Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 10/12/2022
AMHERST – The Amherst Town Council convened on Oct. 3 for a meeting. On the agenda were several presentations regarding budgetary processes and funding appropriations, an amendment to local bylaw and the approval of several letters of response to different organizations.
Every fall, the town manager and finance director present several budgetary items for review to the council. These presentations are purely educational in nature; the council takes no action on their behalf other than referring them to the finance committee. Town Finance Director Sean Mangano led these presentations along with help from Town Manager Paul Bockelman.
The first of these presentations was a breakdown of the annual budget process. The process is broken down into four phases. Engagement and direction setting occurs from October to December. Budget development comes next, spanning January through April. By the end of this phase, the budget proposal has been finalized. During the review and approval stage of May and June, the Finance Committee reviews the proposal and it is presented at public forums for feedback, being refined until finally it comes back to the Town Council for a vote of approval. Once approved, the implementation stage occurs throughout the summer, until the process repeats.
Mangano moved on to a presentation on the capital projects model with updates on current capital projects.
The elementary school building project has “$100 million not to exceed its budget” according to Mangano, and a new independent cost estimate for the project will be released in January 2023. The next council action on the project will be a February 2023 vote on to approve a potential debt exclusion, which if passed would lead to town-wide vote on May 2, 2023, to approve the measure entirely.
The current cost estimate for the Jones Library renovation project is between $43.2 million and $49.6 million. New cost estimates will be released at the end of the design development phase, and at 75 percent completion of the construction docs phase. The next council action for this project will occur sometime between October 2023 and January 2024 to approve any required increase in debt authorization due to an updated cost estimate.
As for the Fire and Department of Public Works (DPW) buildings, both are still in the site exploration phases. Several spots are being considered for the DPW station, while the old DPW site is the preferred location for the new fire station. Design firm Weston and Sampson are updating the DPW station design to reflect its new funding target.
Mangano’s final presentation was rundown of several appropriations and transfers of funding taking place over the course of fiscal year 2023 (FY23). Every year, the town accrues a certain amount of what is known as “free cash,” the result of excess revenues, savings on the expense budget, unused funding, and other monies. Five percent of these excess funds are kept in free cash form, while the rest is either transferred to a general stabilization fund (GSF) or capital stabilization fund (CSF) or appropriated for one time uses which in this case are known as “supplemental appropriations.” The town’s free cash balance was tallied and certified roughly a week before the meeting, hence the presentations.
Three supplemental appropriations will be processed. The town’s FY23 operating budget will be increased by $351,938, roughly half a percentage point. $1 million will be added to funding for roads and sidewalks to address the backlog of repairs needed. The regional track and field project will receive $900,000 to complete the final leg of the town’s share.
A capital stabilization fund will also be created to aid the town in funding its four capital projects amid rising construction costs and inflation. $1.7 million will be appropriated from free cash and added to the CSF. Approximately $7.8 million will be appropriated from the GSF and transferred to the CSF. Finally, $134,330 will be appropriated from free cash and transferred to the reparation stabilization fund (RSF), an amount equal to cannabis tax collections in FY22.
During the meeting the council also approved an amendment to General Bylaw 3.39, Street Numbering of Houses to require house numbers to be placed in a spot clearly visible from the street, to aid emergency vehicles in identifying correct destinations.
Three letters from council President Lynn Griesemer on behalf of the council needed to be approved before they could be sent on the council’s behalf. The first regarded the council’s input to the University of Massachusetts Amherst search committee for its new chancellor to replace current Chancellor Kumble R. Subbaswamy to provide input about hiring a chancellor who understands the needs of the entire Amherst community.
Griesemer’s second letter was a request to legislators to appropropriate American Rescue Plan Act funding to the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners to help fund several library projects in the state.
The last item of the meeting led to an debate lasting roughly two hours, regarding a letter of response to the town’s Community Safety and Social Justice Committee (CSSJC) who had sent an initial letter to the council requesting updates on CSSJC initiatives.
The CSSJC made requests for several measures to regulate police activity and abuses of power, such as a police oversight board, a victim compensation fund for victims of police brutality, and the immediate release of all investigative reports. Griesemer’s draft of the response addressed the three requests individually. It stated that the town has already instructed Director of DEI Pamela Young to develop plans for a police oversight board and welcomed public involvement in the process; however, the other two requests were more complicated to grant.
The notion of a victim compensation fund for individuals’ interactions with police “raises many questions, legal and otherwise,” according to the draft. State funds already exist for victims of violent crimes and for civil settlements. The creation of a town fund would require “careful consideration” as to special legislation to establish the fund and how such a program might be configured.
Immediate release of investigative reports proved to be an incredibly divisive issue for members of the council. The draft explained it as follows:
“While we support the release of investigative reports, we are aware that there are various rights and responsibilities the town is required to honor including personnel rules, collective bargaining agreements and personal privacy information. The town manager has agreed that to the extent possible, the town will make information available upon request.”
Councilor Dorothy Pam took issue with this right away.
“I did not like the language relevant to the police report. It just sounded like a rehash of all the reasons why police departments don’t release reports … those reasons may be valid, but what about the responsibility to the people of the town? The CSSJC stated very clearly that they have waited a long time and that they wanted a report, and this is just language that says ‘We’re not going to do it.’ That doesn’t make it go away, it just makes it worse. I’m very interested in peace in the town, and I feel like some kind of police response to the request would help create that,” Pam said.
Griesemer mentioned that a report was released by the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Commission, but Pam felt that a more thorough report was necessary, coming directly from official police records. The police oversight board will take at least two years to become operational, and combining this with the language given regarding reports could make it seem like the town is shirking its responsibilities in terms of its social justice commitments, from Pam’s perspective.
Councilors Michele Miller, Shalini Bahl Milne and Elisha Walker echoed Pam’s sentiments, and Walker felt that the fact that the CSSJC had waited such a long time for a response was in and of itself a problem. She said that the end goal should not be agreement over a letter, but a larger conversation as to what the community’s next steps are in terms of social justice and police reform as a whole. Steinberg took a middle ground approach, acknowledging that the town should make sure every resident is heard and provided for, but that the same must also be done for the town’s employees “or else we won’t have any more employees.”
“Someday, somebody is going to be unhappy about what our CRESS responders do, and how do we want our CRESS responders to handle that situation, respond to the community, support the community, but also feel that they’re respected too? I think we need a broad look at this, and I hope we get there,” he said.
Griesemer acknowledged every comment made, but reminded the council that the discussion was initially intended to take action on the letter alone, rather than “rehashing what should have happened, what didn’t happen, what needs to happen … the lens that you need to look at this letter with is what is our role, what is the role of the Town Manager, what is the role of individual committees, and what is the role of staff?”
Miller suggested that rather than focusing on the language in the letter to appease the CSSJC with a response, a larger conversation needs to be had regarding police reform in the town, and then from there a more comprehensive response to the CSSJC’s requests can be drafted. This suggestion seemed to satisfy most members of the council, who agreed that they could not approve the letter in its current form.
Councilor Patricia DeAngelis summed up the debate by stating that she thought it was a “good” letter, but that the root issues behind it had not yet been addressed and the council needs to come together to have open and honest discussions about these issues.
“We need to fix this and there’s no easy fix. So God dammit! When are we going to get together and really talk? When are we going to get together and stop being scared to say what we really think? I really want us to look at ourselves, to think about how we hurt others, and what we can do to change so that all voices really are heard,” DeAngelis said. “Just because you feel like you didn’t get what you wanted, doesn’t mean you weren’t heard. We have to take the next steps and assume some basis for collaboration.”
By this time the meeting had stretched to almost six and a half hours, and the clock had hit midnight. The council voted to add a time-limited conversation with the CSSJC at the next council meeting on Oct. 17 about how to move forward. Griesemer also agreed to attend the CSSJC’s Oct. 12 meeting along with any interested council members, though if a majority of the council attends the meeting, it will have to become a joint meeting between the two entities.