this motion. And so what I'm saying is if by the time the school is built, which is giving us the time that we are asking for, we have not identified an additional $5 million from elsewhere or all of those options that Paul listed, that when we receive the rebates that those be used to pay down the debt. And so I know there has been a lot of conversation in finance about taking the fives because it's reimbursable, but that was not actually something that was ever voted on. So that is not something that's set in stone. That's just a conversation we've been having. And so now at this point, I'm saying, can we use that as an alternative option? That still gives us more time again, because these tax credits we don't get until the school is built. And so it also gives Paul X amount of time to identify an additional $5 million, but it also gives us a backup plan if an additional $5 million is not identified by the time the school is built. Okay, I'm gonna let others ask questions. Andy? Yeah, it's not a question, it's a statement really, but when we've talked about the financing of the four building projects in its last time, and Sean brought this up again before the council fairly recently, there were four options. And this goes back to November as to how we could proceed with the four building projects to include fire station and the DPW building, which we've heard a lot about tonight. And the two of the four options had to do with using capital stabilization fund and essentially trying to use that in combination with other money that might become available to actually do cash and not borrowing to complete those projects. So I think what we're back in is that if it goes, if the proposal now is adopted, we would be in a position where we would not have that option. And we would have to find another way to finance the other way to finance would be borrowing. And I think that that borrowing is gonna come back on all our residents because it's gonna be one of two things. Either you're gonna do less capital for other things and that's gonna cost deterioration to buildings and failure to do roads or we're gonna be needing to come back to the taxpayers again for another debt exclusion and we're not gonna achieve anything because we've limited, we won't have limited the debt exclusion to what we're considering it after the elementary school. So I really am concerned that it does happen to the plans to get those two buildings done in the most expeditious manner. Pam. Thank you. I wonder if Felicia would be open to a friendly amendment of her amendment and add the words after be used to decrease them out of the debt exclusion or replenish stabilization funds as appropriate. I accept that amendment. Okay. Who seconded the motion? Michelle, do you accept that? What is my role in accepting the motion? Like what would, what is... If you just, for the time being, all you need to tell me is if you accept this friendly amendment. Sure. Yes. Okay. All right. Are there any other questions or comments? Sean. Just relative, this amendment relative to the memo, my concern would be the wording secured and guaranteed by that date. I think, again, the idea for them, from the memo was that we would come up with a plan that we would have potentially three years to chip away at this, at the $5 million goal with the wording secured and guaranteed by this date of November 30th. That was, again, essentially give us six months to come up with the money. So if there's, you know, obviously this is up to you all, but if there was a way to adjust that wording to allow for the plan and for the flexibility of the full period of time, that would be more consistent with the memo. Thank you. Is it okay if I clarify? Yes. Because that was not, maybe the wording is funky, but because in mine, I don't have the date listed, but the rebates don't come in until the school is built. And so that was my thought, like we can have the plan, but I'm talking about if the money is not secured by the time that the rebates come in. If does that make sense? Yes, but that's not what the motion, how the motion reads. Is it? The motion read is connected to November 30th, 2023. So if you just strike the guaranteed by this date, that solves the issue. And should funds comprising the additional $5 million? Not be secured. Any rebates or reimbursements received by the town for measures related to the elementary school project shall be used to decrease the amount of the debt exclusion. So just taking out any date because that assumes that, I mean, the assumption is that that can't happen until the rebates are available anyhow. And the rebates will not be available until after the school is built. Okay, Michelle, you would just have to strike the date. Sorry, thank you. Michelle, you made, you seconded, do you accept that change? Yes. Okay. Are there any further questions or comments on this? Okay. Lynn, my hand is up. Yes, I'm sorry. Michelle, go ahead, please. Okay. I guess I'm a little bit confused about the amendment that Pam made. So is this saying, it seems that as appropriate is subjective, I mean, as appropriate to what? I mean, who decides? How does it get decided? I mean, I guess I'm just not understanding, not understanding what we're voting on here. Pam, did you have any comment you'd like to make? Yeah, sure. I understood the, one of the concerns that I heard was that it would only, that any monies found or rebated would go specifically for debt exclusion that perhaps they wouldn't go into the stabilization funds. So this just opened it up so that it could go into either debt exclusion or replenishing stabilization funds, we could say at the direction of the town manager or something like that. I mean, it's trying to provide the flexibility. It doesn't even have to have the words as appropriate if that confuses things. I guess I'm just wondering, have we made a commitment yet as a council that the 5 million that Kathy proposed would come first in terms of like what, like how that was set up was that that money would come back and go to replenish the stabilization fund. And so to me, this seems contradictory to that. Right, so we have not voted the authorization, that is the next vote. This is an amendment to the motion above it and it has been raised by more than one counselor that it does seem a little counter to the authorization language and so forth. So I don't know that I can clarify it because I don't know that I can clarify it. I'm sorry, Lynn, if I could just one more follow up here then. So what we're voting on is basically saying that whatever rebates we receive or reimbursements we receive that are related particularly to the project will do one of these two things and that will be at the discretion of who, the town manager. Since we would have to vote appropriation orders it would be at the town council's discretion. The town manager can propose orders to us but we have to vote them. Okay, all right, thank you. Okay, Anna. So my concern with this is that I'm worried that this actually would endanger our vote on the 5 million for the actual language because I think that what became very clear in the discussions was that the support for the 5 million for many of us is because we know it's contingent upon those funds going back to capital stabilization so that we don't have to delay the projects that the capital stabilization fund is supposed to pay for. We had a chart from Sean in the last packet that talked about the impact of 5 million with reimbursement, 5 million without reimbursement and 10 million, 10 million with five reimbursed and then 10 million with nothing reimbursed. This is that second one, right? This is the 5 million not reimbursed to capital. I recognize the possible impactful support gets that additional 5 million off of the amount on taxpayers, but my concern is that when the idea was brought forward of using IRA money coming back to kind of pre-borrow a little bit from capital stabilization that that was the big reason why many of us supported that initial motion. So my concern with the amendment is that this would, I'd have to really think about the actual language itself. And I recognize that the amendment made that it could be or replenish stabilization funds as appropriate. But again, that's too wishy-washy for me. I feel that it does need to go back to capital stabilization so that it continues to feed the chart as it was seen and as we saw last week in the packet. Okay, Alicia. Hope, yeah, sorry, you see me now here in my bed. Yeah, so I just in response to what Anna said we actually don't know that. And that was the point of the motion is that we never had a vote to ensure that those funds go back into the stabilization fund. That was all just a part of our conversation that was never a for sure or a definitive. And so at this time I'm asking that we can look at that as a backup plan when the school is built. So again, I'm looking to compromise in terms of giving the town manager ample time to identify different funding sources. So that doesn't, like it doesn't have to essentially mean that this is committed to not going back into the stabilization fund. It gives us a backup option in case there are no other funds identified in the next two, three years until the school is built. So this gives more time, which is what I heard was the issue with my other motions, much more time. And this also is just a backup. Like this is not saying now we are definitely going to return the rebates to the debt authorization and nothing is going to be replenished to the stabilization fund. This is a backup plan in case we are unable to identify other funding sources. And it also sounds like to me a lot of counselors feel very confident that Paul will be able to do so. And so I'm not understanding why this cannot be merely a backup plan. Michelle. Alicia, would you be open to any rebates or reimbursements received by the town for measures related to the elementary building project in excess or exceeding five million shall be used to decrease the amount of the debt exclusion period? How would this work with the motion that's on the floor? Like how would they work together? It would be an amendment to your existing motion. It could be considered a friendly amendment, although we're getting to the point that the friendly amendments have kind of exceeded. No, sorry, I don't think that's not what I meant. What I mean is because my amendment, I get how that's changing my amendment, but how does that work with the original motion? Well, yours is an amendment to the original motion. Yes. So what Michelle is asking in your wording, would you be willing to accept additional changes to your amendment language? Sean, do you have your hand up? Yeah, as I understand it, that would be consistent with one of the options that was in the memo, which was to continue looking for other potential rebates from the Inflation Reduction Act and that those could be part of the plan. So it seems like that would be consistent. So Michelle, could you please tell us again what your language suggestion is? Sure. So starting at the beginning, and should funds compromising that additional five million not be secured any rebates or reimbursements received by the town for measures related to the elementary school building project in excess of five million shall be used to decrease the amount of the debt exclusion period. I don't think that that accomplishes the same thing. And I might be misunderstanding, but I don't think that that accomplishes the same thing I'm trying to accomplish because from the conversation, what I've gotten financing throughout is that we're hoping that the rebates are at least five million and that there is a real possibility that they will be under five million. And so again, this is like me compromising saying if we can't get a full 10, maybe we can get a little bit more with the rebates. And so if the rebates only come in at just a magic random number like 3.8, then that 3.8 would then be applied to bring us up to 8.8. But if we're not in excess of five million, then it does nothing. And I'm not actually sure that the assumption is that it will be in excess of five million. I think the assumption at this point from what I've heard in the conversation is that it won't be, is the assumption. So that language, additional language has not been accepted by the original motion. Okay, Pam Rooney. Yeah, I have to admit I am now a little confused because I thought any rebates that come in for the project would go toward the first, easily toward the first five million. And if the tally for expected rebates is around 4.2, then that does not exceed five million. I would like the 4.2 to definitely go back and replenish stabilization. So adding the phrase in excess of five million, frankly confuses the issue and I don't understand that. Thank you, Andy. Yeah, if the finance committee meeting where all this arose and Kathy's motion was separate from a second motion, there were two motions made that day. The first was motion by Kathy, seconded by our honor to recommend the town council request time manager allocate $5 million to the capital stabilization fund, fund the new elementary school building to support the initial cost of geothermal and followed of all payX systems contingent on a positive vote for the school project that May 2nd, that passed five to nothing with one non-voting member absent, two non-voting members, I'm sorry, one non-voting member was in support and two non-voting members absent. The second motion was a motion by Lynn, seconded by Anna to recommend the town council request time manager that when in receipt of any tax credits for the elementary school building project that those be placed in the capital stabilization fund and that passed on the same vote. Thank you. Pat, is there a second? Second. The question's been called and seconded. We move immediately to a vote on calling the question. I'm going to begin that vote with Binkanika. No, Michelle, okay. Aye. Dorothy Pam. Yes. Pam Rooney. Yes. Kathy Shane. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Yes. Jennifer Taub. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalini Balmillan. Yes. Pat DeAngeles. Aye. Anna Delan-Gothier. Aye. Lynn Grisperz. Aye. Mandy Johanna. Aye. Annoneka Lopes. Aye. It's unanimous. We move immediately to the amendment that is on the screen. And I begin that with Dorothy Pam. No. Pam Rooney. No. Kathy Shane. No. Andy Steinberg. No. Jennifer Taub. No. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalini Balmillan. No. Sorry. No. No. Pat DeAngeles. No. Anna Delan-Gothier. No. Lynn Grisperz and no. Mandy Johannike. No. Nika Lopes. No. Michelle Miller. No. I believe that's one in favor and 12 opposed. The motion fails and we're back to the original motion. The original motion is to request that the town manager develop options to reduce. I'm sorry. Can you show the motion? Okay. I'll read the motion. To request that the town manager develop options to reduce the financial impact of the debt exclusion for the elementary school building project on residents proposing a financing plan that identifies an additional five million of alternative funding to be presented to the town council by November 30th, 2023. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, I'm moving to the motion. And this time I believe I start with Pam Rooney. Yes. Dorothy Pam, thank you. I start with Dorothy Pam. Yes. Pam Rooney. Yes. Kathy Shane. I'm just making sure I'm voting on the top part, not the bottom. You're only voting on the top part. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Yes. Jennifer Tobb. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalini Balmille. Yes. Patty Angelis. Aye. Anna Devlin-Gothier. Aye. Lynn Greese-Mersen. Aye. Mandy Jo Hanicky. Aye. Michael Lopes. Aye. Michelle Miller. Aye. That is unanimous. We are going to move to the most important vote of the evening. Are you ready? In accordance with Charter section 5.6, having been published on the town bulletin board for a minimum of 10 days on March 20th, 2023, a public forum held on April 3rd, 2023 and having been reviewed by the Finance Committee report of April 3rd, 2023, to adopt council order FY23-06C and order authorizing the construction of a new school at the Fort River site. An appropriation and borrowing authorization is presented and shown on pages 14 to 15 of the council motion sheet. Is there any? Is there a second? Second. Oh, I was going to let you speak to it. You beat Kathy.  Yeah, I just want to confirm with Athena that this is the version they had. There was a couple typos and a table that they were corrected. Okay. Mandy Jo. I just wanted to confirm that they still remain on pages 14 and 15 of the motion sheet. They will. Thanks. They will. Okay. All right. Any other questions or comments? I'm going to move to the vote. And I believe in this case, I begin with Pam Marini. Pam. Yes. Kathy Shane. Yes, Andy Steinberg. Yes. Jennifer Tob. Yes. Alicia Walker. This is a very tough decision for me tonight. One, because Linda just announced that this is the most important decision that we'll make tonight. And I would like to contest that because to me, this was not the most important decision we made tonight because I know this is going to pass. The most important decisions were the decisions in the conversation that we just had in which I found all of my fellow counselors were not interested in helping constituents who are going to be deeply burdened by this project that's going to go forward anyhow. And so for that reason, I am voting now. Charlene Bonilla. Yes. Pat DeAngeles. Aye. Donna Devlin-Gothier. Aye. Lynn Griezmer. Aye. Mandy Jo Hanneke. Before I vote, I would like to say a special thanks to all the three counselors that have served on and continue to serve on our elementary school building committee, counselor Steve Schreiber, who was a former counselor, counselor Alicia Walker, and counselor Kathy Shane, especially Kathy, who has chaired the committee from the beginning. I vote aye. Anika Lopes. Aye. Michelle Miller. Aye. Dorothy Pam. Yes. The vote is 12 in favor. One opposed. And we're going to take a break. We will reconvene at 10 o'clock. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to resume our meeting. Dr. Slaughter is waiting. Please turn your video on when you return. And please turn your video on when you return. Thank you. Jennifer, are you back with us? Michelle? OK, they'll be with us in a moment. I just want to make sure that, first of all, we welcome Superintendent Mike Morris, Superintendent Dr. Mike Morris, and Finance Director for the school's Dr. Doug Slaughter. Now, we know that chemistry degree is really helping you. I couldn't resist. It's the hour. You know, we need a little humor at this point. We're going to have a presentation of the regional school budget. And it involves all three of the next items, CD and E, both the budget presentation, the debt authorization, and the assessment method. There is one motion that we do need to take. That motion is the following. I'm going to take a motion. I'm going to look for a second. Then we're going to have the presentation. And then we'll go forward. Before I even start that, however, I want to make sure that Dr. Morris and Dr. Slaughter know that there is no finance committee meeting tomorrow. It has been postponed to a date to be scheduled so that we can have as many of our finance committee members as there is possible. So the motion is in accordance with Section 5.5a of the Amherst Home Rural Charter to refer the Amherst Pellum Regional School District annual operating and capital budget and assessment method submitted by the town manager and recommended by the Amherst Pellum Regional School District Committee for fiscal year 2024 to the finance committee to hold a public hearing and to make a recommendation to the town council by April 20th, 2023. And let me just mention that hearing will be, in fact, April 24. April 25 is what's on the motion sheet. Yeah, Athena, I just want to clarify. The 24th is when we council next meet. Should it say April 24? It should be 24. Thank you. Looking at this ground. OK. Is there a second? Second. OK. Let's proceed with the presentation. We're wide awake. OK. Well, given the hour, Dr. Slaughter and I just spoke, and we wondered if Doug could just do a brief update, because really not much has changed since the last four town meeting and this meeting, the presentation, very similar to last regional school committee meeting. I left the last one with the one where we was presented. And so we thought maybe we would update the council on what has changed, which is not all that much. Not a tremendous amount, I should say, since the last time we got together. And then just see if the council had any questions, just given the hour that we're here. If that's OK with the president and the council, then I can turn it over to Doug, who I think can update the council on where we stand with things. If I didn't say it was OK, I think there'd be 12 other people who question my decision. So please go ahead. All right. I'll turn it over to Doug. Thank you. Thank you. So I think the the briefest thing I can say is as far as the operating budget is concerned, the town of Amherst came back to us fairly recently and said, we believe we have funding for another half a percent. So to go from 2 and 1 half percent increase in assessment to 3 percent increase, that's roughly an $89,000 increase from the town of Amherst. Went through the assessment method again and reworked the numbers relative to that to see the impact on the other four communities. And in particular, with the guardrails already in place with our previous calculations, those would still be in place. It did change the amount for shoots barrier. We reached out to the folks in shoots barrier. They were amenable to that change. That adds about a little over $9,000 to their assessment. And overall, it does help our budget and allow for us to accommodate a little more expense in our budget. Given that we have four of six contracts still under negotiation and are continuing to work through that process, we felt that the best approach would be to put that into our contingency and reserves section of our budgets, a single line in our expense section. When we're projecting forward, and particularly when we have an unsettled contract circumstance like we have now, we have some of the changes in our payroll estimates. But we also carry a certain amount of estimation of that cost in our contingencies and reserves. And given where we are and given the size of the number, the total increase to the budget, about $97,000, we thought we would be best served by holding our expectation of reductions and use of other resources like our ESSER funds, our COVID grant monies, kind of keep that the same. And so the increase in funding was used to bolster the amount of contingency and reserves by that little over $97,000. And that's really the only real change we have in our budget from what you saw at the Bortown meeting. From the standpoint of capital and capital assessments, those are all the same as what you saw before. There's no change to the projects. There's no change to the cost of the projects. And just a reminder, what we have in that section of our budget is that we have a debt authorization, which is about new projects. And we're looking for authorization to fund. Notice to you has been served by the actions of the school committee. We send a notice within 40 hours about that. We have 60 days to take action or take no action. The actual money that you have to appropriate is having to do with debt we've already incurred. And so that amount is an obligation that the town has to fund it portion. And that is the methodology we use for that involves the EQD. And that's fixed within our regional agreement. And those numbers have not changed since last time you saw them back in mid-February. So I think I'll stop there and just see what questions you have or if there's any particular other things you want to know about our budget for the coming year. Are there questions from the council? And just to mention that the finance committee when they meet, either in one or two meetings, will also include meetings and complete further discussion and presentations by both the superintendent and Doug Slaughter. So are there questions from the council? Mindy Jo. Thank you for staying so late to do this. It's not really a question, but it's kind of a question and it's about the guardrails and how those are presented to the other communities. We, you talked about the guardrails this year being already in place for two communities, which means the regional school committee and the superintendent and the business officer willingly giving up about $50,000 in income, in revenue in this budget. But last year, Amherst also voted share of the state aid increase with the supplemental budget that we gifted a significant amount of that increase to the region. And so I would like to hear from you whether Amherst's extra support last year to the budget, because it was a gift and you didn't go back to the other towns to ask for their proportional share under the assessment method. And this year, particularly those towns that are at the guardrails, how you communicate that extra support that Amherst is sort of giving the region to those towns, because by instituting those guardrails are not going back for the money that we supplemental budgeted to the region. In some sense, we are paying more than our fair share. And so how is that communicated to the other three towns? Particularly their town meetings and their finance committees? So I can speak to that. So I think you're right in noting many of the points you made, Mandy Jo. I think the way it's communicated is quite similar to what you said, which is that we appreciate Town of Amherst stepping up and increasing their contribution.  Sometimes we're asked to speak, sometimes we're not. So we can't control what some of those conversations go, but we've been really clear with all the towns about the implications of this. And they're aware of that. And I think, for me, I'll just say not to delve too deep into it, but the guardrails are a way to get budgets past that support our system. So if there weren't guardrails and some of the increases in the small towns, we'd be having a different conversation tonight, I imagine, with a lot more uncertainty in the budget and potentially a lot more cuts to the budget. So that's what they provide for us. And we continue to have this conversation. We had a group that met last year after the Fort Town meeting process, suggested about guardrails, and had some conversations, had some discussions. Didn't hear a real strong push to land in a different place, but we can continue to have those conversations each summer if folks would like to make sure that we're getting it right and supporting the member towns both in terms of the ability to pay and also to maintain the regional school system that our communities expect. But totally fair point. We've been communicating that with member towns and in our public meetings as well, along the same dimensions which you described. Kathy. Thanks for staying so late. When you come to finance, I don't know what other materials you're going to bring, but I would love to see if you can put together a simple sheet on enrollment trends and staffing trends just to show me what that's looked like over the last five years in a pre-COVID, COVID. I just need a frame of reference, so it's what's underlined the budget. And you may already have pulled these together. I'm not trying to create work, but I have not been attending all your regional meetings as you've discussed it, so it would be useful. Thank you. Shalini. Yeah, I had a similar question. I haven't been able to attend the regional school committee meetings, and so the change in operating budget, the decrease by $1 million, over $1 million, could you explain what that is? And I mean, is the decline in the reduction in teachers because we have less students? Or is it because of financial, purely financial reasons? Like, yeah, just if you could explain a little more what's happening with that. Sure, I mean, I'll take a stab, and then Doug can definitely jump in. The answer is yes to your question. There are fewer students, particularly in the middle school. High school enrollment has remained more constant, and financial pressures are real. So despite the generosity of our four communities, the reality is our costs are going up greater than the revenues.  So that's where the gap is. If we were to do a level services budget, in other words, roll everything forward one year, Doug's going to tell us in a second what that percent would be, but it's a larger percent than what we're getting, and the state is giving us very little increase. So you might have heard of the Student Opportunity Act. That is not benefiting our district, any of my districts actually. Additionally, I don't remember the fish title, but what's been commonly referred to as millionaires tax, 0% of those dollars in the governor's plan go to K to 12 education. There's 10 million that go to specific programs for early college and innovation high school pieces, but none of that hits where our budget is. It's really like a grant program. So these two major funding sources the state has talked about to help support K to 12 schools. One of them isn't really addressing K to 12 schools at all, and one of them is addressing in a major way some K to 12 schools, but our district, like 67% of the state, our whole harmless districts that don't benefit at all other than, yeah, I think that's a fair statement. So Doug, what would the percentage be if we were to roll everything forward? It's about, it's over 5%. So it's about 5.1 or so percent is the estimated increase in budget from the current year if we were to do level services. I think the other thing I'll just mention relative to our budget for the coming year and talking about that, there's a variety of strategies we're employing in trying to reduce over a million dollars in the current budget. A lot of it's funding from our ESSA grant to cover that, but it's also to do that, we're strategically not renewing positions that are currently funded under that. So that's a difficult amount of cuts to make and difficult choices that we've gone through with regard to that and spent a lot of time with our principals and administrators and staff to sort of sort through what's least impactful on students and most beneficial to the district as a whole. And it's also a strategy looking forward into the coming years, because there's no expectation that there's gonna be a huge change in our Chapter 70 funding, which is the increase from last year to this year or from 23 to 24s, less than 1% increase in funding and there's nothing in our budget that's gone up 1% or less. And so the pressure on the budget will be there in subsequent years. Our ESSA money is short-term, it has a limit as you know with ARPA funds and other COVID related funds. So we're leveraging more of that now, trying to reduce some pressure on some funding that we have like school choice that we can carry further into the future and support our budget in the out years, meaning two or three more years on down the road. And so there are a few things that we're trying to be strategic about in our process as well. Can just ask one more question. Please. What, I mean, what sort of advocacy can we all do in terms of reaching out to the state to get better reimbursement? I know you all have been struggling with this for a long time. But again, really the problem is there and so what can all of us counselors do to, I don't know, get more? Yeah, I can jump in on that. I think our school committee has been actively involved. I was in a meeting with the chairs of the Amherst Regional School Committee and our local legislators in terms of state senator, a representative from state senator's office and our state rep, Mindy Dom. So my first piece would be to connect with Ben Harrington, the regional school committee, Alison McDonald, the chair of the Amherst School Committee because they're already involved in advocacy efforts. I know they would love to work with you all, folks who are interested in this way and I think through our local legislators who are very concerned about our budget situation, I heard that directly as well as very interested in what they can do to improve the situation. So my advice would be reaching out with to the school committee chairs because they're already doing a number of the things that you're mentioning. And I think there's strength in numbers and strength in inter-departmental or in inter-governmental advocacy. So that'd be my two cents. Thank you. So anything else, Shalini? Okay. When you bring us the numbers of enrollments and staffing, I assume that'll be over a period of the years so that we can see the ebb and flow with regard to COVID, et cetera. So it would be at least over five, maybe even 10 year period. The other thing I'd like to make sure that when we're in the finance committee, we have an opportunity to look at the projections for the long-term capital needs. Since I remember from the four towns meeting, those are pretty alarming. And I think it's important for us to start discussing in the finance committee meeting with you how some of those might be addressed in future years because they're alarming. We already heard about the leaking roofs in the library. Any other questions, comments or requests? Shalini? So I understand that we are, I mean the school committee is bargaining with the union. So we should not discuss that, but when will it be a good time for the council, for town manager, for us to really look into that issue in terms, yeah, because we had that in our town manager goals as well, like looking at doing research into other towns or like what can we do better as a town in that regard? So what would be a good time for us to talk about that? So I guess it depends on the conversation. There's some conversations that could be had in the public, but some not. So, I'm not trying to be evasive, I'm just trying to understand the types of conversation you wanna have, because some certainly while active negotiations are going on would be problematic as you know, and others I think very appropriate. I mean, my belief is that the town manager was supported. So in the regional agreement, there's a part where a representative for one of the towns can join the executive sessions and reached out to all the town executives or town managers and Paul does attend. He's not a negotiator, negotiating agent, but he is that connection. So I do think Paul may be, even for informal conversations in the front end, maybe a really good resource to start that, maybe conversation about when would it come to the council because he's certainly not in the negotiating team, but he's also been really active and really helpful voice so that the school committee does hear from the municipal government as well. Andy? Andy, can you hear you? I'm sorry, when we get to the finance committee meeting we'll build more opportunity. So when we get there, I don't really wanna go into depth about this tonight, but if we could hear a little bit about how people attending charter schools has been, how that's reflected in percentages and numbers over the past few years. And if, so we get a sense of the direction that that's going in, if it's going in a direction but level. And the other thing I think it would be very helpful to have a conversation about at some point in time is kind of a long range view of where the regional district is going has choices that it can make to try and bring a little bit more ability and assurance that we can continue to have the great secondary schools that we are having a sort of fearful of the direction that we've been taking over the past few years and what kinds of plans might enable us to sort of write that shift. Mike, did you wanna address that? Yeah, just briefly, a lot of the questions that you're asking are in, there's like 160 some odd page budget book that's on our website, it was presented in a public meeting. So we can send that in and certainly we can try to address specific points town counselors are making but I also wanna note that a lot of the data sources that people are asking about are already in a document that's a public document. We'll be asking the clerk to the town council to provide us with that link so that everybody has it. Thank you. Jennifer? Yeah, so I guess following on Shalini's question because the para educators came to a couple of meetings in person and very passionate testimony and we were kind of cautioned that the negotiations were happening. It wasn't appropriate for us as counselors to be weighing in at that point or and so I'm wondering does this budget try and respond to the concerns that were expressed? Yep, I think Dr. Slaughter mentioned at the beginning with the additional funds and where they went. So I mean, I think the short answer is with the additional funds that we receive from the towns we put them in control account which is dedicated towards the school committees and the negotiation with the union. That's probably as much as I can say here. I mean, I think if the town council feels really differently and wants to change the budget amount again then we would need to know that very soon but that's not what I'm hearing from the council tonight. If that is the case then I would encourage you all to let us know that ASAP because it has implications to the other towns as well. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Mandidja? Two questions. The first one relates to my first question which is when last year in the budget season and we don't have house budgets or senate budgets yet so we don't know whether they'll look very different than the governor's budget but last year they did by a lot. And that's where we got a supplemental budget and we had talked about it and we shared it with the region. I'm curious whether the region went to any of their towns at all and asked them to do a supplemental budget and to share some of that with the region like Amherst did. And then my second one is the regional agreement. I believe at one of the four towns you actually broached reopening the regional agreement. Where does that stand? Sure. So on the first question, I don't recall that there was a request for the other towns. Lately, the other towns don't always benefit the same way Amherst does. It also doesn't, sometimes it cuts better, sometimes it cuts worse, right? But there's not local industry in the other towns and so there's some implications there of that and they also had warrants at town meeting that have to be designed long in advance. There can be amendments made on the floor of the town but we're not town residents. Doug and I were there in our staff role so we're not able to make amendments on town meeting floor around that dimension. The second part of your question now, I lost it. I'm sorry, I'm frankly not usually awake at this hour.  The regional agreement. The regional agreement. So the one piece that actually was interesting is a conversation with Desi that we talked about at a regional school community. I don't expect you all to go to those just to be really clear that the state is loosening some of their restrictions. So at first it was that if you opened a regional agreement, you had to open the whole thing. The assurances I got received recently from Desi is they've kind of shifted their practice where they are allowing more targeted amendments to regional agreements, which is incredibly helpful because one would imagine a document that hasn't had major amendments in a very long time to open it up, opens up late at night. I can't think of a better phrase than a can of worms, right? Lots of things that need to be done. It's a long expensive process, typically takes two to four years and costs upwards of $100,000 in legal fees and other fees. So the idea that we could make if there are specific aspects of the regional agreement that we could look at those and make more targeted amendments is a return to the original model. You may know, may not. There were multiple amendments over the first 10, 15 years of the regional agreement, much slower since then. And so this gives us an opportunity if there are clauses that want to be, there wants to be reconsidered to look at it in a much more targeted fashion. So that's really good news. So we did talk about that original school committee, but I think the last couple of meetings, frankly have been focused on budget and negotiations and things like that. And so we haven't returned to that topic. Please. One of the specific things would be actually writing the town council and the town manager council form of government for Amherst into the regional agreement. Right, which looks much more feasible now that we have clearance that we don't have to open up the whole thing. And so I would strongly encourage you to bring that feedback to the regional school committee if you want, because I think now they are aware that they have a lot more license to make changes like that without reopening the full document. And I know you, Mandy, Joe and others have been bringing that up since the form of government changed, right Philly? So I do think there's more, that birth to do that is much wider now than it felt like two months ago. Thank you. And targeted changes would be welcomed. Dorothy? Yeah, other plans in the budget for a teacher strike and how would that affect things? And also, is there some money that may be planning that you're planning to get that might in fact allow for the rehiring of all the teachers and parents that would have to be fired? So a couple of clarifying pieces. When we use the term, use the term fired, so that's typically for performance. And I don't think that's how you intended it. So I want to just make sure I'm understanding the question.  I don't know what you call it laid off. Yeah, that's a more fair. Yeah, yeah, I just want to make sure I was understanding the question. I wasn't trying to question. You're so I don't for, you know, this budget is built on a million dollars of one-time asset funds. So it's not balanced. It's balanced by one-time funds. So I don't see a scenario by which we're able to bring back the number of positions that are reduced in the midst of the negotiation challenges that your first part of your question raised, right? There's a relationship between those. We, you know, as I often say, Doug writes checks, but he doesn't print money, right? So we have to make sure that we're balanced every year. And so I think to your first part of your question, I'm not really going to address that. That's not in my purview around, you know, teacher strikes and things like that. So, you know, there's really not much to say on that topic and I won't be commenting on it to this evening. Are there any other questions? Doug, do you have your hand up? I do. I just want to add one other quick thing. Just by You're muted, Doug. I realized I muted myself. Sorry, I need to lower my hand. The only other thing I would say is that in circumstances when we do that type of reduction forces, it's sometimes called as well or those types of playoffs, we endeavor whenever possible to retain all the staffing. So we use attrition and retirements and reassignment of jobs as best we can. Obviously there are licensure issues that come to play and it does at times require us to make actual reductions and to let people go, but we generally try to avoid that whenever possible. For a variety of reasons, there's the personal ones, but also it's financially more sense for us too. But certainly with our paraprofessional staff in particular, we usually have enough openings that are such that we can kind of cover those. We reassign people as best we can. So we try to make the landing as soft as possible for as many people as possible. Any other questions or comments? Any other requests? Okay. Then I'm going to go ahead and ask that we vote on the motion. This is the motion that refers to section 5.5A of the Amherst Home Road Charter. It requires us to refer the budget for the annual operating capital and the assessment method submitted by the town manager and recommended by the Amherst Pellum Regional School District Committee for FY24 to the finance committee to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the town council by April 24th, 2023. It's a vote that just requires a majority of those voting, right? Majority present in voting. Majority present in voting. Thank you. I think we begin with Kathy Shane. Just, Lynn, I'm sorry, but I'm in a brain fog right now. Tell me what I'm voting on. We're just voting to refer. Yes, the answer, if we're voting to refer, yes. Yes. Thank you. Andy Steinberg. Yes. Jennifer Taub. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shannon Balmille. Yes. Pat DeAngeles. Aye. Anna Devon-Gothier. Aye. Lynn Griezmer is an aye. Mindy Johannike. Aye. Anika Lopes. Aye. Michelle Miller. Aye. Dorothy Pam. Yes. And Pam Maroney. Yes. It's unanimous. Thank you. And we will be coordinating with you for the date for the finance committee meeting to make sure it works with your schedules and as many of the finance committee members as possible. Thank you and thanks for staying up so late. Appreciate it. We now have a set of financial orders that I'm gonna ask Sean to speak to. And we only have we have two votes we have to take and then we have the others are all automatic referrals. Okay, so Sean. Thank you, Lynn. I'll take Dr. Morris's message there and try to go quick. So we try to package these financial orders to gather streamline the process. So I will go through each of them quickly. The first one is since the legalization of recreational and recreational cannabis use and the creation of community host agreements with the dispensaries in town. The town has been receiving impact fees and you may remember these every year we look at it and it's a travel that comes in, we don't budget it because it's restricted for a particular use. And so this money flows into free cash and what we're proposing is to take the amount that we have kind of accumulating free cash that is restricted to addressing the impacts of the dispensaries in town and to put it into a revolving fund. So it's very clear that that money is specifically meant for addressing these impacts. And some of what has sort of brought this up is that we do have a couple of costs now that we would like to start using these funds to pay for. The first one is we have assigned to an existing employee the responsibility of managing community host agreements. We have a number of them in town and especially now with the change in the legislation there's a level of oversight that needs to be done. And so we've estimated the cost of that work around 10,000 and that will shift some of the costs to this revolving fund and really where it should be. And then the other one, Dr. Morris probably hopped off but the other one is the Amherst Pellum Regional School District is looking to update its vaping curriculum and possibly add some additional vape detectors to the school facilities. And the estimated cost of that is 20,000. So again, that would be this money can support the schools. We also anticipate in the future there will be some public safety costs for Crest and the police department, potentially EMS. We also anticipate there will probably be some public health costs as well but this money can be used over the next number of years to deal with these impacts. And this one's an automatic referral. Okay, continue. So the next one is for the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. So the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund it's our smallest enterprise fund and it's not doing that poorly financially it's actually doing pretty well because it has the pilot payments coming in from the solar panels now that are on the landfill but that's on the revenue side and doesn't help us in the current year. On the expense side, we've seen an increase in tipping fees which is essentially the cost that we have to pay for someone to take the trash from the transfer station and those costs really spiked when our gasoline costs went up late in 2022. It's subsided a little bit but because the fund is so small we wanted to be safe because we cannot have a expense deficit. We wanted to be safe and appropriate from the retained earnings within the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund enough to cover this projected increase in costs for tipping fees. That's an automatic referral. So the next two are kind of good news, bad news but mostly good news. So you may recall a few years ago the sewer fund had two large infrastructure projects that the council approved. One for reuse water and one for the gravity belt thickener both related to the wastewater plant. We've been working with UMass around reuse water and sort of the planning going forward for reuse water and we've decided to pause that project while we can think, well we can do more planning with them and decide if that's gonna be an investment that the town should make. So we're looking to rescind the balance of that which is 4.7 million that was authorized for reuse water and where you will see that is when we bring you back your sewer rates if you approve this rescission. Previously it was in the projected rates going forward you'll see it come out of the projected rates going forward so to help lower those rates in the future. And then the second one is the one that's a little bit of a negative which is the council approved 2.3 million for the gravity belt thickener. The actual cost is gonna be about 3.3 million and it's related to the same thing we've been dealing with with the Centennial Water Treatment Facility which is just the increase in cost for equipment. And if Guilford's still here he can speak to that a little bit if there's any questions but we do have a good handle on the cost now. So we're gonna be rescinding about 4.7 but requesting an additional 1 million. So the net savings to the sewer fund and projected rates in the future is about 3.7 million. Let me just mention that two of these will require that we actually vote to refer them to the finance committee. Okay. And then the last one is a number of years ago the town purchased the gas station site behind the North Amherst Library. The gas station has set their vacant for a while. It's a little bit of a liability. I think Michelle you mentioned earlier just the having vacant buildings around and with the North Amherst Library addition project near completion, we thought now would be a good time to also address the liability of having this gas station and to demolish it. And that's an automatic referral. And the orders are all in the back of the memo but I will stop sharing. I'm sorry? All the order, yep. Okay. Kathy? Yeah, I have a question for tomorrow. Not tomorrow since we're not meeting tomorrow but when it gets to finance on the last one on the gas station the question is the anonymous donor amount that went did some of that money and vision redoing the parking lot, redoing the area? So my question was on the 110 how much of that is knocking the building down and taking away and how much of it is brass and something where the building used to be so I don't need an answer right now but just trying to look back at the flow of those funds and if anyone hasn't seen it yet, it's gorgeous. Yeah, Gopher may have that answer. Do you have that answer now? Gopher, you can feel free to share if you do. Yes. Right now it's about 50-50 for what we're asking for. The 110, 50% of that is for tearing the building down and the rest is for tying the new area where the building gone into the parking lot part that was being paid for and part of the library project. And so my question was, is any of that potentially reimbursable out of the construction contract? No. No, okay. Okay, Dorothy? A follow-up on that. Is the funding sufficient for the landscape? I know I've been really shocked at how much it costs to do things on the commons or is more money needed to make that look to fit as it should around such a lovely building? Gopher? Yeah, it's enough money to take care of around the building and tie the two pieces back together. Ernie's will still rent the property. They rent half that gas station property for storing vehicles. So there will be a fence. The fence will be extended across part of where the building is now so Ernie's can continue to rent the space they're renting now. Okay, thank you. Man, did you? Yeah, no, my question's about the cannabis revolving fund and this question has, I wanna be clear, the use of the money for vaping detectors and a vaping education at the high school makes a lot of sense. But my question revolves around the logistics of that because that's not a town department. It's a regional department with separate funding. And so I thought our impact fees had to be impacts to the town. So I guess I'm curious, how does that work? And then would it end up being a gift to the region if we can gift it for that? So it's more of that, the vape detectors that are in the high school have worked, clearly worked in the ones, the bathrooms that they're in to solve some of the issues that the high school has had with bathrooms this year. And so I think that's an important use but I'm confused as to how impact fees to the town can be used for a department that is not part of the town. Yeah, so I mean, the way I would envision it would work is we would pay for those things for them and charge it to this revolving fund so that we have a clear accounting of all the things that these funds have been paid for or these funds have been used to pay for. So the regional schools are within, obviously within the town and they're located near the dispensaries and a lot of the impacts of legalization is in that regional school age. So we can look into it a little bit more but I don't think Paul or I have any issues with supporting the regional schools and the education around responsible cannabis use and legal cannabis use obviously, using it in this way, we think it's a sort of part of what it was intended for. Pam. I have a couple of different questions. One is also about the cannabis fund and it appears that there is more money in the impact fee than there is in taxes gained from sales of cannabis lately. Is there or has there ever been any consideration of impact fees actually being used toward reparation since it was discussed as being something that would help affect the impacted community? Do you wanna just answer that and I'll add the other two about solid waste? Sure, so it's roughly the same amount. It's 3% but this has been built up over many years so you're looking at the accumulation of three years here. Whether it can be used for reparations, we would need a legal opinion and we may have, Paul, I can't remember if we may have had a legal opinion on this once upon a time, the law says it has to be related to the impacts of the actual dispensaries that are here in town. And so yeah, we would need a legal opinion if there was a way to either someone to definitively say, yes, this is an allowable use of impact fees or a legal opinion that makes that connection. Second question is about solid waste and it seems that I'm a little confused why there is a need for covering additional tipping fees since I thought I understood that the solid waste fund has seen a significant increase in the number of users since people were dissatisfied with the USA trucking. Why isn't the increase in the dump fee covering some of that cost? Yeah, so it's a good question. So when revenues come in better during the year, they don't help on the expense side. It will come in better and it'll give us a surplus that will go into retained earnings and in the following year, we can update the budget to reflect those higher revenues but during the year we still have to live within whatever the expense budget is that was voted. We're not allowed to exceed the expense budget and so that expense budget didn't reflect some of the higher revenues that we're seeing. It did to an extent, but not to the extent that we've seen some of the higher revenues coming, especially around the pilot revenue from the solar panels. So essentially what we're asking to do is to take some of the money that will fall to retained earnings this year from the revenue side because the revenues are coming in better and to appropriate it this year to cover this cost and then the next year when you get the FY24 budget, you'll see those revenues reflected and this tipping fee budget will be increased as well. So it's really just a one year correction that we need to make. Thank you. And the last one is about the reuse water. And I think I may know the answer now since you just said that it stays essentially within solid waste or water. Where does the money live until it's reauthorized? And I was just curious if it ended up in stabilization funds? The money, where's the money? So what these were, we're borrowing authorizations to complete these projects. And so we wouldn't, we don't go out to borrow until we actually haven't heard the cost. So essentially what you're doing is taking away that authorization to borrow. But I don't think in either of these cases, we've actually borrowed the funds. We may have borrowed a little bit for some of the early costs, but we haven't borrowed the majority of these. Any other questions? And I just wanna thank Sean and Guilford for again staying so late to get to these items and the earlier discussion that Sean, you were a significant part of as well. So we're going to have two votes. Both votes are required. And the first one is to refer order FY23-13D and order rescinding authorization by unissued bonds originally approved by vote taken under council order 21-09D reused water to the finance committee for review and recommendation to the council but by May 1, 2023. Motion's been made. Is there a second? Is there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'm moving to a vote. I'm starting with Andy Steinberg. Yes. Jennifer Taub. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalini Balmille. Yes. Pat DeAngels. Aye. Anna Devlin-Gothier. Aye. Lynn Breesmursen. Aye. Mandy Johanagi. Aye. Anika Lopes. Aye. Michelle Miller. Aye. Dorothy Pam. Yes. Pam Rooney. Yes. Kathy Shane. Yes. It's unanimous. The second is to refer order FY23-13E and order rescinding authorized but unused bonds originally approved by vote taken by under council order 21-09C gravity belt thickener to the finance committee for review and recommendation to the council by May 1, 2023. Is there a second? Second. Seconds, Hanakie. Is there any other questions or comments? Seeing none, I'm moving to a vote. Jennifer Taub. Yes. Alicia Walker. Yes. Shalini Balmille. Yes. Pat DeAngels. Aye. Anna Devlin-Gothier. Aye. Lynn Breesmursen. Aye. Mandy Johanagi. Aye. Anika Lopes. Aye. Michelle Miller. Aye. Dorothy Pam. Yes. Pam Maroney. Yes. Kathy Shane. Yes. Andy Steinberg. Yes. It's unanimous. Okay, thank you. We are now, need to find my agenda. All of the other items on the agenda were voted on consent. There are no appointments. So we'll move to a committee on liaison reports, CRC, Mandy Joh. I'm gonna skip for tonight. Okay. Kathy, elementary school building committee. A report. The finance committee. I'll just quickly say that we're at, I was trying to count, it's at more than 10 going out to meet with groups. And so if anyone has small groups, we're perfectly willing to go out and it's really proven terrific because people ask good questions and sometimes we don't have the answers, but it's been great and needless to say tonight for me was a real milestone because this is such a positive signal that we just sent to MSBA. And I just wanna underscore the point how much effort has gone into lowering the cost to this project. There's been a lot of effort in lowering costs, including behind the scenes, working hard at MSBA to get the amount that reimbursant up for us. It could have been much worse. And we cut another $5 million out in January with well thought designs. And that took a lot of behind the scenes work, just with a design team putting in extra hours knowing that we want to bring it down. So for the people out there, I think this is an excellent investment in our kids, our climate, our community. And we're gonna get a good return on this. This is not, it's this generation and the next generations. I think it's a fabulous project that is a result of a lot of people working hard. So that's the current report because until May 2nd, we won't have another report. Finance committee, Andy. Finance committee has nothing to add to the written report already submitted. Okay, GOL, Pat. Very briefly, we're working on a flag policy and we'll all meeting with Pamela and KpLaw on February. I did that last time too. April as well, and the other issue that KpLaw will be working with us as the ruling around civility and public dialogue. So those are major things. It might be a very interesting meeting. That starts at 9.30 on January 19th, March. No, I guess. April 12th at 9.30 a.m. All right, we are. JCPC, Kathy, you gave us two reports. They're in the- Okay, what you have in your packet, it's a report to the town manager, but I did a two-page summary with some highlights in it. And then the longer report is the product of Mandy and Pam and the other people. And I must say that this year, it was great because everyone really read the draft report and the result of that is I had five edits on the report, but I think it's a strong report. And I just wanted to do a shout out to Paul and Sean. As we were raising questions and asking about various projects, they came back in a responsive way because we were looking to try to get more money for roads. And they came back with recommendations of eliminating some projects, moving them, cutting them in half in a really responsive way that made it, instead of having a report pleading, we could make adjustments as we were going. And I thought it was just a terrific way of interacting and listening. And they said they liked our questions. So maybe it's also helpful to have a committee being asked, asking tough questions, but I thought it was a really good process this year. And we wanna thank all the members of all of our committees, but JCPC, your short-term and very fast turnaround, thank you. The three of you that served on our behalf. Jones Library Building Committee, Anika. I did not believe there's anything to comment on right now, but in case I stand corrected, I'd like to ask Paul. No, okay, we're good there. TSO, Anika. So TSO, we had a packed meeting. We began our last meeting. We talked with Sarah Barr from Amherst College. She's the advisor to the Provost on Campus Initiatives and Director of Community Engagement, excuse me. We had a really informed, engaging conversation. And we talked about everything from the demographic information on the student body to Sarah welcomed ideas from the committee on connecting the town and the college. We talked about involvement that the college has with elementary schools from everything from Native American stories to mammal cams and updates around exhibits and museum events going on. The conversation went expanded from there and it touched on everything, including even land and housing potential. So that was great. We also had a presentation from Zero Waste Amherst that was in detail with their survey of 510 Amherst residents responding to that survey. And for details with that, you can either refer to the packet and you can also go to, I believe it's Zero Waste or ZW Amherst at, I think it's gmail.com, excuse me if I'm wrong to view that survey. And then we wrapped up with a surveillance use policy and then going forward, we will be continuing with a surveillance use policy street lights and also the waste continuing with the refuse collection and recyclable materials bylaw. Our next meeting is the 20th of April. Are there any liaison reports? Okay. I'm seeing none. We've already approved the minutes on the consent agenda. Town managers report, Paul? Yes, just three things. Don't tell Paul what the game score is, okay? Don't mention it. Very quick, very quick, a very long report I submitted to you, but in writing, very quickly though. First, I wanna just recognize how valuable Sean is and that he stands on the work that Sonya had put together and established. I talked to Sonya this morning and she's doing well and we're hoping to engage her into different ways to keep target certain things that we need help on. But I just appreciate that you know that Sean is very creative and a good listener and really has incredible asset for the town. There's a whole bunch of DEI activities that we've outlined and the DEI department is just out there doing a lot of work for us. And I think we'll have the opportunity to talk about that in the near future, but just I wanna recognize that department as especially working on multiple levels within our staff, within specific departments and even outreach today at the senior center open house which has happened this afternoon from three to five is packed lots of people there, lots of activities. So kudos to the senior center for that. And the last thing is we were had the opportunity to look at meet with Valley CDC about the ball lane development. And they've offered if there are counselors who would like to take a tour of the site it's just and talk to them about what they're proposing. It's a really exciting development of home ownership opportunities, very affordable, meant to help build generational wealth and has received pretty much broad support from the neighbors. They've listened to the neighbors made adjustments and the plans. But if there are any counselors who'd like to take a tour of the site or be up there and be present, we can organize that for you. Any questions for the town manager? Not at this hour. Okay, I did submit a town president's reporter. Are there any questions about it? I'm going to be coming back to you to pull for when we'll meet with the CSSJC and HRC. Originally we tentatively scheduled that for April 24th. And given the agenda, I will re-look at it again but I still think we can fit it in on that day either if before the meeting starts for the town council or after we've gotten through but keeping things that are reasonable out our agenda items. Are there any future agenda items people would like to bring up at this time? Any councilor comments? I would like to make one. And that is I really appreciate all work and thought that went into the various motions tonight. Ultimately, I think what we've done is we've sent the taxpayers a message that we hear them. And we've also sent renters and homeowners that we hear them and we're looking for various ways to relieve some of the pressures on them as we go forward with this very exciting school. So I want to thank Alicia for bringing that all to our attention while the motions that have been made might have been different for various people. The motion that we ultimately did accept really charges the town manager to come up with additional ways of looking at how we can relieve the tax fund. So thank you all for hanging in for I think a very long, but a very important conversation for all of us and for the community. I do want to mention that at the end of this week, people will start receiving their mail-in ballots. Over 1500 people have requested them. Last time in November, 50% of the Amherst population voted by mail. So as far as I can tell, the election actually starts this week, at the end of the week. Then we move into early voting downtown. That starts on the 24th for four days. And then the polls will be open on May 2nd from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. And with that, I am going to adjourn the meeting. It's 11.02.