(3/21/07)  The Select Board met Monday, March 19th.  Anne Awad, Rob Kusner, Gerry Weiss, Hwei-Ling Greeney and Robie Hubley were all present, as was Town Manager Larry Shaffer.

Public Comment – Town Meeting Handbook

Janice Ratner, President of the League of Women Voters, presented each Select Board member with the new edition of the Town Meeting Handbook.  Ms. Ratner said this was the 7th edition of the handbook, and she thanked all who assisted with its accuracy.  She said the new editions would be available at Town Meeting, at the Warrant Review Meeting on April 18th, as well as at the libraries and at Town Hall.  She said people could also get a copy by calling the League at 253-0633.

Public Comment – Lincoln Avenue Accident

Joan Lind said she lives on McClellan Street and drives Lincoln Avenue every day.  She described an accident she came upon last week on Lincoln, in which a UMass student had been jogging and was hit by a car.  She spoke about the danger of the street and the difficulty in driving it when people run, walk, skateboard and bicycle in the road, often side-by-side.  She also mentioned the added complication of people parking in the road and taking up most of a travel lane.  She said the road is “not well-planned.” 

Discussion – Traffic Calming for Lincoln Avenue Neighborhood

Mr. Kusner had sketched a map of the Lincoln Avenue neighborhood on the white board, to aid the discussion. 

Mr. Shaffer spoke of how much attention the concerns about traffic speed and volume in this area have received, and how he and Town staff have engaged with the residents to hear many ideas of how the problem might be solved.  He called the situation “a Gordian Knot,” and said many options had been proposed and rejected.  He said the plan the neighbors have proposed of putting up jersey barrier-type diverters at key intersections to create an internal two-way loop that prevents through traffic to and from the University has been repeatedly rejected by the Fire Chief.  The Chief would support diverters that could be elevated or otherwise moved out of the way to allow emergency vehicles to pass, but that fixed diverters would prevent use of that route and result in compromised response time for dealing with emergencies on campus.  Mr. Shaffer said the Select Board's recent suggestions about stop signs had been passed along to the DPW, and that there would be a response from them soon.

Mr. Kusner talked about the idea he has previously mentioned about creating a series of alternating one-way segments in that area, which he said might require residents to take an extra trip around the block when coming and going, but would allow emergency vehicles to pass unobstructed.  He said that would allow for more road space for those jogging and bicycling, and would create “a meandering path” to and from the University.  He said that DPW Superintendent Guilford Mooring has called this a “textbook solution,” and Mr. Kusner said he hoped such an idea would be considered among the options. 

Mr. Weiss asked why Mr. Mooring hadn't pursued the idea and if he had mentioned any concerns.  Mr. Kusner said that at the time, the main thing being considered was physical blockades, and said that Mr. Mooring had pointed out that this proposal would require paint, which costs money. 

Mr. Hubley said that calming traffic in that neighborhood might have good results there, but might displace the problem to somewhere else as drivers choose alternate routes.  He said that he had submitted a memo and map with his own proposed solution, which he has spoken of previously, about stemming the tide of pedestrians crossing Massachusetts Avenue by putting a fence down the middle and creating overpasses and underpasses instead of crosswalks.  He said it is the University's responsibility to enable access to campus and that the problem won't be solved by ignoring it.  He said he had submitted this proposal months ago and hasn't heard whether the idea had been presented to the DPW or the UMass Chancellor.

Mr. Shaffer said he had shared Mr. Hubley's proposal with the DPW. He said that they are aware of the impact pedestrian crossing has on encouraging drivers to seek alternate routes to campus, and they have discussed that with the UMass facilities people.  Mr. Shaffer said he hasn't brought the proposal up with the Chancellor yet because he was waiting to have a full plan for that whole area. 

Mr. Kusner said that he agreed with Mr. Hubley in theory, but pointed out that North Pleasant Street has significant pedestrian crossing, and drivers still use it.  He said that traffic calming might require slowing all traffic down, and that many of the drivers have other options for getting to the campus.  He said that UMass has obligations under the Clean Air Act and that while they do well with that with their heating plant, he said that commuters are “still a major problem.”  He said he agreed that the University needed to do better with pedestrian crossings, but that that kind of change would be sometime in the future.  He said he didn't want to lose the opportunity to try something simple and urged consideration of his proposal.

Ms. Greeney said that she lives in the Lincoln Ave. neighborhood, and wanted to “declare (her) bias there.”  She said that traffic calming is a job unto itself, and that the Select Board shouldn't have much to do with that.  She said that while much discussion has taken place, all the stakeholders have not been at the table at the same time, and she wanted to make that happen.  She said she wanted to get this off the Select Board's agenda and have the Town Manager bring all the parties together, and suggested the possibility of a task force.  Ms. Awad said that the Town Manager has had many discussions with the various parties, but Ms. Greeney said that they have never all been together at the same time.  She said she would like the neighbors to have the opportunity to hear from the Fire Chief about their proposal, and she questioned whether the delay in response time by re-routing emergency vehicles would be significant or outside the scope of the 6-minute response guideline.  She said the neighbors would like to see their proposal tried for some period of time, such as 30, 60 or 90 days.  She said that Phil Jackson had presented data showing that there have been more than a dozen incidents in the last 18 months, and she said she is frustrated by the situation.

Steve Braun of Lincoln Ave. said that he had sent the Select Board an e-mail in the wake of the recent accident.  He said that the traffic volume on the street made for a dangerous situation.  He said he found Mr. Kusner's proposal intriguing, and said that all ideas were needed.  He said he liked the idea of a summit with representatives from all the parties at the table together for several hours sharing information and ideas, and seeking an actionable outcome.

Mr. Shaffer praised Mr. Braun, Ms. Greeney and Mr. Jackson for their diligence on this issue and said it has motivated Town staff to work as quickly as possible toward a solution.  He said that the Fire Chief has made it clear on numerous occasions that solid diverters would not be an option.  He called Mr. Hubley's and Mr. Kusner's proposals “intriguing.”  He said that there would not be a single solution that will make everyone happy, but that a solution must help as many people as possible and be safe.

Mr. Kusner suggested that Ms. Greeney's suggestion to bring everyone together be a motion.  Ms. Greeney said she would like to see both a short-term and long-term solution come out of the proposed summit – a short-term solution to help that neighborhood, and a long-term solution of creating a body to deal with traffic calming in general.  She said that without that dedicated body, Mr. Hubley's concern about solving the problem in one area by creating another somewhere else wouldn't be addressed.

Mr. Jackson said that “the Town dodged a bullet” last week when the jogger was hit and wasn't seriously injured.  He said the combination of high density, residential and mixed uses in the area was “a recipe for disaster.”  He said that the area has 60 accidents per year, and 30 per year if Amity Street isn't included, but he noted that there is no recording of “near-misses,” which he said were plentiful.  He said one of the challenges was to keep track of all the efforts so they don't have to start at the beginning each time, and he had a chart that showed the previous meetings that had taken place on the subject, and he noted that the current bunch of ideas have all been suggested previously.  He said that a cohesive effort was needed, and supported the notion of getting all concerned parties together for the first time to directly share information.

Mr. Kusner said that UMass should have representation at such a meeting, and then the vote on the motion was called.  There was unanimous support for gathering all parties together to discuss the traffic and safety issues of the Lincoln Avenue neighborhood.

Consent Calendar

The Consent Calendar included the minutes of the March 12th Executive Session and the March 12th meeting.  They were approved 4-0, with Ms. Greeney abstaining, as she was not present on March 12th.

Committee Appointments

Mr. Weiss recommended that Sylvia Cuomo be appointed to the Public Art Commission.  The Board unanimously approved that appointment. 

Override

Ms. Awad said that this was the meeting when the Select Board would have to make its final decision on the override ballot.  She said that last week they had approved putting the $2.5 million amount on the ballot.

Ms. Greeney said that the three-year, $2.5 million Finance Committee proposal projects a multi-million dollar shortfall after three years, and she said that she would want to make that override amount last longer.  She said that she wouldn't want to commit to spending at the proposed 5.5% increase levels in years two and three, and would prefer a smaller amount such as 4.5%, which she said would lead to a $1.5 million shortfall in at the end of five years, versus $6.5 million at the end of three years.  She said there was a better chance to be able to get additional revenue from UMass for fire services, from the meals tax, telecom loophole and economic development in five years rather than in three.  She said she doesn't want to have to seek another override in three years and would be reluctant to support the proposal with the current increases, preferring 4.5% and calling the proposed figures “way too high for me” and “not sustainable.” 

Mr. Weiss said that Ms. Greeney's point was a good one, and said that history has shown that the Town can't sustain 5.5% annual growth.  He referenced an article he had copied and made available to attendees about budgets outpacing revenues, and said this was “not an Amherst problem,” but a state-wide problem.  He said that Ms. Greeney was right about the huge deficit in year four, and said that while there is some reason to expect the situation would be better than that, he questioned whether this was a good way to build a budget.

Alice Carlozzi, Chair of the Finance Committee, said that the 5.5% increases follow cuts in FY08 when spending is capped at 3% growth, so the 5.5% would be an increase from a lower level.  She repeated the points about the plan calling for cuts in FY08, and then attempting level service funding for years two and three.  She said that 5.5% might just keep up with inflation, but wouldn't be more than that.  She said that lower levels could be considered but that she felt that 4.5% was too low because it would require additional cuts in those years, which is counter to the plan's goal of providing predictability and stability.  Regarding the question of a smaller override amount, Ms. Carlozzi said she had read the memo Mr. Hubley had prepared and made available at the meeting, and didn't agree with the conclusion that a smaller amount should be put on the ballot.  She said that citizens needed a clear, uncluttered option to vote for a plan that includes spending caps and new revenue generation and so forth, and not just different override amounts.  She said that she looked at override vote histories in other towns and said that she found no case in which the lower amount didn't prevail, calling that outcome “almost automatic.”  She said that this plan is trying to allow for a different way of conducting the Town's financial affairs, one that for the first time projects not just future revenues but also future spending and other fiscal activities.  She said that this is different than just an override amount, and said it is “a whole different question.”  She said there was no way to include the plan details in the ballot question because the State requires that it be bare-bones.  She said it would be too bad to lose the opportunity for a planned use of resources.

Mr. Weiss asked if it was fair to say that caps could be set but not met, comparing it to the speed limit as an upper ceiling, not a requirement.  Ms. Carlozzi said that the plan had been put out for consideration to other committees as-is, and that to the extent that it was being accepted by them, it was with the proposed caps.  Ms. Awad asked what other committees Ms. Carlozzi was referring to.  Ms. Carlozzi said the Select Board, the Regional and Elementary School Committees, and the Jones Library Trustees.  She said the two School Committees have already voted to support it, but the Library has not done so.

Mr. Hubley said that in the fourth paragraph of his memo, he states that he agrees with everything about the three-year plan, except for the commitment of three years instead of one year.  He reiterated his points from previous meetings about projections not holding up over time, the possibility of the new Governor and legislature creating better outcomes than expected, the possibility of the Presidential election and the situation in Iraq resulting in improvements to the economy and federal funding, the ability to correct and adjust the plan next year based on the new information, and that a $1.5 million override would provide the same money available to spend in FY08 as the $2.5 million override.  He said that if another override were to be needed next year, the amount might be larger or smaller than currently predicted.

Ms. Carlozzi reiterated her points from past meetings about acceptance of the plan by the budgeting bodies requiring full funding and a commitment to the full plan from the beginning, and that $2.5 million is crucial for that funding.

Ms. Greeney said that she admired the Finance Committee's and Ms. Carlozzi's and Mr. Musante's “ability to see above the fray and try to give us a comprehensive plan to get us out of the rut” with three to five year planning.  She said that if another override number were to be put on the ballot, she would want to first have a conversation with the School Committee, the Library Trustees and the Town Manager about how to make that money last for a longer term, without having a shortfall.

Mr. Shaffer said that he congratulated the Finance Committee, the two School Committees and the Select Board for recognizing the necessity of a three-year or multi-year plan, in order to avoid the same “poisonous budget process” each year.  He said that all seemed to agree that a multi-year plan was necessary, to be put in place either comprehensively or incrementally, and that the disagreement was over tinkering with the numbers.  He said the Town was trying to create a new model that gets away from always hoping that the next year will be better.  He said he is wholly in favor of the three-year plan with its spending caps, and said the spending did not have to reach the caps.  He said the Town has been gradually choked off from revenue streams due to Proposition 2 ½, and lack of growth in the community and the tax base. 

Mr. Weiss said he understood the “let the voters decide” reasoning for putting two amounts on the ballot, but said that most of the voters would not recognize that those were not simply two amounts, but were two different concepts.  He said he wasn't sure the necessary mechanisms existed in the community to make people sufficiently aware of all the details to do justice to two override options.  He said the $2.5 million option is the one the Finance Committee and many members of the Budget Coordinating Group think is best, and that there is no way to proceed that won't cause some pain.  Referring again to the article he provided, he said that there is an annual average of 62 override ballot questions state-wide, and that adopting a multi-year approach is a necessity.   He said that two options on the ballot would give the false sense that they were two override amounts instead of two concepts, and that one override option is best for Amherst.  He said he agreed to look at the spending caps in case they are too high.  He said the voters already have to make two decisions regarding the override:  do they trust their elected and hired leaders to come up with the best plan for the Town; and can they (the voters) afford it.  He said he hoped the discussion would be short, and said he didn't know what new information there could be, and that he didn't want to rehash old arguments.

Ms. Greeney said she appreciated the support of not wanting a shortfall at the end of three years.  She said 5.5% budget growth isn't sustainable, and she said she was not comfortable trusting elected officials to have the discipline to stay below that, and said she expected them to push that limit.  She said she wanted a dialogue among the three committees about the effects of changing the limits to 4.5% in years two and three, and said that if they agreed to that, the shortfall at the end of five years would be $1.3 million instead of $6.2 million.  She said she wasn't ready to endorse a number without a discussion next week with those three entities.

John Musante, Finance Director, said he wanted to respond to some of the points Ms. Greeney made.  He said that at the many meetings about a multi-year plan he has made clear the fact that the most important part is the concept, not the precision of the numbers.  He said that the finance officials had started with a five-year plan, but that there was more comfort with the three-year version and its projections for spending caps, better State aid increases, specific economic development initiatives to build the tax base and other new revenue possibilities.  He said the projections show a shortfall of over $2 million dollars at year four, but said that a shortfall is very different from a deficit, and that the Finance Committee is not recommending a situation that would result in a future deficit.  He said that all the other elements of the plan, if implemented in full or in part, will get the Town most or all of the way to sustaining the plan beyond three years, so there is no shortfall, but he said that those will require real work  to make them happen, not just hoping. He said that the point of presenting concepts in addition to the override is to sustain Town services at adequate levels.  He said the plan requires $1.5 million in cuts in the first year, and said that if spending growth were to be reduced to 4.5% in years two and three, that would require almost $1 million in additional reductions beyond those required by this year's 3% cap.  He said there will already be service reductions coming in the first year, and said that the town has to decide what level of town, school and library services it wants to provide.  He said that the 5.5% caps allow for relative stability after the year one cuts.

Mr. Hubley reiterated his points about endorsing most parts of the plan, and said that if the Finance Committee's plan is correct, the outcome will be $1 million of debt in 2010 and $2.3 million in 2011, which he said puts us in the same position as we're in now, but on a long course to get there.  He again suggested keeping all elements of the plan but using the $1.5 million amount, and said that the Town has to make a budget every year anyway, and that won't change and said that those responsible for the budget are the ones who get the six-figure salaries, so it is part of their jobs.  He reiterated his points about the ability to make adjustments with a one-year plan, the inability to predict or bind actions of future committees, that it is an exercise of leadership to have these discussions, and that the voters should get to decide the amount they can afford.

Elaine Brighty, Chair of the Regional School Committee and member of the Amherst School Committee, referenced a memo the Board had received from the Budget Coordinating Group about why it recommended a single override question as being the clearest and most useful option.  She said that going year by year amounts to a one-year plan.  She said the last time there was an override, the money was spent that year and didn't last longer because it wasn't planned to last.  She said that the three-year plan requires all of its elements in order to be effective, and that if you do it piecemeal, it is not the same plan.  She said that the deficit at the end of the projections assumes that nothing else has changed, and that the Town isn't working to increase the tax base and isn't working with the State legislature and isn't pursuing the plan's other revenue options, and said that those are all things the Town is supposed to be working on in that time period.  She said we need a three-year plan and that the willingness to stick to the spending caps isn't just about trust, but is a promise Amherst is making to itself and the whole community, and that the committees and Town Meeting would not exceed those caps.  She said that whether or not the caps were too high depended on other revenue work.  She said that the numbers in the out years were not exact and were just a model, and that to substitute different numbers gives results in those years that are no more exact than the current numbers. 

Ms. Greeney said that she wished she were as optimistic as Ms. Brighty, and said the predicted new revenue for fire and emergency services to UMass might amount to $500,000, that $500,000 would be optimistic for a new hotel and meals tax, and that the telecom loophole might yield $300,000, for a total of $1.3 million in new revenue that she called “very optimistic.”  She said that still left a $2 million shortfall and said it would require $140 million in economic development to yield that sum. She said that if the planned Hampshire College condominium development sold every unit for $330,000 each, that would bring in $50 million dollars in economic development and would yield $800,000 in tax revenue, but said building hasn't even begun yet, so she doesn't want to count on that money.  She said she wants to be practical, not just optimistic, and again spoke of her desire for 4.5% caps instead of 5.5%.

Mr. Kusner said that at the last meeting they had unanimously agreed to put the $2.5 million option on the ballot, and wondered if Ms. Greeney intended to support that.  He said that her notion of reducing the spending caps might put the idea of a second question in a new light, and that projecting out either override amount to last longer was a matter of arithmetic.  He said that he would support the higher amount, but said he believes in the “wisdom of crowds,” and that the public might best decide.  He said he urged his fellow members to put both options on the ballot and to consider the potential of both amounts in terms of multi-year use.

Mr. Hubley reiterated his points about being able to readjust next year with his plan, and said there was nothing to stop the town from coming up with a new three-year plan next year that reflected the conditions appropriate to that time.

Mr. Weiss reiterated his point about not being able to communicate the necessary information to the public about the two options, and said he doesn't agree that $1.5 million is a three-year plan, and said it is a one-year plan.  He said it would require another override next year, possibly with a higher price tag.  He said it wouldn't collect the same amount of revenue as the $2.5 million three-year plan.  He said they were arguing about a belief, and while he respects the belief about the one-year plan, he doesn't agree with it and won't vote for it.

Ms. Awad asked the audience to refrain from audible groaning and said that was distracting and disturbing.  She said there was no absolute right answer to the questions they were dealing with, and that they were trying to listen to each other.

David Clooney said he is an Amherst resident, a firefighter, and President of the firefighters' union.  He said he agreed with Mr. Weiss' point about not having the apparatus to adequately disseminate the information about two different ballot questions, and that they would be seen as just two dollar amounts.  He said that while many present had put the effort into understanding all the details, the public has not done that.  He said that last time there was an override, the lesser amount passed narrowly.  He said he was concerned because all Town services are lumped in together and said the time to decide how to break up the numbers has passed.  He said he urged one lump sum, and that the voters already are deciding if they want an override at all, and that it is a stretch to understand all the details.  Ms. Awad said that no one is suggesting separate amounts for different categories, and that they are only discussing two lump sums. He said he understood that.  He said that in regard to the earlier traffic calming discussion, talk about emergency response times is insignificant when compared to the fact that Amherst has the most understaffed department in the State, and said if there is no one available to take the emergency call, traffic barriers won't matter.

Alexandra Leras said she had sent a letter to the Select Board.  She said she is a former school teacher, newspaper reporter and businessperson.  She said that she opposes putting a second amount on the ballot, because she wants people to vote up or down whether they support an override, and she said she does not support one.  She said she thinks it's time to tighten the belt and cut the fat, and said that except for Public Safety, all other budget expenditures should be open for discussion.  She said she has never carried debt, and that you can't predict what the State and Federal governments might do in the future, and that we can only count on the money the Town knows it can collect. She said everyone should share the pain, and she said this was important to say and said she wasn't going to feel intimidated as she has in the past.

Doug Slaughter, a Finance Committee member, said that a single question allows the community to give a direct response as to whether they want to enter into this agreement.  He called it an “agreement with ourselves” about whether to raise our own taxes, how we want to fund the town, and how much we want to fund it.   And he said the answer can be “no.”  He said the other piece of the plan is that it guarantees some stability by providing an expectation of what the budget situation will be, and he said that allows time to be more creative with how budgets are approached.  He said it provides a time frame for seeking efficiencies and planning.

Barbara Levine said the Ms. Leras' comments show how hard it is to communicate about the cuts the plan requires.  She asked how people would know what would be eliminated from Town services.  She said the Town is not running at the same rate as in the past, and that this is the kind of education the public needs about the situation.  She said there should be just one question on the ballot in order to avoid confusion.

Mr. Kusner said both sides have been heard from, and one side thinks the higher amount provides for level services while the other side thinks the higher amount guarantees that the override will fail.  He asked what would happen next if it were to fail.

Ms. Awad said the Finance Committee would plan a budget without the additional override funds, and that there would be the option of considering another override vote with a smaller amount.  She said we could wait until Town Meeting has passed a no-override budget, so people know what the impact will be, and then call a special election for a new override amount.

Ms. Carlozzi said that we already know what the budget looks like without an override, and that we have it in hand, and that the Finance Committee has every intention of including that in its report to Town Meeting.

Mr. Kusner said that wasn't his question.  He said he wanted to know what people would do and what the strategy would be.  He said it was a “game theoretic decision,” and wanted to know what the next move would be.  He asked if it would be the same 3-year plan question, or a stop-gap $1 - 1.5 million dollar option, or if a draconian 1% budget would be pursued.

Ms. Carlozzi said there were many possibilities, including that both options might be put on the ballot and both might fail.  She said that would be no worse off than just putting the $2.5 million option on the ballot and having it fail.  She said if the $1.5 million were to pass, then we'd be back for another override next year. 

Mr. Shaffer said this hasn't been talked about among the budgeting bodies yet, but that he thinks they would analyze the vote results to try to determine the level of the dissatisfaction, and try to come back with the same plan and an amount as close as possible to the original number, and to do that as quickly as possible.  He said they would analyze the lapse in education about the override need, consider the size of the rejection and act accordingly.

Ms. Greeney reiterated her desire for lower increases, and suggested caps of 1-3%, and making any override amount last longer than currently forecast.

Mr. Hubley moved to put two override questions on the ballot, one for $1.5 million and one for $2.5 million.  Ms. Greeney said she seconded it for the sake of discussion.

Mr. Kusner asked Mr. Hubley if in light of Ms. Greeney's ideas, if he still wanted to pursue the one-year plan, or if he might be willing to adjust his number slightly.  Mr. Kusner said that if so, that he thought that would be a worthwhile discussion.

Ms. Awad suggested focusing on the merits of two questions.

Mr. Hubley talked about separating the plan from the dollar amount and how there should always be a plan for government – not just when an override is needed.  He said that at the end of every year you should look at what has been done to meet the terms of the plan, and said by way of example that last year some departments had begun to charge fees to assist with their budget woes and the plan was to have them report on the that, but that didn't happen, and he said that's how plans are.  He said to try the plan for one year and then reevaluate, and said that the proposed override would be a serious difficulty for many in town, to which Mindy Domb in the audience responded loudly, “Don't assume!” and Mr. Hubley said we don't know what people can afford.

Mr. Kusner said that the Ms. Greeney's idea about making the $2.5 million last for five years rather than three could also be applied to Mr. Hubley's $1.5 million proposal, but that it would have to be increased to $1.7 million to make it last for three years.  He said he doesn't want to re-do everyone else's plan, and that if the goal was to find an amount they thought the public would support and to not have to deal with this same process every year, this option might satisfy both.

Mr. Hubley said the plan is separate from the amount and that his proposal allows for the same money to be spent in the first year as the Finance Committee's proposal.  He said that there is no actual plan established and that the memo from March 5th says that it is for discussion only and isn't a set plan.  He said it lists courses to take to raise funds or reduce expenses, but that those are not the only ones.  He said they represent the kinds of things that could be done, and that they are not a plan now, but represent the idea that we should have a plan.  He said that with the $1.5 million amount, we could take the year to make the plan.

Ms. Greeney said that the underlying rationale of Mr. Hubley's proposal is that it is a one-year plan, and that she wants a plan that stretches an override amount out to last three years or more.  She said she doesn't expect a million dollars in new revenue to fill the gap by next year, and that she doesn't support Mr. Hubley's proposal.

The vote was called on the motion to add put both the $1.5 million and $2.5 million override amounts on the May 1st ballot.  Ms. Awad and Mr. Hubley voted in favor, Mr. Weiss and Ms. Greeney voted to oppose, and Mr. Kusner abstained. The motion failed.

Mr. Kusner proposed the same motion, but with $1.7 million rather than $1.5 million.  He said that would address Ms. Greeney's proposal of allowing the smaller amount to last for three years through belt tightening and budget cutting. 

Ms. Awad asked what difference $200,000 would make.  Mr. Kusner said it is a matter of arithmetic, and if Ms. Greeney's intent is to make the $2.5 million last for five years, similar steps would allow the $1.7 million to last for three years.  Ms. Greeney said she couldn't see how that amount could provide for no shortfall in three years.  Mr. Kusner said that the $1.7 million over three years was the same as $2.5 million over five years, and that the computations involved averaging.

Mr. Hubley said that the plan was not formulated or accepted anywhere and that actual money has not been applied to the plan.  He said one can't plan for four and five years in the future, and that that was extrapolating beyond real data to be now extrapolating beyond extrapolated data.  He said that whether there were one or two ballot questions, a plan would need to be created saying what the money would be used for.

Mr. Kusner said he agreed that he was extrapolating from the concept offered by Ms. Greeney.  He said that Board was trapped between Scylla and Charybdis – a rock and a hard place – and that he was trying to come up with a number that would get support from the whole Board if there was to be a second question.

Ms. Greeney suggested putting it off until next week, but was told that there would not be a meeting next Monday, so the decision had to be made at this meeting.  She was concerned that they would not be able to learn about the other committees' willingness to support 4.5% caps and said she wouldn't be able to advocate as effectively for the override with the current projected shortfall.

Mr. Hubley said that the $1.5 million amount is just intended for one year and said that to extrapolate it out to five years was absurd.  He said a longer plan would require a larger amount, and that they didn't have a plan, but just had numbers.  He called it “sui generis.”

Mr. Shaffer said that what they were talking about was raising the levy limit and having spending caps.  He said that if $2.5 million passes, that would yield  $5 million in new tax revenues over two years, while if $1.5 million passes, that would yield $3 million in two years, and said that would leave us $2 million in the hole next year with this proposal.  He re-emphasized raising the levy limit and imposing spending caps and said that if those caps were reduced, the budgeting entities would have to comply.  He said the point of raising the levy limit was to allow for predictability and stability moving forward with a plan that makes sense.

The vote was called on the motion to put a $1.7 million and a $2.5 million override question on the ballot.  Ms. Awad, Mr. Hubley and Mr. Kusner voted in favor, Mr. Weiss voted to oppose, and Ms. Greeney abstained.  The motion passed.

Mr. Weiss left the room and Ms. Awad called for a short break.

When the break ended, Ms. Awad asked if the Board wished to reconsider the motion or move on.  Mr. Hubley said he preferred to move on.  Mr. Weiss said he wanted to know what the difference was between $1.7 million and $1.5 million, and said he was baffled.  Mr. Kusner said he didn't think people wanted to watch him doing arithmetic in front of a Select Board meeting, and Mr. Weiss said he wanted the math.

Mr. Kusner said that Ms. Greeney wants $2.5 million to last for five years.  Mr. Weiss said that isn't the plan – the plan is for three years.  Mr. Kusner said he isn't proposing that $1.7 million has to stretch over three years.  Mr. Weiss asked how $200,000 could last for two more years.  Mr. Kusner said it was hypothetical, to address Ms. Greeney's concerns about being unable to support the three-year plan because she wanted five years, and said that the $1.7 million for three years worked out the same as Ms. Greeney's $2.5 million for five years, if the plan is for linear growth in the budget expenditures.

Ms. Greeney said she regretted that there had not been enough discussion around this idea and its merits.  She said there was no plan behind the numbers and asked what the cap percentage would be under the $1.7 million proposal.  Mr. Kusner said it would be the same caps she had proposed over five years.  Ms. Greeney asked if that meant 3% in the first year and 4.5% in year two.  Mr. Kusner interrupted and said it was what she had proposed implicitly if she intended to stretch $2.5 million over five years, and that he didn't know her plans for explicit percentage increases.  He said that if she had wanted the original $2.5 million to last for five years and if she had wanted to have something last for three years, it would need to be $1.7 million.

Ms. Awad said that the Board had backed into two questions without a clear feeling for that.  She said that now there are two ballot questions $1.7 million and $2.5 million, and asked if that is what the Board wants.  She said tonight would be the final decision, and asked if they want two questions, or one question, and whether they wanted to take a step back to be clear on the pros and cons of each.

Mr. Hubley said that they had discussed the motion and voted on it, and that it was dangerous to establish the precedent that you can step back and start over if you don't like the outcome of a vote.  He said he thought it was a fair and open vote, and that going back would be wrong.  He said he wondered what a parliamentarian would say.  Ms. Awad said she wanted to get beyond the mathematical approach, which she said was less important than the concept.  Mr. Hubley said that they had already voted and everyone understood what they were voting for. 

Ms. Greeney said she agreed that someone from the side that prevailed should withdraw the vote.  Mr. Weiss tried to move to rescind, but was told the motion had to come from one who voted on the prevailing side.

Ms. Awad said the chair rarely moves, but she would move to reconsider the question.  Mr. Kusner seconded the motion.  Ms. Awad said that her concern was that she would like the Board to come down definitively about one question or two, and she said it wouldn't have to be a unanimous vote and could even have the same outcome, as long as everyone was clear on the intention.

Mr. Kusner said he agreed that they needed to be clear on that.  He said he made the motion in order to get all the members engaged, and that they couldn't meet next week, and that he was trying to convey a way to make the proposed lower amount last longer, just as they had been considering making the larger amount last longer.  He said if there were to only be one question, that would be a different consideration, and that they should consider the “wisdom of crowds” and their ability to choose, but that they had to first know whether they wanted one or two questions. He said now they had some idea what the questions would be, where as they previously hadn't known that either.

Mr. Weiss said he now understood Mr. Kusner's math, and that he (Mr. Weiss) had been voting against two options.  He said others may have been just voting for two options, or for a different financing plan, and he asked if other members understood what they had voted for.  Mr. Hubley said he understood.  Ms. Awad said she understood, and that she voted for it because she believes an override is needed and that she embraces the Finance Committee's planned approach.  She said that because she has grave concerns about the $2.5 million question passing, she wanted a lower option.

Ms. Greeney said she apologized for not understanding the proposal conceptually or contextually.  She said she wanted the Finance Committee, the Select Board, the Town Manager, the schools and the library to consider these numbers and talk about them at Wednesday's Budget Coordinating Group meeting, and suggested the Select Board meet about this on Thursday or Friday.

Ms. Awad said that the group had decided three weeks ago that it would be at this meeting that they would decide, and that they would not meet next Monday.   She said some of the discussion around the different percentages can still happen, and can still be discussed by other boards and committees.  She said the Select Board's job was to put a question or questions on the ballot.

Ms. Greeney said she accepted that explanation, but that she wanted to understand the percentage increases over the three years.  Mr. Shaffer said he would speak with Mr. Musante and Ms. Carlozzi about this and would get back to the Board with that information.

Ms. Awad said she wanted to focus the discussion on the pros and cons of one and two questions.

Mr. Weiss said this put them back where they started.  He said the $1.7 million option was a different concept, and was even more complicated.  He said he was vehement that this proposal was worse than the $1.5 million option they had voted down, and that there would be no way to explain this, and that people would choose the lower number or neither.  He said it was the illusion of two numbers versus two concepts, and that he couldn't imagine trying to explain this to voters.

Mr. Kusner described again why he had made the $1.7 million dollar motion, as way of explaining how the Board got to this point.

Ms. Awad called the vote on the motion to reconsider.  Ms. Awad, Mr. Kusner, Mr. Weiss and Ms. Greeney all voted in support, and Mr. Hubley voted to oppose.  The motion to reconsider passed. 

Mr. Hubley asked if they were now discussing one question versus two.  He said he thought the original motion had conspicuously subsumed the question of how many questions to put on the ballot.  He said it hadn't been a philosophical discussion of two versus one, and it wasn't that one outcome was sought but they got another.  He said this was now a chance to reconsider the whole thing.  He said that two-versus-one is only meaningful in the context of what was being discussed, and said that otherwise it is an empty decision.  He said that offering two questions provides choice, and said otherwise the only choice is voting yes or no on the one question.

Mr. Weiss asked if since they had voted to reconsider, they now needed to vote to rescind. Ms. Awad said only the winner could move to reconsider, but anyone can move to rescind.   She said if they don't reconcile the question of two versus one, they would continue to go around and around on the subject.  Mr. Weiss asked if they could have the vote on two versus one before rescinding, Mr. Hubley said he thought they could.  Mr. Shaffer recapped the previous votes.

Mr. Kusner said that the situation resulted from the problem of a discussion that is punctuated with motions and votes.  He said one normally votes for the motion one makes, and that he had wanted discussion of the plan Ms. Greeney had mentioned earlier in the evening, and wanted to understand whether Mr. Hubley's discussion really was about a one year plan.  He said that if so, they would be back again doing this next year and said he thought that would be a step backwards. 

Mr. Hubley said that that was a false characterization of his plan, and that his plan was the same as the three-year plan, but only involved paying for the first year of it.  Mr. Kusner apologized for having misspoke.

Mr. Weiss moved to rescind the vote to place two override questions on the ballot.  Mr. Hubley read a relevant section from a parliamentary procedure guide.  Ms. Awad seconded the Mr. Weiss' motion.

Mr. Weiss said that the vote on the $1.7 million figure had ended up doing what the previous vote on the $1.5 million figure had opposed.  He said that the results of that vote had meant that the Board rejected having two questions on the ballot. 

Mr. Hubley said no one had made a motion about one question versus two in the previous discussion, and that the answer to that question was implicit in their vote for the $1.7 million figure.  He said there was no subterfuge involved.  Mr. Weiss said the vote to defeat the $1.5 million was a vote against two options, and said that if Mr. Hubley was going to invoke the logic of that being “implicit” in the question, then it had to be implicit there as well.  Mr. Hubley said the dollar amounts in the two votes were different, not the number of questions, and said that they had voted down $1.5 million and voted up $1.7 million and that was two motions on the question already.  Mr. Shaffer recapped the votes again and said the motion on the table was to rescind the two questions on the ballot.

Ms. Greeney said she encouraged the Board to rescind the two questions, saying that it did not represent a solid plan and had not been vetted by other boards.  She said the multi-year plan would be hard to stick to and put into motion without solid support in the later years, and said she urged them to rescind.

Mr. Kusner said he had no need to defend the proposal, and that he had offered it for people to consider whether it was better or worse.  He said that if the majority seek a single question, that will be the result.  He said that he liked “the logic of the many” and letting the voters make the choice, and that that was an argument in favor of two questions.  He said an argument against two questions would be that it meant the lower one would automatically prevail.  He said the situation is analogous to an auction, and asking the public to bid on how much to increase taxes in order to provide services.  He said he hoped those who agreed with the higher amount would also agree to the lower amount,  and that he hoped a sufficiently adequate override would pass. [The last two sentences of this paragraph were edited for clarity on 3/22.]

Ms. Awad called the vote to rescind placing the $1.7 million and $2.5 million override amounts on the ballot.  Ms. Awad, Mr. Weiss and Ms. Greeney voted in support, Mr. Hubley voted to oppose and Mr. Kusner abstained.  The motion to rescind passed.

Ms. Awad asked if anyone wanted to make another motion to place two amounts on the ballot, or move to place one.  She said that last week they had approved the concept but not the language, and if there were to be a single question, they needed to vote on that now.  Mr. Weiss moved to place the $2.5 million override amount on the ballot.  Ms. Greeney seconded.   Mr. Kusner said that four had unanimously supported this at the last meeting, and that the fifth had now seconded this motion.  Ms. Awad said that she had supported it last week, with the notion of adding a second option, and that she agrees with the $1.5 million figure as an amount more likely to pass.  Ms. Greeney said that it was the Board's responsibility to use any override amount in a multi-year fashion and to avoid a shortfall, and said she opposes the 5.5% figure as unattainable.

The vote was called to put the $2.5 million override amount on the May 1st ballot.  It passed unanimously.

Town Manager's Report

Mr. Shaffer said that he RFP for Cherry Hill had been extended.  He said that an interested bidder hadn't been able to make the mandatory site visit, so the RFP has been re-advertised and with a site visit scheduled for Thursday.  He said the site visit was mandatory so that any potential bidder would have an understanding of Cherry Hill and an opportunity to visit the site.  He said that if a contract is pursued, that helps to make sure the other party enters into it with an understanding of the place and the Town's expectations.  Mr. Weiss asked what a visit to a golf course is like with a foot of snow on the ground.  Mr. Shaffer said that the weather was better last week, but that the visit is an opportunity to get a sense of the club house and to talk with the financial people.

Mr. Hubley moved "to adjourn the open meeting of the Select Board meeting" at 9:20 p.m.  There was no Executive Session.  [Clarifying details added to paragraph 3/22.]

The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 2nd at 6:15 p.m.

-- Stephanie O'Keeffe