(2/7/07)  The Select Board met Monday, February 5th.  All members – Anne Awad, Robie Hubley, Rob Kusner, Hwei-Ling Greeney and Gerry Weiss were present, as was Town Manager Larry Shaffer.

Ms. Awad opened the meeting at 6:15 with the public comment period.  

Kate Troast, who said she would have to leave the meeting before the budget discussion, made a statement about the schools.  She said she has children in the middle school and the high school.  She said that if the schools aren't strong, then people who can afford to will send their kids to private schools. She said that if people leave the schools, they will eventually leave the town, and that would lead to a decrease in property values.  She said that the town needs an override that can pass.

Committee appointments

Ms. Greeney recommended the following committee appointments:  Candace Bradbury-Carlin to the Public Art Commission, Donna Kelley to the Town Commercial Relations Committee, Terry Forrest to the Emergency Homelessness Task Force and Stanley Maron to the Emergency Homelessness Task Force.  All were approved by unanimous vote.

Special Municipal Employees – Implementation

Ms. Awad said there had been confusion on the current state of Special Municipal Employee status (SME) for boards and committees.  She said she wanted to reassure people that the status is still in place.  She said that the Select Board has been reviewing the issue and state law for the past year, and has set various deadline dates for itself to deal with the issue.  She said that SME had been extended indefinitely until the Select Board was ready to implement a new policy.  She referenced a statement of process the Select Board had voted to accept at its November 27, 2006 meeting, and described the purposes of SME status as outlined therein:  To allow those with particular skills or expertise to apply those abilities to the work of a Town committee, board or commission while allowing those persons to act as agents or attorneys for paying clients before other Town committees.  She said the Town encourages and benefits from many people with expertise, mentioning as an example nurses and others familiar with navigating the health care system, and said the board continues to support this.  She said that if an attorney on a committee needed to represent a client before another board, the attorney would need SME status or else would be in violation of the State's conflict of interest law.  She said that the Select Board had conducted information sessions on the topic and would continue to do so annually.  She said that information is being supplied to all new committee members about the limits of SME protection, along with additional resource information. 

Ms. Awad said that she encouraged the Select Board to implement the process they had discussed.  She said that the formalized process of reviewing requests for SME status would allow boards and committees to express how and why they need it, and said the process would provide protection for all involved.  She explained that the process would entail a board or committee submitting a paragraph of justification for why it was needed.  The Select Board would review the request and act on it.  She said the process would provide clarity, and committees would know the status of their request.  She said that she doesn't anticipate any committee not qualifying if it makes case for why it is needed, saying that was true for all committees – Public Arts might want it, not just Planning Board and ZBA.

Mr. Weiss said that some Town staff may have misconstrued the November policy discussion to mean that SME status had been rescinded, and informed the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals that they no longer had the status, which made them upset.  He said that it had never been rescinded and that various dates announced were reminders for the Select Board to return to the topic.

Ms. Awad said that granting the status is something the Select Board must do annually, and that they must implement it by June 30th.  Mr. Weiss asked if that could be verified, because his impression was that if the Select Board voted for it, the status was in effect forever until they rescind it.

Mr. Shaffer said he was happy to seek clarification on that issue.  He said that regarding Mr. Weiss' comment about staff, that it had clearly been the Select Board's intention not to rescind the status or disrupt boards and committees, and that it had been putting in place a policy for the future which comports with state ethics requirements.

Ms. Greeney wanted to clarify whether every board and committee currently has SME, and that was confirmed.  She asked if in the future, boards and committees would need to apply for the status by a certain deadline.  Ms. Awad said that they have not released any application process yet and suggested getting the process going in order to clarify protections and support for town volunteers, and to quell anxiety and rumors.

Mr. Kusner asked if the memo would be distributed to boards and committees.  Ms. Awad said yes, that she had prepared a simple memo for committees to submit; that they would be sent everything they need to fill out and send back.  She called it a “brisk process that isn't burdensome or bureaucratic.”

Mr. Hubley said that people have expressed to him the notion that it is widely known that the Select Board won't accept anyone with professional qualifications for a committee appointment.  He said that isn't true and that most people apply for committees because of their expertise, not merely as citizen representatives.  He said the Select Board tries to match the needs of committees with people's expertise, but that sometimes their first or second preference of a committee is already filled, and they end up with their third or fourth choice.

Mr. Hubley offered a motion to inform boards and committees that the new process was being activated and that the deadline for application is June 30th of this year.  Ms. Awad said that she hoped they would vote to do this, and asked that town staff officially contact all the boards and committees about this.  Mr. Kusner suggested distributing the document with a cover memo, and suggested incorporating that idea into Mr. Hubley's motion.  Ms. Greeney suggested addressing the memo only to the committee chairs, because it would be they who apply for the status.  She also suggested a paragraph be added to the document noting the June 30th deadline.  Ms. Awad said that she preferred to have the deadline information in the cover letter, because the document is something the committees will fill out and send in.   

Mr. Kusner suggested that a cover letter be drafted, and suggested that Mr. Hubley might do that, and Mr. Hubley agreed to do so.  The vote to support commencing this new process was unanimous.  

Ms. Awad said the Select Board would review the status in a few weeks, and asked that in the meantime, Mr. Shaffer assist with “rumor control.”  Mr. Shaffer said that SME has not been revoked and shall not be unless it is specifically done by the Select Board.

Clean Energy Choice Program

Peggy MacLeod from Center for Ecological Technology (CET) spoke about the Clean Energy Choice program.  Ms. MacLeod said that CET is a 30-year-old community-based non-profit.  She said that their work in Amherst has included helping hundreds of residents with energy audits, and consulting with the Town's recycling coordinator and health department on recycling the fluorescent lights from tanning salons.  She is currently working to get people signed up for the Clean Energy Choice program, which helps communities earn matching funds to use in pursuit of renewable energy programs.  She said that the group has helped 23 communities to collectively earn more than $250,000 in matching funds for renewable energy projects so far, along with $70,000 in state grants for solar power, and said that Northampton and Shutesbury have both used such funds to install solar panels on schools.  She said that Amherst is eligible for $28,000 in grant money if 3% of town households enroll in the Clean Energy Choice program.  She said that 3% would be 275 households, with a $50 bonus per household, totaling $13,500 in bonus money. She said that Amherst has earned $8,000 so far.

Ms. MacLeod explained that the money is held by the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC), which set up the program.  That group has set a March 31st deadline for communities to reach 3% participation.  She said that CET had an information table at the recent Beauty and the Beast performances, and hoped that would lead to more people signing up.  She said she was at the meeting to help the Select Board come up with more ideas for promoting the program and trying to reach the 3% goal. 

Ms. Awad asked how many households are still needed to reach the 3% mark, and Ms. MacLeod said fewer than 100.  Mr. Kusner referenced the discussion about compact fluorescent light bulbs at a recent Select Board meeting, and suggested the bulbs could be promoted for residential use in combination with promoting sign-ups for the program by offering one from the Town's supply to each person who enrolls. 

Ms. MacLeod said the minimum donation to join the program is $100, and that the group is also encouraging on-going monthly donations.  She said that Northampton is taking in $3500 each month from such donations. She liked the light bulb idea.

Mr. Weiss asked where the money goes and who has it.  Ms. MacLeod said that National grid lets people sign up and pay via their electric bills, but WMECO doesn't have that program.  She said that the Massachusetts Energy Consumers' Alliance worked with the MTC to create the New England Wind Fund and since there are no wind projects happening currently, the money is held in trust until needed for a future project.  She said that donations to this fund are fully tax deductible. 

Ms. Greeney noted all the parents in the audience and suggested Ms. MacLeod entice them with the potential uses of the money to fund school projects, if the money could be used in that way.  Ms. MacLeod said that some funds are eligible for educational purposes and schools can be involved.  She noted that the Hitchcock Center would be getting some money, and she said that she had contacted teacher Geoff Friedman at the high school to seek involvement as well.  Mr. Kusner said that he had heard from Mr. Friedman regarding the compact fluorescent bulbs, and that Mr. Friedman planned to get them to households and spread the word via the students.

Ms. MacLeod said that people appreciate learning about the program and wondered if there might be an opportunity to promote it in the press or via a newsletter.  Ms. Greeney said that the way to attract people is with a list of what the funds can be used for and then targeting the groups who might be interested in such uses.  Ms. MacLeod said that the program stipulates that a mayor or Select Board “hold the purse strings,” so a school would need to apply to the Select Board, who could then apply for the funds.  Ms. Awad suggested creating a menu of what the Select Board would support, and Ms. Greeney and Mr. Kusner volunteered to work together on that. 

Ms. Awad suggested enlisting the recycling companies as ways of distributing the info to households, saying that had worked well in Easthampton in the past:  the company left a flier in each recycling bin after they emptied it.  She said that was an effective and economical way to distribute the information.  Others said that was a good idea. 

Ms. MacLeod asked if the thermometer display piece tracking progress toward the goal could be put somewhere people would see it.  Ms. Awad suggested that the landfill would be good exposure, especially on Saturdays.  Ms. MacLeod asked if it would be possible to also have one in Town Hall, where people pay taxes and such.  Ms. Awad said that as long as it was just until March 31st and not forever, that would be OK. 

Ms. Greeney suggested a motion instructing her and Mr. Kusner to create the menu of spending options to present at the next meeting.  Ms. Awad said she would have just trusted them to do that, but Mr. Weiss said that a motion gets the discussion into the meeting's minutes.  The vote to support was unanimous.

Ms. MacLeod said that other places had found success in promoting the program by having key town officials send out e-mails about it.  Mr. Kusner emphasized the group's web site:  www.newenglandwind.org.  Ms. Greeney asked that everyone present please support the efforts to get $28,000 in matching funds. 

Consent Calendar

The Consent Calendar comprised approving the minutes of the January 24th executive session, the minutes of the January 29th meeting, and a special liquor license for the Hitchcock Center.  The vote to support was unanimous.

Visions for Downtown Amherst

Ms. Awad referenced the memo from Jonathan Tucker that the Select Board has addressed at recent meetings and is sharing with other boards and committees.  As decided at last week's meeting, Mr. Weiss drafted a motion in support of the memo, which Mr. Kusner read.  It said:  “to support and share Memorandum 2006-09, “Visions for Downtown Amherst,” with the Town Commercial Relations Committee, the Public Works Committee, the Public Transportation Committee and the Comprehensive Planning Committee, as a working template for downtown planning.”

Ms. Greeney said that because there are elements of the memo she would not be comfortable supporting without lengthy discussion, she would prefer to remove the word “support” and say instead that they “receive and share” it.  Mr. Kusner said he agreed with her sentiments but felt that the words “working template” reflect that concern and express their feeling that it is a work in progress, not a final plan.

Ms. Awad asked whether they should vote or defer the issue, and a vote was desired.  Four voted in favor of Mr. Weiss' motion, and Ms. Greeney abstained. 

Discussion of Budget and Override Options

Ms. Awad said that the purpose of this agenda item was to start the Select Board's deliberations as prescribed by the Town Government Act, about putting an override question on the ballot.  She spoke of it being a complicated and emotional topic.  She said that all the necessary budget information wasn't yet available, that the school and library budget proposals weren't announced yet and that there were many details to coordinate before a final proposal goes to Town Meeting in May.  She said the Select Board would hear comments from the audience until 7:30, but then needed to talk about the subject itself as a Board so that they could work toward a decision.  She said that there is a requirement of 45 days to announce a decision to put something on the ballot, and if they were to decide to try for the March 27th election ballot, that deadline is coming up.

Ms. Awad said that Mr. Shaffer, Finance Director John Musante and Finance Committee Chair Alice Carlozzi would offer quick overviews of the situation and then the audience would comment.  She said that it is an emotional issue with passionate interests on all sides and requested that people be respectful of each other's comments and refrain from cheering and applause.

Mr. Weiss said that he had received about 20 e-mails on the topic and most were in favor of an override.  He reiterated the point about the timing of a decision and said that if it were to happen for March 27th, that would require a rush to put all the details together.

Mr. Shaffer said the information distributed to the Select Board was from the most recent Budget Coordinating Group meeting, and that it attempts to give shape and form to the override discussion.  He said that he urged the Select Board to consider a long-term solution, and that any solution they arrive at should take into account the needs and capabilities of today as well as the long term, because the structural conditions we face will not abate soon.

Ms. Carlozzi said that discussions about a long-range plan involve a large override of a yet-undetermined amount for FY08 along with significant budget cuts, and to have that combination proceed for several years, perhaps five, during which no additional override would be sought.  She said that would work because raising more money than needed in the first year or two would create override reserves that could be tapped in case of shortfall in the later years.  A benefit of such a plan is stability for budget planning.  She said that the model scenarios don't include possibilities of enhanced revenue from other sources such as increased compensation for public safety services from the colleges and university, economic development opportunities for growing the tax base, or the different revenue options from the state, all of which could benefit the situation in future years but not FY08.  She said that a priority is to allow the Town's reserves to grow in order to have money on hand for an emergency, to protect the bond rating for future borrowing needs, and to be prepared for the next economic downturn.  For the last two downturns, she said the Town had $9 million and $14 million respectively in reserves, and we are nowhere near those amounts now.

Mr. Musante said that discussions among the Finance Committee, Town Manager, Superintendent, and BCG have lead to seeking a multi-faceted solution for FY08 with the underpinnings of a five year plan. This would require a combination of cuts and new revenue.  The BCG requested scenarios outlining different ways in which a multi-year plan might be structured.  He stressed that the numbers used for these scenarios are preliminary and should be interpreted as a ballpark concept of how such plans might work.  All the scenarios assume local revenues coming from taxation up to the allowable levy limit, and modest growth in state aid at 2% in FY08 and 5% thereafter. 

The first scenario involves funding all the items on the Town Manager's budget's unfunded list, which would require a 6.6% increase from last year, a 5.5% increase for the elementary schools, libraries and the region, plus 2% state aid for the region, translating into 13% increase in the regional assessment, all for FY08.  In years 2 through 5, it assumes 6% across-the-board budget growth.  That would make for a $3.7 million shortfall in FY08, rising to $10 million by year 5.  To meet those figures with only property tax increases would require a $7 million override.

The second scenario would use the same revenue assumptions, but limiting budget growth in FY08 to 3% would mean a $1.4 million shortfall this year.  That model would require approximately a $4 million override.  As with the first model, the surplus in year one would be put in the bank to cover shortfalls in future years. 

The third scenario looks at 2% budget growth.  That would mean an $815,000 shortfall in FY08 and would require a 5-year $1.75 million override.

He said that none of the scenarios consider the possible additional revenues of a meals tax or economic development or the like, and all assume 2% state aid increase in the first year and 5% in subsequent years.  Additional state aid or other revenue sources would all have positive impacts on the override size, but none would be available in FY08.

Mr. Kusner said that the 5% state aid numbers made for more dramatic totals after 5 years than if 4% were used as the model figure, and he asked if there could be another model showing 3% or 4%.

Mr. Musante said there could be endless permutations with different numbers, including lower state aid.  He said 5% was not unrealistic and that even that was not sufficient because of the “significant entrenchment here in year one.” He said the models show the necessity of having the state be our partner again as they had been previously.

Ms. Awad said that this situation is “everyone's dilemma,” and that there is much pressure to increase state aid, and said she felt 5% was not unrealistic.  She asked if model A with the $7 million override – similar to the Arlington model – allowed for restoring our reserves over five years.

Mr. Musante said that the Arlington model involves a larger increase in year one than is needed – that all that money is raised, but it is not all spent – allowing for the override reserves to be used in year 5 when the taxes collected in that year are expected to be insufficient to cover the projected expenditures.  He said that the percentage of the levy allocated to the capital plan in the models remained at the 8.2% target they had been using, but with a larger-than-needed override in year one, if that number were to be adjusted it could free up additional money, and that would need to be discussed.

Ms. Awad asked what override model and combination of cuts and new revenues would address the structural deficit and be a long-term solution to the “cycle of terror.”

Mr. Shaffer said that all three models address that.  He said that the first model might be considered the Cadillac model and involved little pain at the service level, and no cuts.  The second model merges modest cuts and modest increases and tries to mollify the most severe cuts anticipated by the current 1% guideline, and keeps some fundamental programs going, but doesn't restore previous service levels.  The third model has severe cuts and has 2% budget growth, which is twice the current 1% guideline.   He said that last model has some opportunity for modification of current planned cuts, but also has implications for the later years of the model.

Mr. Shaffer said that his perspective is that any reasonable person would think that some cuts and some revenue enhancements were necessary, and that the cuts have to be entrenched and institutionalized so that a plan can work for five years. 

Regarding a structural deficit, Ms. Carlozzi said that reserve funds have been used in decreasing amounts over the last few years, and FY07 is the last year of reserve fund use, making FY08 especially difficult.

Ms. Greeney said that she would find it helpful in judging if the 5% projected increase in state aid was reasonable by knowing the trend of past increases.  She also said she would like to know if the 2% and 5% budget growth increases were realistic by knowing that historical trend.  She also inquired about what school and library cuts were anticipated in the models. 

Mr. Musante said that the state aid and budget trends that Ms. Greeney inquired about were available in the appendix of the Town Manager's proposed budget.   He said that state aid is like a roller coaster, with both significant increases and severe cuts, and that the projections for the future represent where we think and hope the state legislature is headed. He said that budget growth averages 5.5% per year for FY00-07, and that information is in a chart in the Finance Committee's override report.  He said that his models include no specific cuts – the schools would determine their own cuts, as would the town, etc. – and as models, where they show projected shortfalls some cuts would be required.  He said that with 2% or 3% growth, cuts of varying amounts would be required in year one, with relative stability in years 2 through 5. He said that there could still be difficulties, citing health insurance as an uncertainty.  He said the model uses 6% increase, which should be adequate, but you never know.

Mr. Hubley said that the models make the future look very regular, and if it uses the past to predict the future, the models should be irregular for the future because you can't depend on stability.

Mr. Musante said the models are made up of assumptions, some more or less educated than others.  He said that lobbying the state for new revenue, for example, was a potential funding source over which the town has little control.

Mr. Weiss asked if the years with a shortfall required using reserves.  Mr. Musante said that with the Arlington model, the shortfalls in FY11 and FY12 would be covered by the override reserves generated by the higher-than-necessary tax collected in year one. The source of those reserves would be the override reserves.  He said the goal for those funds at the end of five years would be to not be a negative number.

Mr. Weiss asked about projections for growing the Town reserves.  Mr. Musante said that the override models presume no drawing down of the Town reserves, and that they would be expected to grow from $3 million and nearly $4 million due to some one-time revenue, and then grow incrementally over the next few years if there is no draw-down.

Mr. Kusner said that he hoped the parents assembled would get to speak, and reiterated his earlier point about how using different figures leads to different outcomes, and said that 3% growth in FY08 and 4% in the out years leads to ending up “in the black,” noting that the models were not the only options available.  Mr. Musante said the goal of the models was to create planning stability and predictability over the next two to five years.

Ms. Greeney said she hadn't heard anything about the use of reserves in the proposed scenarios and how much the reserves would total at the end of five years.  Ms. Carlozzi repeated that none of the scenarios involved any use of reserve funds, and that not using them would allow them to increase gradually to $8 million or $9 million over the five years.

Ms. Awad turned the discussion over to the audience and said the microphone would be passed along through each row for anyone who wished to comment, emphasizing that using the microphone was necessary so that people would be heard on the ACTV broadcast.

Elaine Brighty, chair of the Regional School Committee, said that the schools knew that this year's 1% budget guideline wouldn't be enough and that they would need 4 - 6% to stay even.  She said that a 1% increase over last year's spending required $700,000-800,000 in cuts to the elementary schools, and $1.2 - 1.3 million in cuts for the region.  She said that would mean $800,000 in cuts at the high school and $400,000 at the middle school.  To illustrate the scale of such cuts, she said that cutting $800,000 from the high school would mean cutting 10 teachers, and that would leave $300,000 in cuts that still needed to be made, which would probably be more staff.  She said that if 10 teachers were cut, that would represent cutting 1/5th of the high school faculty between this year and last year.  She said that would mean requiring an additional study hall for students, on top of the one required this year, and that where students previously selected 15 courses, they now had 14 and would soon be looking at 13. She said cutting physical education would be required, as would cuts to the arts, increasing class sizes and cutting administrators.  She said that the schools urge an override before Town Meeting, because the earlier the schools know the better, citing the need to know which staff cuts were necessary, not wanting to lose talented teachers to other districts, and because students would soon be choosing their classes.  She noted that our decisions impact the budget planning of three other towns, and said that morale and retaining teachers were the key factors.  She urged pursuing something like the model B override approach and then supporting that decision strongly.  She said that such a model would enable planning, rather than having to spend 5-6 months dealing with the budget.  She said it would benefit not just the schools, but also public safety, and stressed that cuts will still be necessary.  She also recommended participating in the school walk-though tours. 

Andy Churchill, chair of the Amherst Elementary School Committee, said that at the elementary school level there aren't a lot of electives to be cut, so cutting teachers would mean increasing the class size maximums to 23 for K-2nd grade, 25 for 3rd and 4th grades, and 27 for 5th and 6th grades.  He said it would require cuts to the music program, moving string instruments from 3rd grade to 4th, and delaying other instruments until the 5th grade, and it would require cutting an art specialist.  He said that all library paraprofessionals had already been cut, and class sizes have already increased.  He said that 80% of the school budget is people, and that health care costs have gone through the roof and are expected to increase 12-15% this year.  He said the health insurance has already been renegotiated and that employees are paying more and doing their part.  He said the situation is a revenue problem, with half of the school budgets being dependent on state and federal aid which are “barely back to '02 levels,” and said that with that half of the budget staying flat, it puts an extra burden on the towns.  He said he was happy about new revenue ideas such as a meals or lodging tax, and possible taxable housing options.  He said that good schools and services were the kinds of elements that “make Amherst Amherst.”  He said that certain populations were concerned about an override, particularly those on fixed incomes, and said that if an override does get on the ballot he hopes that the citizen tax relief options are made very clear.  He said that timing and planning for an override question were key.

Christina Rose said she attended and appreciated last week's budget forum and was struck by the U.S. being the richest nation and Massachusetts being the 3rd richest state, but that at the local level, “we are nickel and diming it,” so something is very wrong.  She said that of the state's $89 billion in revenue, only $34 billion was available in local aid because the rest is earmarked.  She said that the budget forum generated good ideas and she's afraid they'll get lost, and suggested that more brainstorming at community gatherings was needed to determine where cuts can be made and where new revenue can come from. 

Mary Wentworth said that she agreed that more community dialogue meetings were needed.  She said that March 27th was premature for an override because people are just becoming aware of the budget situation and just now becoming involved.  She said many groups in the community need their views heard and attended to, and she said May isn't too far in the future to consider an override.  She asked the Select Board to appoint a committee to gather suggestions from residents about where they feel cuts and revenues can occur, and that the committee could evaluate which ideas were worthwhile.  She said that ideas are generated and never heard again.  She said that presentations from Town officials were useful but that space was needed for residents to respond and to come to some consensus.

Bill Elsasser identified himself as “the litter person,” and said he was confused by reading about the money being charged to the town for providng UMass with fire services, and the money being generated by Indian casinos.  He suggested that the former Salvation Army building might make a good casino or some other mass entertainment option.

Joan Cornaccio [name may be wrong] said she was new to Amherst and has a daughter who is a high school freshman.  She said that her family chose to move to Amherst both for the schools and the community. She said her daughter has a rare cognitive disability but had flourished because of the support she had received from the whole community where they formerly lived in New York, and was concerned about the possibility of cuts to Special Education services.  She said she is concerned about perceptions that SPED kids get more than other kids, and that the sense of inclusiveness is what has helped her daughter to thrive.  She said she hopes this community can work for everyone.

Matthew Sadof said he's lived here for 8 years and has two kids in the schools.  He said that educating kids costs money and that you pay now or pay later.  He said that he believes there are overlooked resources in the community, such as the University, and he hopes that could be a source of more funding.

Karly Domb Sadof said she is a senior at the high school.  She said that her class has run out of graph paper and were told that it couldn't be replaced.  She said if that was the only impact, she could handle it, but she wondered what would be next.

Kate Campbell Strauss said she is a senior at the high school.  She said she is involved in the performing arts and worries that such cuts at the elementary level would be detrimental to the talent base at the high school level. 

Carol Moskowitz said that it costs between $9,000 and $23,000 to educate children in Amherst and that the property taxes of few families support even one child's school costs.  She said that many residents without children are subsidizing them, and that if we lose those people because they can't afford to live here, she wondered who would subsidize those kids.  She said there is a trend that the town is losing school-age children and gaining senior citizens, yet she felt that the discussions were focused almost entirely on the children.  She said that kids have benefited because people without children have been willing to pay for them.

Adrienne Levine said she was a coordinator of last week's school rally, which she said was successful.  She said that she agreed with the comments of Ms. Brighty and Mr. Churchill that time is of the essence so that good teachers are not lost.

Janet Kannel said she moved here a year and a half ago because of the schools.  She said that any cuts hurt all children and she supports a five-year override plan with tax relief for those who qualify.

Pat Ononibaku said she has five children, three still in the schools.  She said that she is nervous about the cuts because quality education is so important and she said one of her children has special education needs.  She said that she thinks the new administration has seen an increase in lawsuits, and that they avoid mediation which she said is cost-effective and efficient.  She said that some paraprofessionals have told her that they will be cut.  She said that she wanted to know how much has been spent on legal fees for the schools' attorney over the last three years, and that she felt those fees were excessive and should instead go to funding staff.

Alan Root said that he is a senior and a parent.  He said that he thought the audience should have access to the document that the Select Board had so that the different scenarios could be understood.  He said that references to needing to rush on this issue were helping to make this situation highly polarized, and that more brainstorming was needed to clarify the problem before solutions could be determined.  He said that if state aid were to increase in the future, and if that aid is conditional on a town's need, we might be ineligible because of our improved situation, and he said that point hadn't been raised previously.  He said the process should slow down, and that different groups should be talked to for commonality and dialogue.  He said it is a heartrending problem and that parents have a strong instinct to protect children in emergency situations and that this situation is the same, and it is a deeply emotional issue.  He said he hoped the Select Board would consider the call for additional dialogue, and that a common purpose might yield a solution.

Mary Streeter said she is a retired teacher and her eyes have been opened to the process since she became a Town Meeting member.  She said that it is important for people to know that there are many needy kids in the schools and those needs require staff.  She said that she would hate for teachers to be demoralized by the threat of pink slips.  She said that her pension income from the state can only increase $360 per year.  She said that there are needy kids and demoralized teachers and limited-income people to consider.  She said that the community would need a lot of education on the situation in order to pass an override and that she has been to lots of meetings and still finds it confusing.  She said she is skeptical of a 5-year Arlington-type plan and wondered what would happen if such a plan were to be defeated on a March 27th ballot.  She said she thought proceeding carefully and having more forums were good ideas.

Melissa Katz said she is a homeowner with a child in the schools.  She said the schools were the main draw for her in coming to Amherst.  She said that she wants to maintain the programs that make Amherst Amherst, and to maintain the economic diversity of the town.  She said that the high property values can lead to losing the investment of young families in the community.  She wants the town to consider how to maintain both current services and economic diversity.

Kevin Mepham said he moved here five years ago partially because of the schools, but that it is more than the schools that make the town special. He said that his parents will also move here this spring and that he is concerned about people on fixed incomes and those needing social services.  He said the discussion has been focused on property taxes and health care costs but he hasn't heard anything about broadening the tax base and pursuing economic development that would take some of the burden off homeowners.

Irwin Spiegelman said he was trying to pass along other people's ideas about cuts that aren't just lowering the numbers of paraprofessionals and teachers. He said the schools are not at fault, but that salaries are higher here than in Northampton.  He said that this is a contract year for teachers and that they might be willing to sacrifice, particularly those at the higher end of the pay scale.   He said that in Northampton, the Planning Director is also the Economic Development Director, and the city's Human Resources department also covers the schools. He said it is premature to talk about an override when the planned cuts are to lay off those directly involved in delivering services.  He said to look at cuts that don't involve cutting basic services, and to look at revenue enhancements. He called the 5 year override "an outlandish scheme," and said that the public wants to see the cuts and make adjustments each year, and not leave those decisions to the School Committee, the Select Board and Town Manager.  He said he urged a delay on the override question.

Barbara Levine said that when her kids were in school, the whole community pulled together to support them, and now her grandchildren are entitled to that same support.  She said kids may miss out on opportunities at each level of the schools and that the override question needs to be decided as soon as possible.  She said it could always be amended later on, and that we should pull together and support the education of the children.

Peter Kurz said that the schools need help and there are long-term problems that need to be investigated regarding revenues and community dialogue.  He asked whether there is a temporary option to help the schools before looking to a March override.

Ms. Awad thanked one of the speakers for reminding her of all that is good in the community and how we must hang on to that.  She appreciated the good ideas people shared and said the Select Board was now ready to talk about it among themselves, which she said they can only do in public meetings.  She said that for much of the preceding process the Select Board remains quiet while the various pieces of the budget are created and that it is inappropriate for them to be having conversations while that is taking place.  She said the reality now is about timing, because if there is a proposal for a big override that people aren't prepared for, it will lose and then what?

Mr. Kusner referenced a book about higher rationality and how an issue is framed, and said that this conversation is being framed in terms of "do we have an override or not?"  He said issues of “whether” and “when” are more complex, and that it is hard to recognize that what passes for common sense could actually be mistaken.  He said the current approach is multi-tracked, being engaged with the colleges on fire and EMS services and that we must be consider what puts the town in the best bargaining position for such negotiations.  He said that there are additional negotiations going on with contracts for teachers and other town employees, which he said include substantial step and COLA increases.  He said these two tracks of negotiating require framing what to do and taking those negotiations into account.  He said he is sympathetic and has said in the past the schools are not the place to cut, and that he thinks an override would be needed, and that he shares the sentiment that as a community we tithe to support our commonwealth.  He said we need to pay for what we need to pay for, but that he doesn't want to short-circuit the negotiations.  He said he doesn't want to get off-track with a premature rush to an override.

Ms. Awad referenced Ms. Brighty's statement that the override needed to be put where it can be passed, and asked if she thought it could pass on March 27th.  Ms. Brighty said she wasn't sure if it could pass then, and that people would need to be educated about the situation and the exact amounts needed would have to be determined, but she thought both probably could happen.  She said that without the strong support of every board that it wouldn't pass.  She said it depends how solidly the Select Board comes out in support, and that she would love to have the override on the annual election ballot rather than at another time when people might be more complacent about voting.

Mr. Churchill said that if the override were to be scheduled for a month later than the March 27th ballot, there might be an inclination to put off the education effort for another month also, and he said that part needs to begin as soon as possible. 

Mr. Hubley said all the discussion concerns money needed for schools and services.  He said consideration of people with fixed and low incomes, and the efforts the Town has made in inviting those people to live here, also need to be part of the discussion.  He said it was inconsistent to invite them to live here and make it impossible for them to stay.  He asked if it is true that the state constitution prevents passage of a progressive income tax.  Ms. Wentworth said it didn't prevent it, but past efforts at establishing one have always failed.  Mr. Hubley said that before he can think about an override, he would like to see protections for people who cannot pay. 

Ms. Wentworth said that another problem facing young families is that many have purchased their homes with high-rate mortgages and if the property tax increases, they will have a hard time. 

Ms. Awad said that the Select Board has been proactive in seeking tax exemptions, including those for the elderly, disabled and visually-impaired.  She said they were constrained by not being able to have an income tax and said that residential exemptions on property taxes are problematic because they mean higher costs for renters.  She said that a program letting seniors work off up to $700 in property taxes can be difficult because not everyone can get enough work hours to qualify.  She said it is an imperfect system without enough options for relief.

Ms. Greeney said that there are more than 9,000 households in Amherst and that 50% are renters and 50% are homeowners.  She said that many options for homeowners to mitigate their property taxes are outlined in the override report, and that much attention is given to seniors and their tax exemption options.  She said the amount of attention paid to renters and the homeless was insufficient.  She said that some people can afford to put a roof over their heads but can't afford food or medicine or the bus to Northampton to obtain services.  She said we need to keep our eyes open to ensure that their participation in town is adequate.  She asked the Finance Committee to assess the impact of an override on renters and those who have Section 8 vouchers.

Ms. Awad said that Mr. Shaffer could be asked to follow up with the Town Assessor on that question, and that it is an important factor.  Ms. Greeney said that part is needed in order to have a complete discussion.  Mr. Shaffer said he is happy to look into that, but cautioned that it might be tougher than assumed because of the wide range of rental situations.  He said there is a difference in rental sectors between those with high and low incomes.

Mr. Kusner returned to his earlier point about contract negotiations, and said that the numbers used in the models for state aid and budget growth could make a big difference in those negotiations.  He said he didn't want to “telegraph our hand so much” but said that if the model C scenario numbers were modified a bit, the end result has the town more in the black at the end of the five year period.  He asked if there were firm dates for when negotiations with the colleges about fire and EMS services would be complete, as well as those for the town and school employees.  He said that since we are looking at five-year scenarios, might five-year contracts be possible, or were they restricted to 3 years?

Mr. Shaffer said his understanding is that there is a three-year limit for public sector contracts in Massachusetts.  He said that his discussions with UMass about fire and EMS are conversations not negotiations, and that in December he sent a document to the school regarding cost to taxpayers of providing those services to the school.  He said there is no element of “we want X but we'll take Y.”  He said he hopes an agreement might take the form of a contract, perhaps for a 10-year term.  He said he hasn't approached the other schools yet because he felt it would be premature to do so before coming to an agreement with UMass.  He said the UMass conversations have been favorable so far and that he has approached them as our closest friend and ally.  He said that we are inextricably linked with UMass and that our ability to provide services and their need for them creates a symbiosis.  He said it would be premature to suggest a date for when discussions might be finished but that he hoped to have an answer before the Select Board finishes its deliberations.

Mr. Hubley asked if the document being discussed that evening was or could be available on the town web site.  He said that even though it is confusing, people would be glad to have it, and that it would make people think and enrich the public discussion.  Ms. Carlozzi said to be cautious because the document is a preliminary report and the numbers can't be regarded as absolutes.  Mr. Musante said it will change and be refined.  Ms. Awad suggested that it be prominently labeled as a draft, and said she was concerned that the Select Board had information others couldn't access.  Ms. Carlozzi said the next iteration would be better, and Mr. Musante said the document would go through many iterations this week. He said he is happy to get as much on the web site as possible. 

Mr. Weiss agreed that in its current form it might be tricky to put it on the web site.  He asked if it is true that the $7 million scenario involves no cuts, and Mr. Musante confirmed that.  Mr. Weiss asked if there were other scenarios that would involve cuts, and said the Mr. Shaffer had said that cuts and an override were most realistic. He said that he agrees that the combination will be necessary and wondered what the most realistic way of looking at the situation would be, saying that he didn't think $7 million would be realistic in March or June.

Mr. Kusner said to be careful with the word “cuts” since some are reductions in increases.  Mr. Weiss said that some are real cuts.  Mr. Kusner said that is true, but others are COLAs and step increases.  Mr. Kusner wondered if it might be possible or too much work to turn the document into the kind of form that people could fill in on the web site with their own numbers and assumptions, likening it to filling out a form on Travelocity.  He said he thought it would be about 25 different fields that could be filled in.  He said it could help show people how hard it is to plan. 

Mr. Hubley said it is a public document and his experience with budget stuff is that the numbers vary from meeting to meeting.  He suggested that calling it a budget process implies change, and that people are better off knowing more, and that encourages inclusion.  He said that people regard a document they can't see as evil and insidious, but if they can see it, they realize it's merely confusing.

Ms. Greeney said that there has been much sentiment regarding increased community dialogue and asked if the Select Board was ready to put consideration of another budget forum on the agenda for next week.  Ms. Awad said that yes, it could be discussed. 

Ms. Greeney said that in FY04 voters approved a $2 million dollar override, which she said was equal to $500,000 per year over four years.  She said that the important question wasn't how much was needed for an override but what amount was most likely to pass.  She said to consider how much people could afford including inflation, and asked that the Finance Committee construct a $3 million dollar scenario.

Ms. Awad noted that the Finance Committee would meet Thursday and asked if the discussion had to be limited to these figures.  Ms. Carlozzi said that the override could be for any amount that is appropriate. Ms. Awad asked if the Finance Committee was ready to recommend an amount, and Ms. Carlozzi said not until Friday morning, after the Thursday night meeting.  Ms. Carlozzi said she would be happy to forward the information at that time, and would be happy to attend the next Select Board meeting if that would be desirable. 

Ms. Brighty said that she would prefer that the document with the current numbers not be put on the web site yet because the regional school calculation was incorrect and needed to be fixed because it might be misleading.  She also suggested that working from absolute numbers might be less useful for people than figures about how the increase would affect increases on each house, based on its value.

Ms. Moskowitz said that many people pay 30% to 50% of income on housing, which indicates an affordable housing problem.  She said she was interested in the subsidized mortgage programs Mr. Weiss has discussed at a previous meeting and cautioned that such programs limit the eligibility to houses below certain assessed values.  She said that if assessments and property taxes are too high, then the houses would not be eligible for affordable mortgages.  She warned about displacing people and said that economic diversity is important and that the Town needs to support low and moderate income families.

Mr. Hubley said that he feels that budgets should drive overrides rather than overrides driving budgets.  He said that Town Meeting might exercise no discipline if faced with a $7 million override.  He suggested waiting until more was known about the Governor's budget.

Vince O'Connor said that it was useful when talking about commercial economic growth to consider that the $3.3 million deficit would require replicating the entire commercial structure of town to fix.  He said it was not a physical possibility to put $220 million of additional commercial property in town; that there's no place to put that much commercial property.  He said he cautioned the Board before putting an override on the ballot that includes multi-year speculation, to consider the first attempted override in 1990 or 1991, which he said failed either by a 3-2 or 2-1 margin.  He said that the override amount was increased 3-fold based on a poll that had said people were more likely to vote for a larger amount than a smaller one.  He said hard facts are needed before asking for that much money, and we don't have those facts yet.  He said he thought that the most telling comments at the Budget Forum were of Stan Rosenberg's enthusiasm for working to provide cities and towns with additional revenues and letting them buy into the state's health plan, and supporting the local option meals tax.  He said that this is a different political era and that we haven't had a democratic governor in 16 years, and that this governor will be able to do more than one who was elected with a smaller base of support.  He suggested giving the state's political change a chance for a few months, and waiting for the Governor's budget, before speculating on an override.  He said that the Select Board was familiar with the handout he distributed at the Budget Forum and said that it contained four or five things to pursue:  1) create a fire protection services enterprise fund, which he said would remove $1.5 million from the town budget forever, and would yield a substantial amount of money from UMass and other non-profits, because we could then bill them for the services; 2) everyone should lobby the Governor as he makes his budget; 3) the elected bodies should instruct the Town Manager and School Superintendent to remove all COLAs from town budgets, and make it clear that it is a policy decision because the town is facing a $3.3 million override; 4) targeted budget cuts; and 5) he said there are some large capital projects not scheduled to be bonded, and substantial budget space could result if those $400,00-500,000 projects were bonded out.   He said the fire enterprise fund is key and that budget space could be evenly shared by taking fire protection services out of the budget, and new revenues would come in.  He said that the town shouldn't be begging the schools for money, that that isn't professional or business-like and that that is the wrong relationship to have with those enterprises; we should have a professional business relationship that lets us bill them for services we provide.

Mr. Shaffer said that the fire enterprise fund proposal has been on the table since he arrived and that he and Mr. Musante had discussed it and that he sees no opportunity to put it in place.  He said that it is a principle of public administration that you can't do by indirection what the law prevents you from doing directly.  He said you can't take a tax-supported device and turn it into an enterprise fund.  He said that otherwise you would put everything in an enterprise fund.  He said that the proposal has no standing in any type of law and that if it were possible, everyone would do it and the town would have done it already.

Mr. O'Connor said that the water and sewer funds are examples of services we bill for and other towns do by taxation.  He said that proves that if we provide the service, it is fair that they pay for it.  He said that the University has its own police force and so we couldn't bill for that, and that public works would not be appropriate, but that fire protection is a municipal service that the town is not compensated for.  He said that if Mr. Shaffer's principle was correct, we wouldn't have the water and sewer enterprise funds, or the solid waste enterprise fund.  He said it would require a special act of the state legislature to do this, and as such would require the support of the University and colleges, but that the principle is the same as needing the legislation that enabled UMass to enter into the police Mutual Aid Agreement.

Ms. Awad said that if Mr. O'Connor gives the Select Board his information on this topic, it would go in their packets. 

Ms, Awad asked if the other members were prepared to wrestle with the budget issues on their own before next week's meeting.  Ms. Greeney said she had a question about the tentativeness of the models and needed clarification.  She asked about the 2% and 5% assumptions for state aid, and asked what happens if that number increases over the 5 year period – would that be additional money for the reserves or would it get spent in that year?  She also wanted to know what would happen if state aid was less than 5% – would that require another override? 

Mr. Shaffer said the models have not taken those different nuances into consideration.  He said they set certain factors in place, and use the amount of the override and percentages as the variable.  He said that in the final analysis, they need to agree on some set of projections. 

Mr. Weiss asked if he could send more scenario-generating numbers to Mr. Musante to consider, and Mr. Musante said yes.  Mr. Weiss said that all the scenarios contemplate using reserves at some point and he said that they vary from $270,000 to $360,000 in reserves.  He said that if we're willing to consider using that amount, we should consider using more, and mentioned that reserves are currently at $700,000 over initial projections.  He said that if we are still considering using reserves, we should also consider using them at higher amounts.

Mr. Musante said that the model numbers are not precise dollar figures, and that the number Mr. Weiss is citing as reserve use is a rounding factor for the model.  He said that none of the scenarios utilize reserves, and that the models try to predict five years and $300 million in town budget spending – the $260,000 was a rounding factor to zero out the projection.  He said that the guiding budget principle was to not use any reserves – only the reserves generated by the override itself.  He said that if Mr. Weiss wanted it, he could create different models that show use of reserves, but that would be a different path.

Mr. Weiss said that all the scenarios use reserves for rounding and that they are small number but still use reserves.  He said that if we can contemplate that kind of number, why not contemplate using $700,000?  He said all have the scenario of not touching the principal.

Ms. Carlozzi said that the reserves Mr. Musante is talking about are override reserves, not the regular town reserves.

Mr. Kusner said that we are in conversations and negotiations, and we need to make those as clear as possible before moving forward. He also said that he wanted to get a definitive legal opinion about Mr. O'Connor's enterprise fund suggestion.  He said it would be effective to know the situation and whether we might change the law in a way that would be fair to all concerned.  He said the three year contract limit is unfortunate and complicates a five-year planning scenario, giving uncertainty after three years.  He said that perhaps that state law also should be changed to accommodate longer term contracts, and said that was a legal question.

Manager's Report

There was no Manager's Report.

Ms. Awad encouraged viewers to e-mail any budget ideas or comments to SelectBoard@amherstma.gov, or call the office.

The meeting adjourned at 9:44 p.m.

-- Stephanie O'Keeffe