Town Council Rejects School Committee’s Regional Assessment Recommendation

Report on Meeting of the Amherst Town Council, March 24, 2025, Part 1

This meeting was held in hybrid format and was recorded.

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

Staff: Paul Bockelman (Town Manager) and Athena O’Keeffe (Council Clerk).

Council Rejects Regional School Committee’s Assessment Method
The council voted 9 to 4 to reject the Regional School Committee’s (RSC) recommendation that each of the four towns in the region raise their assessments for FY2026 by 6.5% over the FY2025 levels. Supporting the RSC’s recommendation were Councilors Hala Lord (District 3), Jennifer Taub (District 4), Ana Devlin Gauthier (District 5), and Ellisha Walker (at large). 

All four towns must agree on an assessment method for the regional school budget to be approved. Amherst’s rejection of the RSC’s recommendation gives the committee a chance to revise its recommendation before the town meetings of the other three towns in April and early May. If agreement on the regional assessment cannot be reached, the school system will revert to one-month budgets until the assessment is agreed upon. If none is passed until December, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education will determine the budget, which will most likely be according to the statutory method where each town pays according to the number of students it sends to the region. 

Town Manager Paul Bockelman began the discussion by urging the council to reject the RSC’s 6.5% increase, because “This is well above what the financial guidelines have provided for in the guidelines that the council voted. And if you were to say yes to a 6.5% increase, it would have a very dramatic impact on the libraries and the elementary schools in terms of how much we could afford to provide to our other three components of our town budget. It makes it very, very difficult for me to give you a balanced budget for the entire town.” The $37 million budget recommended by the RSC includes a $19 million contribution from Amherst, but still leaves the region more than $812,000 short, and will necessitate laying off several staff members. 

Applying the existing assessment method, a modified statutory formula based on a combination of town population and a five-year rolling estimate of enrollment to reach the same budget, would make Amherst’s contribution increase 4.81% over the 2025 level (see attachment 2). Of that model, Bockelman said, “That’s a number actually we could work to get to.” However, that model has Leverett’s contribution increasing by 14% and Pelham by 22%. The current formula had “guardrails” which restricted the amount each town had to raise their school budget, but the result of the guardrails was that every year Leverett and Pelham got further away from their true assessment, and Amherst’s share of the budget increased. Bockelman stated, “The regional assessment means we’re really subsidizing the other three towns. It’s not more money going to the schools, and my recommendation is that the town shouldn’t pay more than its fair share.” He recommended that the existing assessment method be adopted for the coming year.

In the council discussion, Mandi Jo Hanneke (at large) pointed out that the elementary schools have yet to vote on their budget, and they are expected to ask for an increase of 5.5%, which is also substantially above the financial guidelines of 4%. The $320,000 difference in Amherst’s assessment for the region between the 4.81% and the 6.5% could go toward increasing the elementary schools or municipal budgets, she said. She encouraged the other three towns to use their excess levy capacity to fund the regional schools at the level the RSC agreed. While Amherst increases its property taxes by the allowable 2.5% every year, some of the other towns have not, so they have the ability to raise their taxes more without doing an override. 

Council President Lynn Griesemer (District 2) agreed, “We’re not trying to cut the school budget; we’re basically trying to make sure we protect our taxpayers. I totally support the fact that at some point we may have to get together in another regional meeting to talk about how we do this in the future. But it is time for Amherst to basically say we’re not paying your share.”

Ana Devlin Gauthier (District 5), whose memo advocated for changing the budget guidelines to devote a larger increase to the schools than to the libraries and municipal budget, said, “I’m struggling to see how we can make this decision before seeing the full picture with the elementary schools.” She asked why the council is deciding on the assessment method now versus in two weeks after the elementary school budget has been voted on.

Bockelman replied that the regional schools need to know about the assessment method now, so they have time to revise the budget before the spring town meetings to minimize the risk of going into the next fiscal year without a budget. Even though Bockelman favored using the existing assessment method, Devlin Gauthier said, “I don’t understand how we can kid ourselves to say there’s a world where Pelham is going to agree to over a 22% increase, Leverett is going to agree to 14%, and Shutesbury to 7%. It’s not like they don’t have elementary schools that also need funding. Yes, maybe they have not gone up to the limit they could with their property taxes, and that should be taken into account. However, are we really going to sink the budget over that amount [the $320,000 difference between the two assessment methods]? I’m not sure I’m ready to do that.”

Postscript: The following day, the regional school district heard from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) that it would not be permitted to modify the existing assessment agreement, so, in fact, the across-the-board 6.5% increase voted by the RSC would not be acceptable to DESE. The district is continuing to communicate with DESE and hopes to have representatives from DESE attend the next Four Towns meeting.

Lengthy Public Comment Stresses Equity Not Equality in School Budget
Thirty-nine parents, students, educators, and school supporters spoke in the 90-minute public comment period that preceded the school assessment discussion and vote. Almost all comments endorsed abandoning the budget guidelines that give equal percentages of increase to the municipal budget, the libraries, and the schools in order to spend more money on the schools, citing the harm to the children and the town from declining school quality and services.

Sarah Johnson, a first-grade teacher and parent stated, “Fair is not equal. If a child has a cut and they need a band-aid, I give them one. I do not give everyone a band-aid. That would be ridiculous. Equal would be giving everyone a band-aid. Fair is giving the child in need a band-aid.” School committee member Jennifer Shiao echoed that sentiment, as did many other speakers. Shiao quoted her daughter when she was in fourth grade saying, “Equality is the same, and equity is fair.”

Several speakers pointed out that about a third of students in the district have individual educational plans or other special education requirements, which the school district will have difficulty meeting with the predicted reduction in staff. Others said they moved to Amherst because of the schools and were disappointed to have to fight for more funding every year, even though the town budget has a surplus at the end of each year. Kate Westford said that there is no redundancy in the school budget—all staff is there by necessity, and sometimes as required by law.

Jason Dorney noted that the town voted to fund a $100M new elementary school building “and now we’re being told that we need to cut positions. We have all said that we value education, and we’re looking to all of you [the council] to reallocate funding. I echo everything that everybody else has said. The schools are the economic engine of our town. I don’t want our schools to look like our roads. Please don’t kick the can down the road any further.”

Council Approves Lease for Three Electric School Buses 
The Amherst School District plans to lease three electric school buses. The leasing contract includes charging infrastructure and maintenance, but requires a 10-year commitment. The state uniform procurement act requires that any contract longer than three years in duration needs approval by the Town Council. School Superintendent E. Xiomara Herman stated that the buses would only be used in Amherst. The lease was approved unanimously. 

Devlin Gauthier Proposes Revision of Budget Guidelines to Fund the Schools
Devlin Gauthier’s memo proposed reducing the amount of the budget that goes to capital expenses from 10.5% to 10% for FY2026 and reducing the increase in the municipal and library budgets from 4% to 3%, which would result in a savings of $302,000 that could go to the schools. Also, she proposed that the town make a bridge gift to the elementary schools from free cash in FY2026. The elementary school budget is expected to decrease the following year when the new school opens and the three schools are consolidated into two. She also recommended freezing the two open positions on CRESS and being less conservative in estimating increased revenue for new growth, which has been underestimated in recent years.

A third suggestion was to create a joint task force for addressing long-term projections on the financial needs of the schools.

In defense of devoting more to education, Devlin Gauthier argued, “The field of education has gotten better at meeting student needs. Educators don’t have the option to simply treat students like we did when we didn’t know any better. Once they know better, they have to do better. It’s legally required. And meeting those needs is expensive. At the State Budget Ways and Means Committee hearing today, we heard one of our school committee members discuss how our enrollment decline is outpaced by teacher cuts by 20%. We can’t drop further.”

Hanneke moved to maintain capital expenses in the budget at 10.5%, but her amendment was defeated by a 5 to 8 vote (Ryan, Griesemer, Hanneke, Steinberg, and Freke Ette voting yes). Schoen said that for the regional schools and elementary schools to receive an increase of 5% for next year would require $458,000, and she could not see getting to that figure without decreasing capital funding to 10%, which would free up $320,000. Walker said the town cannot do everything needed, so it must prioritize; and she and most of the people who spoke in public comment prioritize the schools. Taub agreed, saying, “We can’t allow the schools to go off a cliff. And even if we are where we’re probably just looking for the next year, because once we go off that cliff, we don’t get back up. The schools are a top priority because of the implications for the students, of course, and for our town to be a viable town.”

Schoen admitted that the following years will get even worse for school funding unless the state reforms its formula for reimbursing charter schools from the public schools and increases its Chapter 70 funding, but at least this proposal gives the town one year of breathing room. Even with their requested increase in their budget, the schools are losing positions, she said.

Hanneke also suggested keeping the library’s increase at 4%, because the council can only decrease the library budget, not increase it, and the library may have already written its budget for next year. The difference between a 3% increase and a 4% increase is only $23,000, so it is not a large amount. Ryan supported Hanneke’s proposal, “considering what the library does, given the community it serves, given the services it provides.”

However, before more discussion could take place, Steinberg moved to adjourn due to the late hour at almost midnight. That motion to adjourn passed 7 to 6, so the discussion of Devlin Gauthier’s menu of recommendations will continue at the April 7 council meeting.

.