Finance

Library Representatives Are No Shows at Finance Committee Meeting – Amherst Indy

Published

1 year ago

September 6, 2024

Press Room

Future of Cherry Hill Golf Course Discussed

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Finance Committee, September 3, 2024

by Art and Maura Keene

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded. It can be viewed here.

Present
Bob Hegner (Chair, District 5), Cathy Schoen (District 1), Andy Steinberg (at-large), Mandi Jo Hanneke (at-large). Nonvoting members: Bernie Kubiak and Thomas Porter.

Staff: Athena O’Keeffe (Clerk of the Council), Melissa Zawadski (Finance Director), David Ziomek (Assistant Town Manager), Reynaud Harp (Recreation Director), Holly Drake (Comptroller)

Public Comment

Three members of the public offered comment, all in opposition to the Jones Library project. Janet Keller asked the committee to “consider the long-term costs of expanding the Jones Library and competing critical needs to repair and replace other Town buildings, roads, and infrastructure.” Maria Kopicki wondered how the committee would “square the circle” of a project costing $7 million mo43 than authorized borrowing with value engineering far less than that amount. Arlie Gould expressed concern over the loss of the Historic Tax credits and high risk of losing NEH and HUD grants totaling another ~$2 million.

Finance Committee Receives Limited Update on Jones Library Building Project
The committee had last discussed the Jones Library Building Project prior to the Town Council’s vote in December 2023 to authorize an additional $10 million for a total of $46.1 in debt authorization for the project. Since then, a single bid was received in April 2024 that was rejected because it was nearly $7 million higher than the authorization. The Library Trustees and Town Manager gave the go ahead to ask for a six month extension from the Massachusetts Board of Library Commission (MBLC) to pursue a rebidding process this fall after value engineering to decrease the cost. The Town Manager signed a contract with the design team from Finegold Alexander Architecture (FAA) for approximately $500,000 to do the redesign with the understanding that the town would be reimbursed from the Jones endowment. An original value engineering list approved by the Jones Library Building Committee totaled ~$2.9 million but approximately half of that has since been reinstated due to concerns of donors, the Design Review Board, the Planning Board, and the Amherst Historical Commission. It has also come to light that $1.8 million in Historic Tax credits that have been counted toward fundraising have been denied (twice) by the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The library remains $900,000 in arrears of its promised $2 million reimbursement to the Town due at the end of January 2024. None of these developments were discussed at the meeting.

Finance Director Melissa Zawadski provided a single document which she stated was based on information provided by the library team. The figures provided indicated that nearly $7 million was still needed in fundraising to reach the $46.1 million cost estimate (they did not account for the bid that came in ~$7 million over that). The Community Campaign and Foundation and Corporate Funding lines included both pledged and received monies.

Chair Bob Hegner asked about the federal grants listed that total $2.1 million from NEH and HUD saying that “my understanding is that the library is basically in the process of redoing their paperwork to get these grants”. Resident member Bernie Kubiak argued that “These shouldn’t be considered at risk because they’re not. They can still get them and in fact the state historic commission could even change their minds [about rejecting the historic tax credits] if they choose.”

Cathy Schoen disagreed, noting that the grants require a Section 106 review and inquired about its timing. She said, “One of the advisements on the federal site is make sure you go through that review before you sign a contract for the building, you can read it as before you go out to bid, because if there’s something you could change you might put it at risk.” Zawadski did not have the answer and Hegner suggested that the information could be provided at the Town Council meeting on September 9.

Hegner indicated that he had expected that someone from the library would attend.

Kubiak argued that the current state of project finances should not be a concern of either the Finance Committee or the Town Council at this time. He suggested that the library trustees are elected officials, know what they are doing, and should be trusted to manage the project. Kubiak bemoaned the growing criticism and questioning of the project, suggesting that the trustees should be trusted to do the work they were elected to do. He concluded, “They [the Library Trustees] understand what the limits are and I think they would admit that if the prices are out of control, the project is moot.”

“if the current estimated cost exceeds the $46 million authorization or if the $46 million has a bigger fundraising gap because the funds haven’t come in, the town is the one who’s going to be at risk.”
– District 1 Town Councilor Cathy Schoen

Schoen countered that “the council does need to be financially accountable to the taxpayers” noting that if the current estimated cost exceeds the $46 million authorization or “if the $46 million has a bigger fundraising gap because the funds haven’t come in, the town is the one who’s going to be at risk.”

Finance Committee Discusses Cherry Hill Golf Course Update
Recreation Director Rey Harp was asked to provide an update on the finances of the Cherry Hill Golf Course. He reported that the course “is making money right now and revenue is coming in in advance of those of of expenses”. He noted that the high usage during the pandemic has come down since “but we were able to not not lose that much over the course of the last few years in terms of in terms of active play. We’ve been trying to be creative about using the space offseason.”

Data was shared showing that revenues have exceeded expenses since 2021. Hegner, however, noted that if capital and fringe benefit expenditures were included, “it doesn’t look like you’re making money you’re actually losing a little bit”. He calculated losses of $177,000 in 2022, $58,000 in 2023, and $37,000 in 2024 and encouraged trying to find ways to increase revenues. Mandi Jo Hanneke agreed that there seems to have been some improvements in revenues but asked larger questions: “Should we as a municipality be running a golf course?” and “What other uses would this land have?”.

Harp responded by pointing out that the purchase of the course predated his tenure and saying that “My interest as the director now is to is to allow that asset to grow as much as I can and to make money off of it” adding that “If the town told me that it wasn’t in our best interest financially in terms of business’ sake, then I could make a pivot away from it, but as long as we have that asset, as long as that’s underneath Recreation, we are going to continue.”

Harp also made the case that the facility attracts and serves a diverse demographic. “Cherry Hill is not a course that operates for the town elites. It’s not a place that big money comes in to sort of do big money stuff.” and “If you go out there and run through the parking lot, you will see a really interesting cross-section of a bunch of people who don’t do other things with the town.”

He also noted that reductions in staff to protect revenue “put a lot of strain on the people who work there – on our ground staff and on our clubhouse staff” but that “as much stress as it gives us, we think that we’re bringing in money and we’re doing the best of our service that we possibly can. So I defend it because it’s ours, but I also defend it because I think it fits a mission that we can all get behind.”

Schoen supported Harp’s work saying “I think it’s a pretty amazing resource and the management of it, the expense line has not just stayed down, but it’s lower than it used to be” and noted that the facilities were well used and used as a selling point to live in North Amherst.”

Andy Steinberg expressed some concern that “the projected 2025 budget looked a little worse than prior years as far as the balance between revenue and expenses.”

Dave Ziomek added “My worry is what happens when staff turns over, what happens when we get retirements? Can we hire people and expect the same kind of commitment that we have there now?”

Zawadski and Holly Drake pointed out that because the operations of this type of facility are so weather dependent, they are very conservative with projections so the figures for the upcoming year may make them appear worse than they will be.

Hegner asked Ziomek to look further into the demographics of users to see “If we’re not just serving one narrow slice of the the community or we’re serving a broader spectrum of people.”

Finance

Women in tech and finance at higher risk from AI job losses, report says

Published

10 hours ago

February 3, 2026

Press Room

Women in tech and finance at higher risk from AI job losses, report says

Women working in tech and financial services are at greater risk of losing their jobs to increased use of AI and automation than their male peers, according to a report that found experienced females were also being sidelined as a result of “rigid hiring processes”.

“Mid-career” women – with at least five years’ experience – are being overlooked for digital roles in the tech and financial and professional services sectors, where they are traditionally underrepresented, according to the report by the City of London Corporation.

The governing body that runs the capital’s Square Mile found female applicants were discriminated against by rigid, and sometimes automated, screening of their CVs, which did not take into account career gaps related to caring for children or relatives, or only narrowly considered their professional experience.

To reverse the trend, the corporation is calling on employers to focus on re-skilling female workers not currently in technical roles, particularly those in clerical positions most at risk of being displaced by automation.

It is estimated that about 119,000 clerical roles in tech and the financial and professional service sectors, predominantly carried out by women, will be displaced by automation over the next decade. Reskilling those affected by these job losses could save companies from making redundancy payments totalling as much as £757m, the report found.

Upskilling staff would allow employers to focus on candidates’ potential rather than their past technical experience, the report found. It is estimated that up to 60,000 women in tech leave their roles each year for reasons including lack of advancement, lack of recognition and inadequate pay.

Dame Susan Langley, the mayor of City of London, said: “By investing in people and supporting the development of digital skills within the workforce, employers can unlock enormous potential and build stronger, more resilient teams. Focusing on talent, adaptability and opportunity will ensure the UK continues to lead on innovation and remains a global hub for digital excellence.”

Recent surveys have shown that as many as a quarter of UK workers are worried that their jobs could disappear in the next five years because of AI, according to a poll by the international recruitment company Randstad. Union leaders have called on companies to commit to investing in workforce skills and training.

The City of London Corporation found that women were being overlooked for roles even as difficulties in hiring talent meant more than 12,000 digital vacancies in these sectors went unfilled in 2024.

Companies have tried to deal with worker shortages by increasing wages above the national average, but the report found that higher pay rates would not solve the problem. It warned that the widening digital talent gap was forecast to last until at least 2035 and that under this scenario the UK could miss out on more than £10bn of economic growth.

Finance

5 takeaways from 2025’s end-of-year campaign finance reports

Published

22 hours ago

February 3, 2026

Press Room

5 takeaways from 2025’s end-of-year campaign finance reports

President Trump stockpiled millions into his super PAC, while a handful of GOP groups outraised their Democratic counterparts in the last stretch of 2025 as Republicans brace for a midterm cycle shaping up to be much like the anti-Trump 2018 midterms.

Trump’s super PAC, MAGA Inc., has more than $300 million in the bank to start off 2026, according to recent campaign filings, while the Republican National Committee (RNC) outraised the Democrats, who are working to pay off debt from the 2024 cycle.

Yet there are some bright spots for Democrats, too: Many of the party’s Senate candidates have outperformed their Republican contenders as the party looks to make inroads in the upper chamber.

Here are five takeaways from the last campaign filing reports of 2025:

Trump stockpiles millions

The president’s super PAC is starting off the year with $304 million — an impressive sum of money that demonstrates Republicans will not be without resources as they look to keep their narrow House majority and retain control of the Senate.

The super PAC’s latest filing, which covers Dec. 23 through Dec. 31, showed the president received $7.5 million from the pro-Trump dark money group Securing American Greatness Inc. and $1 million from businessman and Los Angeles Dodgers part-owner Todd Boehly, among others.

Other prominent figures who have donated to Trump’s super PAC over the past year include $12.5 million each from OpenAI president and co-founder Greg Bockman and his wife, $11 million from entrepreneur and investor Konstantin Sokolov, and $4 million from defense contractor chief executive Michelle D’Souza.

A number of prominent businesspeople and donors have given to Trump or his aligned entities, particularly for his construction of the East Wing ballroom, as different industries have looked to curry favor with the president.

RNC holds large cash-on-hand advantage over DNC

The RNC outraised the Democratic National Committee in 2025, $172 million compared to $146 million. In December, the RNC edged out its Democratic counterparts at $16 million to roughly $13 million.

The Republican Party also starts off 2026 with a nearly $100 million cash-on-hand advantage over Democrats: The GOP has $95 million in the bank to start off the year, while Democrats have $14 million cash on hand, in addition to close to $18 million in debt.

Democrats have steadily been trying to pay off debt that was accrued during former Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign in 2024. Donors in the aftermath of the 2024 election also curbed their spending to different groups amid frustration over how the presidential cycle played out and as the party looked to reset itself heading into 2026.

Across the board, however, GOP groups like the House Republican and Senate Republican campaign arms posted larger 2025 hauls than their Democratic counterparts. However, the cash on hand for the House and Senate Democratic campaign arms are nearly equal to or have narrowly surpassed their GOP counterparts.

Democratic Senate candidates largely outraise GOP challengers

If there’s one financial silver lining for Democrats right now, it’s that the party’s Senate challengers in competitive races have largely outraised their Republican contenders.

In Georgia, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) — seen as the most vulnerable Senate Democrat up for reelection this cycle — raised close to $10 million between October and December from his campaign. He starts off 2026 with close to $26 million in the bank.

His GOP opponents trail far behind. Former University of Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley’s campaign raised $1.1 million and has $2.1 million cash on hand. Rep. Buddy Carter’s campaign (R-Ga.) raised $1.7 million, which includes a $1 million loan to himself, and starts off this year with nearly $4.2 million. Rep. Mike Collins’s campaign (R-Ga.) raised about $825,000 and has $2.3 million cash on hand.

In Ohio, former Sen. Sherrod Brown’s (D-Ohio) campaign raised $7.3 million in the last quarter of 2025 and has nearly $10 million in the bank. Meanwhile, Sen. Jon Husted’s (R-Ohio) campaign raised $1.5 million between October and December and starts off the year with close to $6 million in the bank.

Musk starts spending ahead of midterms

Elon Musk has resumed pumping money toward GOP groups heading into the midterms, less than a year after he signaled he would pull back from political spending. The Tesla CEO gave $5 million each to two super PACs helmed by House Republican and Senate Republican leadership.

All told, Musk has given $20 million to the two political groups in 2025, highlighting how the former Trump adviser is poised to play an important role again in the upcoming election cycle for Republicans.

Musk spent millions in last year’s Wisconsin Supreme Court races, yet the liberal candidate handily won the vacant seat on the state’s high court. However, his spending helped level the playing field for Republicans.

While his spending will help the GOP, Democrats are sure to seize on his involvement, too. In the past, they have featured Musk in their advertising, such as showcasing his chainsaw-wielding appearance during last year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), in an effort to boost turnout among their voters.

Filings offer insight into contested Senate primaries

The campaign finance filings also offer some clues about the fundraising strength of candidates in contested Senate primaries.

Progressive oyster farmer Graham Platner, who was mired in controversy last year over past social media posts, raised $4.6 million in the last quarter of 2025 from his campaign and has $3.7 million in the bank. Meanwhile, centrist Maine Gov. Janet Mills’s (D) campaign raised $2.7 million in the last quarter and starts off this year with $1.3 million.

In Texas, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D) and state Rep. James Talarico (D) posted similar fundraising hauls — $6.5 million and nearly $6.9 million, respectively. Most of Crockett’s haul came from transfers from her House campaign. Talarico’s campaign also posted a cash on hand advantage — $7.1 million to Crockett’s $5.6 million.

Finance

Inheritance warning as Aussie kids face $320,000 tax hit: ‘Completely gone’

Published

1 day ago

February 2, 2026

Press Room

Inheritance warning as Aussie kids face 0,000 tax hit: ‘Completely gone’

If you inherit your mum or dad’s super fund, you can pay tax of up to 32 per cent. (Source: Getty)

Australians risk losing a huge amount in superannuation inheritance due to little-known tax rules. Older generations will transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to younger generations in the coming decades, with much of this money to come via superannuation and property assets.

Most families don’t realise that their kids could lose a third of their inheritance to superannuation tax. But Pivot Wealth financial adviser and Yahoo Finance contributor Ben Nash said this tax could be “completely avoidable” with a bit of strategy.

When someone passes away, their superannuation is split into two main parts: the tax-free component and the taxable component.

RELATED

If the money goes to adult kids or anyone who is not financially dependent on the person passing down the super, the taxable portion gets hit with a “death tax” of up to 32 per cent.

“On a $1 million balance, that means $320,000 that can be completely gone,” Nash explained.

The biggest component of most people’s super funds is the taxable component because it’s made up of any compulsory employment super contributions, salary sacrifice or tax-deductible contributions, and the growth and earnings on these funds.

Do you have a story to share? Contact tamika.seeto@yahooinc.com

The good news is it is possible to reduce or avoid the tax altogether.

“The fix here is what’s called a withdrawal and recontribution strategy. It’s a pretty simple concept, although the rules are a little bit complicated,” Nash explained.

“Basically, while your parents are still alive and eligible, they can withdraw some or all of their super, pay no tax on the withdrawal, and then put it back into their super as a non-concessional or after-tax contribution.

“That shifts their super balance from taxable to completely tax-free. When you do that gradually over time, you can save literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in future tax.”

Your parents would need to be over the age of 60 and meet a condition of release (like retirement) so they can withdraw part of their super tax-free.

The rules around withdrawing and contributing to your super fund, along with how much you put in, are complicated, so it is important to get financial advice from a professional.

The Productivity Commission previously estimated that $3.5 trillion would be passed on from Aussies aged 60 and over by 2050. More recent JBWere figures put the figure at $5.4 trillion over the next 20 years.