Town of Amherst — Town Board
Amherst adopted a local law overriding the state tax levy limit, clearing the way for a 6.9% increase — $113 million to be raised by taxes against $106 million this year. The 2027 budget hearing closed without an adoption vote, with no questions from any member. A 5.7% salary increase surfaced only after the hearing was shut.
New York caps the amount a municipality may raise its property tax levy each year. A town may exceed it, but only by adopting a local law that says so first. Amherst adopted that law on October 26 as Resolution 2026-842, after a public hearing at which three residents spoke.[1][3]
The Supervisor had already laid out the arithmetic — for, as he noted, the fourth time:
“right here you see appropriations, which is the costs, really, the town of Amherst has, about $188 million. To the right is about $66 million. That's our estimated revenues… you'll see our fund balance of $7.6 million. And then… the real number to focus on here is the $113 million amount to be raised by taxes compared against 2026, which was $106 million… a delta… of about $7.3 million, or a 6.9[%] increase to our levy this year.”[1]
He framed the whole presentation around a single question: “how did we get to that number? How do we get to 6.9% over what we normally go to?” The answer he gave was a list of costs the town does not set.[1]
The rest of the list, as given: wastewater treatment chemicals up $168,000; gas and oil approaching $600,000 more, with diesel described as “the highest it's ever been on record”; a 20% utility rate increase even where facilities used less electricity than last year; sewer lines up $100,000; repair trucks up $142,000; and about $83,000 more in CHIPS expense from the state.[1]
His conclusion was unusually blunt for a budget presentation:
“This is a very challenging situation for this board to deal with, because we are in a position where just to function as a local government with gas and salt, the costs beyond anything this board can do have all gone up significantly… So it's not like I get to sit here and tell everybody that we are getting a new fleet of snow plows. This is just to keep, so to speak, the lights on and operating at the status quo.”[1]
One item is a town choice rather than an external cost, and he flagged it: the bed tax adopted at the previous meeting carries “a clause that mandates 25% of the revenue we receive from that bed tax be reinvested into capital projects, into community centers… We have to allocate that money.”[1]
Then the budget hearing closed, and the record shows this: “No questions from the board.”[1]
The tax cap override local law was adopted. The budget itself was not voted on at this meeting, nor was the capital improvement programme.
A Harlem Road resident read the override law itself and asked the obvious thing about it:
“When I read this local law, I saw nothing about how high you can raise the tax cap. There's no figure in here. Now, the way I understand it, it's only for 2027, but there is no limit. And I'm wondering why that is.”[1]
She is right about the instrument: an override local law authorises exceeding the cap without specifying by how much. The limit, if any, comes from the budget the board later adopts — which it has not yet done. No answer to her question appears in the recording before the hearing was closed.
Three public hearings on the town's finances were held and closed on October 26. Only one produced a vote.[1]
This sequence is normal and lawful: the override must be in place before a budget exceeding the cap can be adopted, and New York towns have until late November to adopt. The point worth recording is simply what the public record now contains — authority to exceed the cap, granted; the budget that uses it, still outstanding.
The salary figure came out after the door shut. Having closed the budget hearing, the Supervisor returned to a question a resident had raised during it: “I will say… to your point, there was an increase of about 5.7 percent, 3.6 million for salaries for 2027.” The figure is the single largest discretionary number disclosed all evening, and it was disclosed at a moment when no member of the public could respond to it. This brief does not suggest that was deliberate — it reads as a Supervisor belatedly answering a question he had not had the number for. But the sequence is the sequence.[1]
The longest segment of the night belonged to Resolution 2026-843, a proposed local law on e-bikes and e-scooters. Fourteen residents spoke. The Supervisor announced the board's intent before any of them did: “I wanna let everybody know we were gonna keep this… public hearing open for about a month… with the decision date set for late November.”[1]
The hearing was adjourned rather than closed, and the Supervisor said plainly: “Nothing's been voted on yet.” Written and spoken comment remains open.[1]
The speakers did not divide neatly for and against. Several, including members of a high-school cross-country team, asked the board to keep e-bikes and scooters off the bike paths entirely. Others supported regulation but objected to specific restrictions — a local bicycle retailer took issue with the no-passenger rule and its effect on cargo bikes. Several residents' concern was simply visibility.[1]
The sharpest argument was about enforcement rather than rules. A Clearwater Drive resident: “I would strongly advocate… that there be an amendment to not allow e-bikes or e-scooters of any kind on any of the bike paths… I've never seen a police officer on the bike paths, and that's no disrespect to the police department whatsoever… I'm just simply pointing out the impracticality of relying on police enforcement.”[1]
And the most concrete, from a Maple Road resident describing her own near-misses: “My concern is the reflective clothing at night… those bikes just come flying out, they cross the middle of the street, they don't go up to the light. And I can tell you a couple times I've almost hit someone because I couldn't see them.”[1]
Late in the meeting the board approved Resolution 2026-848, an $800,000 bond resolution for youth sports facilities, together with its SEQR determination. It approved it, then approved it again.[1]
The Supervisor took it first on a collective voice vote. An unidentified voice interjected: “Voice vote.” His response: “Oh, yes, I'm sorry… I'm going to do that again with a voice vote.” The clerk then polled the members individually.[1]
That correction matters: a bond resolution commits the town to borrow, and New York requires each member's vote to be recorded rather than absorbed into a collective “aye.” Somebody in the room knew it and said so, and the board fixed it in twenty seconds. It is a small thing done right, and it is the only recorded vote of the evening.[1]
A cross-check worth noting. At the Village of Williamsville Board of Trustees the same evening, a resident presented on regional transportation planning and cited “resolution number 848… the bond resolution for $800,000” for youth sports facilities, alongside a $28 million Amherst bonding plan for 2027–32. The resolution number and the amount match Amherst's own record exactly. The $28 million figure is the speaker's and does not appear in this recording.[4]
The board is Supervisor Shawn A. Lavin (chairs), Deputy Supervisor Angela Marinucci, and Councilmembers John Davis, Jack Kavanaugh and Michael Szukala. The clerk read five names at roll call but no individual responses were transcribed, so attendance is not stated here; all five can be placed in the room by their own announcements and by the one recorded poll. No vote in this brief is reported as a numeric tally — 24 of the 25 motions were collective voice votes in which a dissent would be inaudible by design. No recusal, abstention or conflict was declared anywhere in the meeting.
Presented by the Town Attorney's office, whose stated rationale was that the capital improvement programme and the budget had to rise on necessity: “There isn't a lot of fat in the budget. There's not a lot of fat in the CIP.”
Three residents spoke at the hearing. One asked why the law contains no ceiling on the increase it authorises; no answer appears on the record. Adopted on a collective voice vote.
Two speakers at each hearing. Both hearings were closed and the board moved on without voting to adopt either document. The budget presentation drew “No questions from the board.”
A 5.7% / $3.6 million increase in 2027 salaries was stated after the budget hearing had closed.
Fourteen speakers, the most of any item. Themes: access to bike paths and trails, helmets, lighting and reflective clothing, the practicality of police enforcement, cargo bikes and the no-passenger provision, and whether a licence should be required.
Deliberately left open rather than closed, with a decision expected late November. Nothing has been voted on.
SEQR determination approved first. The bond resolution was initially taken on a collective voice vote, then re-taken as an individually recorded vote after an interjection from the floor — the correct procedure for a borrowing resolution.
The clerk's poll as transcribed runs the Supervisor's and Deputy Supervisor's names together with a single “Yes” following, so four responses are captured for five members. This brief treats that as a transcription collapse rather than a missing vote, and does not report a tally.
SEQR determination (2026-846), then the local law amending the zoning map for 4110 Bailey Avenue (2026-847). Resolution 2026-849 had been held pending that action and was approved immediately after. No public speakers on any of the three.
Public hearings opened and closed with no speakers, and both extensions approved on voice votes.
The consent agenda was approved as it appears, its contents read by the clerk as a list of departments and item counts that the recording does not render reliably. Two suspension items followed: acceptance of an Office of Children and Family Services grant (contract C031176), and a temporary access agreement for storm sewer work at 330 Maple Road.
A grant figure associated with the first item and credited to a state Assemblymember is spoken two different ways seconds apart and is not reported here.
A Dodge Road resident presented a petition: “There are approximately 100 houses on this portion of Dodge and have gathered signatures of 50 residents who are in support of lowering the speed limit to 35 miles an hour” — citing repeated speeding, accidents causing property damage, and one that killed a dog.
A resident asked the board to stop scheduling public hearings at its 3 p.m. meetings: “not as many people are available to attend. I know they can submit comments in writing. It's not the same as being here speaking.” Another raised tree clear-cutting and code enforcement at 90 and 100 Sylvan Parkway. A fourth asked for public reporting of year-end budget transfers, arguing the current practice has “lack of transparency, no maximum dollar limits, no public reporting.”
Why no vote tallies appear. Twenty-four of the evening's twenty-five motions were collective voice votes — “All those in favor?” followed by a chorus. No “no,” “nay,” “opposed” or abstention is audible anywhere in the recording, but a dissent in that format is inaudible by construction, so this brief reports outcomes and declines to report any vote as unanimous or as 5–0. The single recorded poll, on the bond resolution, is itself incomplete as transcribed. The official minutes will carry the tallies.
Arithmetic we have not done for you. The salt figures invite a calculation — a $36-per-ton increase across 16,000 tons — but the Supervisor did not state a salt line total, the 16,000 figure is explicitly an average rather than a 2027 commitment, and we do not know the contracted tonnage. We have therefore reported the three figures he gave and left the multiplication alone.
Names. The Town Board roster is human-verified in this pipeline against the town's official board page and reconciled against official minutes. Whisper mangles every surname on this board — the Supervisor appears as “Levin,” “Lavin” and once as “Lampen,” the Deputy Supervisor as “Maranucci,” “Mironucci” and “Marinochi,” and Councilmember Szukala as “Zucalla” and “Zukawa.” Statements are attributed here only where the roster or a clear self-identification establishes the speaker; the Town Attorney's representative, rendered four different ways, is identified by office rather than name. Residents are identified by street rather than full name where the recording renders the name uncertainly.
What we could not verify. The consent agenda's contents, the OCFS grant amount, and the contractor on the Maple Road access agreement are all too garbled to report. The CIP and budget adoption votes are absent from this recording rather than known not to have happened — if either was taken outside this meeting, the minutes will show it.
Capture. 96.7 minutes, faster-whisper “medium,” 1,495 segments of which 1,445 are distinct, longest identical consecutive run 2, most frequent segment 0.87%, language confidence p=0.992, effective coverage 95.2% with no segment spanning dead air. The file ends mid-item on the motion to adjourn.
A note on two street names. Readers following this publication's coverage of the Town of Lancaster will see “Maple Road” twice in this brief — a speaker's address and a storm-sewer access agreement at 330 Maple Road, both in Amherst. Maple Road in Amherst is a different street from Maple Drive in Bowmansville, and nothing in this meeting touches any matter reported in this publication's Lancaster coverage.