Budget Discussion Focuses on School Funding

Report on the Public Forum on the Budget and Special Meeting of the Town Council and Finance Committee, November 18, 2024. (Town Council Meeting Report, Part 1)

This meeting was held in a hybrid format and was recorded.

Present
Lynn Griesemer (President, District 2), Mandi Jo Hanneke, Andy Steinberg, Ellisha Walker (at large), Freke Ette and Cathy Schoen (District 1), George Ryan and Hala Lord (District 3), Pam Rooney and Jennifer Taub (District 4), and Ana Devlin Gauthier and Bob Hegner (District 5). Absent: Pat DeAngelis (District 2).

Nonvoting Finance Committee members: Bernie Kubiac. Absent: Tom Porter and Matt Holloway

Staff: Paul Bockelman (Town Manager) and Athena O’Keeffe (Clerk of the Council), Melissa Zawadzki (Finance Director)

Town Manager Summarizes State of the FY26 Budget
Along with Finance Director Melissa Zawadzki, Town Manager Paul Bockelman summarized the strengths and challenges of Amherst’s finances for the coming years. Bockelman stated that the town needs to meet rising costs with continued economic growth to support its major capital projects and relieve pressure on taxpayers. He said that the town needs to evaluate proposed initiatives with how much the town can afford. 

According to the presentation, revenue from economic growth is rising three to four percent a year, and that taxes have not kept up with inflation even though they have increased markedly. Nevertheless, Bockelman noted, the town has a solid foundation due to “excellent fiscal management” and a AA+ bond rating. He emphasized the cooperation among the different branches of the government ( library, schools, and town hall), with ongoing discussions with the town’s higher education institutions in addition to the strategic partnership agreement signed with UMass last year. Although next year’s preliminary budget shows a deficit of $300,000, Zawadzki said this is not unusual at this early stage, and she expects to have more accurate figures after the first of the year.

The public forum on the budget used to occur in the spring after most decisions had been made, but for the past few years the discussion has been taking place early in the budget process. In addition to this forum, the public was encouraged to email the Town Council and Town Manager with their thoughts. The council is set to approve the budget guidelines in December. There will be another public hearing in May, 2025 after the Town Manager submits his proposed budget on May 1, 2025.  Included flow chart on page 9.

Public Demands More Support for Schools
Thirty members of the public spoke during the 90-minute public forum. All asked for increased support for the public schools. Several were parents of children in the Caminantes Dual Language program at Fort River school who feared the program would be cut or reduced. Others decried the unmet maintenance needs of Crocker Farm elementary school and the middle and high school. Those who graduated twenty or more years ago who now have children in the schools noted the loss of programs and staff over recent years, with remaining staff being overworked.

Parents and staff members asked that last year’s budget surplus be given to the schools. Citing the council’s support for legislation reforming charter school funding and opposing the expansion of the Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion School, parent Katie Dixon Gordon and others stated that this state-level advocacy was appreciated, but “our children cannot wait for state action.” The council vote on whether to endorse the letters supporting these reforms was postponed until a later meeting, due to lack of time. See also here.

Several Councilor Advocate for Schools to Receive Some of 2024 Surplus
In the discussion of how to use the budget surplus from FY2024, councilors Ana Devlin Gauthier (District 5) and Mandi Jo Hanneke (at large) sparked a debate, advocating for some of the more than $5 million to go to support the public schools.

Amherst had a budget surplus of $10.5 million in FY2024. Of that amount, five percent of the total budget, or $4.8 million was left as free cash and $5.5 million was proposed by the Town Manager to be used for allocations outside of the normal budget cycle. These appropriations were: 

$74,000 to the Reparations Stabilization fund

$3.9 million to the Capital Stabilization fund

$1 million to roads and sidewalk repairs

$200,000 to purchase a sidewalk snowplow, since one of the town’s two machines died

$125,000 for a consultant to develop a proposal for Waste Hauler reform

$188,000 to the Opioid Settlement Special Revenue Fund

In its November 8 meeting, the Finance Committee voted to approve all but the allocation for the sidewalk snowplow, which Superintendent of Public Works Guilford Mooring said was available in a lower cost model for $140,000. Because new information was obtained on the capabilities of each of the models, the council did not vote on this appropriation, but will wait until after the Finance Committee makes its recommendation.  The Finance Committee also reduced the amount for the waste hauler study to $75,000, because that is the amount Mooring recommended was needed. The extra $50,000 will remain in free cash.

Councilors voted 11-1 with one absent to transfer the free cash to the Reparations and Capital Stabilization funds, with Hala Lord (District 3) being the dissenting vote. However, the appropriation for roads and sidewalks ran into more opposition. Devlin Gauthier stated, “I’m struggling with these allocations and, knowing that there were funds returned from the schools into this general pot that we’re reallocating. I have questions of whether the schools put forward requests for that funding. I would like to see a minimum of $56,821 [the surplus from last year’s elementary school budget] reallocated to the schools.”  She continued, “I know that costs [for roads and sidewalks] have skyrocketed, but we’ve upped that funding significantly in past budgets, and to be honest with you, I’d rather have our school buses driving over potholes to schools that are healthy and functional than driving over really smooth roads to a workforce of teachers that’s crumbling and fewer options and unhealthy spaces to learn in. So I can’t support this amount of funding for roads and sidewalks without allocating a significant amount to the schools from the surplus funds we have.”

This view was supported by Hanneke, who reconsidered her affirmative vote for funding road repair at the Finance Committee meeting. She said, “In the last six years, there have been many councilors who pushed for spending on roads and sidewalks almost in front of anything else, and I’ve never been comfortable with it. I know there are some roads in town that are crap, but to me roads are not in as dire a situation as many people paint them. Given the split of operating budgets between the four functional areas, the capital split doesn’t always seem as near of a split.” She spoke for using the $1 million for capital expenses for the regional schools, rather than for roads and sidewalks and wanted to keep the funds in free cash until the schools could propose a use for it. 

Andy Steinberg (at large) pointed to the uncertainty of future budgets, given the changes at the federal level and emphasized the need to reconfigure South East Street near the planned new elementary school in order to accommodate the increased traffic in the area. He said that councilors hear many complaints about roads and sidewalks. Therefore, he advised against reducing the allocation to roads and sidewalks. George Ryan (District 3) noted that the roads budget for the coming year has been reduced by $500,000, so he supported the additional funds from the surplus to compensate for the reduction. 

Devlin Gauthier countered, “I haven’t asked people ‘Do you think our roads are great,’ but what I have heard a lot from my constituents is that they’re prioritizing the schools over everything else right now, and they want me to do the same.”

Council President Lynn Griesemer (District 2) said, “I think it’s really unfortunate that we’ve set up the schools against the roads, because they’re different constituents in many ways. When we decide to not continue to invest in our roads, we also continue to not listen to a whole other segment of our population who is complaining all the time about our roads.” She noted that the Finance Committee had several suggestions on where to find more money for the schools in the upcoming budget. Councilor Freke Ette (District 1) agreed that, “Of the residents who speak to me, a lot more are concerned about the roads.”

Again, Devlin Gauthier objected. She said, “That argument really frustrated me. They’re not different constituents. Everybody uses the roads. At many points people have used the schools. We have done significant investments in our roads and sidewalks. This year we saw parents with their kids in the background while they made public comments. I’m really glad that people had innovative ways to fund the schools. What if we also spent some time thinking about innovative ways to fund roads and sidewalks? We cannot just rely on the squeakiest wheels.”

Ryan and Pam Rooney (District 4) expressed reluctance to commit one-time money to ongoing operating expenses at the schools, but Rooney felt the $1 million could be used for school capital expenses and suggested that the money remain in free cash until the schools could submit proposals.

The $1 million appropriation for roads and sidewalks was defeated by a tie vote of 6-6 with one absent. Voting against the motion were Devlin Gauthier, Hanneke, Lord, Rooney, Ellisha Walker (at large), and Jennifer Taub (District 4). That money will remain in free cash until another proposal is advanced for its use. The reduced appropriation for the waste hauler consultant and the amount from the opioid settlement fund were approved unanimously with one absent.

“There’s got to be some space for some of the needs of the region[al schools] to be met within this surplus, and I would point out that there have been prior surpluses which haven’t addressed the needs of the [regional schools] as well. It’s a lot of money, and it can be used now for things that the region needs.” 

— Deb Leonard, School Committee member, speaking as a member of the public

School Committee Member Advocates for Some of Surplus to Go to Schools
Prior to the above debate, School Committee member Deb Leonard spoke in the public comment period. She argued, “There’s got to be some space for some of the needs of the region[al schools] to be met within this surplus, and I would point out that there have been prior surpluses which haven’t addressed the needs of the region as well. It’s a lot of money, and it can be used now for things that the region needs. I’m not asking for all of it, but I’m asking you to consider rethinking some of these [appropriations}.”

Vincent O’Connor argued against the surplus going to the capital stabilization fund. He alleged that the surplus “generated for a number of years has gone to departments supervised by the Town Manager.” He asserted that the Town manager “did not either tell this council, the public, the press, or the parents of this town” of the surplus and instead stated that there was no money. 

Amherst School Committee Floats Suggestions for Possible Use of Surplus Funds
With the news that the council may devote some of its FY2024 surplus to the schools, School Superintendent E. Xiomara Herman consulted with department heads for suggestions on their most pressing needs. These were discussed at the November 19 Amherst School Committee meeting. Some of the ideas were upgrading the IT system, purchasing solar panels for Crocker Farm school or modernizing the HVAC system at Crocker Farm. 

Jennifer Shiao and Sarah Marshall are the two school committee representatives on the Joint Capital Planning Committee. They will confer with the superintendent about addressing the schools’ capital needs in the coming years. As Deb Leonard pointed out, if the proposed plan for funding the town’s large capital projects (Jones Library, fire station/EMS, and DPW) is accepted by the council, the amount of spending on other capital needs will be cut in half, from about $6 million to $3 million, for the next 30 years.