SOUTH HADLEY VOTERS rejected a controversial Proposition 2½ override on Tuesday that would have increased property taxes by 50 percent over five years. The Western Massachusetts town of 18,000 is facing a $3 million budget deficit that threatens to grow in the coming years. Nearly 59 percent of voters said no to a $9 million tax override, while nearly 66 percent said no to an $11 million override, according to unofficial results.

The proposals sparked a heated local debate as sluggish state aid growth and strict limits on local tax increases continue to trap many local governments in a difficult position with few options to manage rising costs.

Town Administrator Lisa Wong said local schools have the most at stake and warned that extracurricular activities, sports programs, and Advanced Placement classes could be cut. Positions within the town’s police, public works, human services, and more will likely be eliminated or reduced.

“Right now, every department is being affected,” Wong told CommonWealth Beacon. “Our tax base is significantly lower than a lot of the surrounding towns that are a lot smaller. When we have a small base that’s only allowed to increase by two and a half percent, it’s hard for us to catch up.”

The town’s budget crunch has been mainly driven by skyrocketing health insurance costs and state aid that has fallen behind inflation.

“Fix health insurance and provide consistent levels of state aid, and we probably would never have to ask for an override,” Wong said.

DiZoglio to SJC: You’re not allowed to weigh in on public records question

A slew of interested parties have weighed in on whether a ballot question extending the public records law to the Legislature and governor’s office is constitutional, fulfilling the Supreme Judicial Court’s request for amicus briefs. Auditor Diana DiZoglio took a surprising approach: She argued the justices should not even be allowed to touch the topic at this point.

As the SJC weighs a request from the Senate to issue a nonbinding “opinion of the justices” on two legislative reform measures, DiZoglio sought not only to defend the records question she’s pushing as legally sound but also to throw up a “do not proceed” sign to the court.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, the attorney whom DiZoglio has tapped amid an intertwined feud with Attorney General Andrea Campbell, contended that a legal technicality should bar the SJC from issuing a nonbinding opinion on whether the ballot question raises constitutional concerns as lawmakers allege.

The state constitution allows lawmakers to solicit feedback from the state’s high court on “important questions of law, and upon solemn occasions.” But Liss-Riordan, citing case law, said the court cannot float an advisory opinion if it might “seriously, even if indirectly affect private rights.” Because the existing public records law grants Bay Staters the private right to sue an agency or body for blocking access to information, Liss-Riordan argued, the SJC would cross a line if it fulfilled the Senate’s ask for judicial input.

Lawmakers contend that being forced to comply with the public records law, which almost every other public body and agency in Massachusetts follows, would violate their constitutional right to set their own internal rules and procedures and give other parts of state government — the attorney general, secretary of state, and courts — undue sway over the Legislature.

Campbell, in her own brief, defended her office’s move to certify the question as fulfilling the narrower eligibility requirements to make the ballot but conceded that it “may indeed pose constitutional questions, including those implicating legislative privilege and the separation of powers” if enacted.

Senate gears up to pass $3.6B environmental bond bill

Democrats in the Massachusetts Senate are expected to vote on Wednesday on a sprawling environmental bond bill that will direct money toward improving the state’s aging dams, culverts, and stormwater drainage systems to combat the impacts of climate change.

The bill, known as the Mass Ready Act, was filed by Healey last year and would be the state’s first environmental bond bill since 2018.

The legislation under consideration by the Senate, notably, includes a plastic bag ban — something not included in Healey’s original bill and that cleared the Senate last session before faltering in the House. It also includes $500 million for a popular grant program that helps communities pursue projects that address extreme heat, flooding, and climate resilience, up significantly from the $315 million proposed by Healey.

Two key points in the governor’s initial bill that have largely remained: A proposal to require that homeowners disclose their property’s flood risks to prospective buyers, despite ambivalence from the real estate industry. Massachusetts is one of just 14 states not to require flood risk disclosure.

And language pertaining to when an eroding or shifting beach is considered public, a pet issue for a Healey donor on Martha’s Vineyard.

Senate leadership is now sifting through some 337 amendments that lawmakers have filed.

“It’s less than I thought it was going to be,” Sen. Becca Rausch, a Democrat who co-chairs the joint environment and natural resources committee, quipped in an interview.

Advocates, though, are coalescing around a dozen or so changes, according to emails to lawmakers viewed by CommonWealth Beacon. Among them: establishing an independent climate bank, coordinating a statewide drought response, allowing communities to put in place their own flood maps, and one from Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr to set up a voluntary buyout program for repeatedly-flooded properties (something the state is actively studying).

As a whole, Rausch said, the legislation represents “a groundswell of activism and engagement on policies and investments that make sense and that we need in order to better protect our environment and preserve our ecosystems and habitats … and take the meaningful climate action steps that we can take and should take.”

Getting ahead of AI data centers

Last week, the Everett Planning Board voted in favor of an ordinance that would proactively restrict AI data centers at the Everett Docklands Innovation District — a move that, if accepted, will make Everett the first municipality in the state to regulate data centers before a project is formally submitted. The proposal will need to be approved by the City Council twice before it can take effect.

The site’s developer — The Davis Companies — has not proposed a data center but has maintained that data centers, per the city’s current zoning code, are among the allowable uses for the former ExxonMobil site near the Mystic River.

“I don’t think that Everett wants to put a sign out that says, ‘Closed for business,’”Davis Companies Chief Development Officer Michael Cantalupa told WBUR.

Local groups like the Mystic River Watershed Association have cautioned against the development of a data center in Everett “due to their proven negative environmental impact and yet-to-be proven community benefit.”

The ordinance approved by the planning board would amend the zoning code by requiring proposals to receive a special permit before moving forward. Data centers could not exceed either 20,000 square feet or five megawatts of capacity and would have to be secondary to a larger development rather than standalone facilities.

Everett isn’t alone in its efforts to pursue limitations on data centers. In March, the Lowell City Council voted 10-0 in favor of a one-year moratorium on new data center construction — the first of its kind to be passed in the state.

Healey has said she would not support a ban on data centers, and instead, Massachusetts needs more of them to support the state’s “innovation economy.” There are currently 46 data centers in the Commonwealth, according to DataCenterMap. While 30 of them are in Boston, another 8 are located in Gateway Cities.

As local resistance to data center development mounts, the question remains: Will other cities across Massachusetts follow in Everett and Lowell’s footsteps?