(3/7/07)  The Select Board met Monday, March 5th.  Anne Awad, Rob Kusner, Gerry Weiss, Hwei-Ling Greeney and Robie Hubley were all present, as was Town Manager Larry Shaffer.

Ms. Awad opened the meeting with the public comment period.

Public Comment: Residential Exemption

Jennie Traschen said she lives in Precinct 3 and had questions regarding the override.  She said she is very concerned that it pass, but said that it's hard to advocate for the increase when anticipating its effect on people with low- and fixed-incomes. She said she wanted to ask the Board in a public way about supporting tax relief for those with lower appraised home values with a tax exemption.  She said she wanted to be able to talk about that with the public as part of the advocacy for the override.  She said that she and her husband ran some data from the Town web site to see the effect of a $100,000 exemption, and some taxes went up and others went down.  She said her question was to ask the Board to keep re-engaging on this issue and to keep the public apprised of its status.

Mr. Weiss said that the Board takes up the issue of a residential exemption every year, but because renters would be expected to pay more due to the tax increase on rental properties, they never approve it.  He said that the Governor has proposed a Homeowner Circuit Breaker, and if it passes, it would go into effect January 8, 2008 and would become a State income tax credit of $870 per year for 100,000 families.  He said its eligibility is based on both income and home value, and that people with a lot of money but lower-valued homes would not qualify, while some with higher-priced homes and lower incomes would qualify.

Mr. Kusner said he was a renter when he first arrived in the area and he said that the Governor's proposed expansion of the circuit breaker for housing costs would also benefit renters, and he said he hoped the Governor would consider increasing that as a tax deduction or credit.  He said that Amherst and other places could then create a residential exemption without it resulting in rent increases to tenants.

Ms. Traschen said she wants to keep the topic in the public eye.  She said she think it's a mistake to “let landlords have a stranglehold,” and said the increases couldn't necessarily be passed along to tenants.  She suggested that it's time to put social pressure on that section of the business community, and said that because they make a good living in Amherst and if they want to keep it a vibrant town, they should do their part.

Public Comment: Lincoln Ave. Traffic Calming

Phil Jackson said he couldn't be present for the timed agenda item on traffic calming and wanted to have his question answered during that later discussion.  He said he wanted to know what the timeline would be for a plan to move forward, and said that on September 25th he was promised action in 30 days and now it was March 5th.  He said that Ms. Awad has referenced 19 other neighborhoods' requests for traffic assessment and intervention and suggested that a policy was needed so as to “not just go in circles.”  He said that a 1989 memo from the previous Town Manager cited a need for a policy answer to such a problem, not an engineering answer. 

Ms. Awad said none of the current members were on the Board at that time and said she thinks they are working to make policy on this topic. 

Public Comment: the Middle Path

Bill Elsasser talked about Buddha and the middle path, and the two extremes of gated communities with Cadillac Escalades and apartments complexes with guns and drugs – to which Ms. Awad interrupted with an objection to categorizing all apartment complexes that way – and Mr. Elsasser said that it isn't about low income places versus high income places, and that there is a middle path.  He said that in a progressive community it is worth remembering that there is always pressure toward urbanization and the lower end.  Ms. Awad said his was a good and profound message that would bear well on their override discussion.

Town Manager Report

Mr. Shaffer said that earlier in the day, the judge in the Appeals Court decision of "Andrews and LaVerdiere versus the Town of Amherst" had found in favor of the Town.  He said the case was about the 2002 rezoning of less than 20 acres from Light Industrial to Flood Prone Conservancy, and the decision reversed the earlier Land Court decision and upheld the Town's right to rezone.  He said the decision also declined the plaintiff's request that the Town pay attorney fees.  He said that former Town Counsel Alan Seewald had represented the Town in that case and praised him “for a job well done.”

Mr. Weiss read a passage he said was most relevant:  “Viewing the facts in light of the stated principles, we determine that the zoning amendment passed by Town Meeting is valid. A municipality validly may enact and amend a flood plain zoning by-law so long as there is a ‘substantial relation between the amendment and the furtherance of the general objects of the enabling act.'”

Ms. Greeney asked if the ruling was final or might be appealed.  Mr. Shaffer said he didn't know what would happen next, and said public administration is like a soap opera in that nothing is ever over.  He said he would speculate that more could follow, and said that this decision was unequivocally good news.

Mr. Kusner said there is another case pending and asked the Town Manager's advice to the Board regarding it.  Mr. Shaffer said this decision “presumably assists the Town's position” in that case, and said that it doesn't hurt their case and might help it.

Ms. Awad said that it had been very expensive for the Town to determine the right of Town Meeting to determine land use, and asked if the Town might be able to recoup its court costs.  Mr. Shaffer said he would find out.

Special Municipal Employee Designation Letter

Ms. Awad said that their previous motion regarding the cover letter for the new Special Municipal Employee application procedure needed to be adjusted.  She said that an earlier vote had extended SME status to June 30th, while last week's letter said it expires July 1st.  She said that the new memo they would vote to approve says that applications for the status going forward are due by June 30th.

Mr. Weiss said that the Board expected to have brief conversations with each board and committee applying for the status and asked whether those will have to take place by June 30th.  Ms Awad said that the designation was in place until the Select Board changes it.  She said concerns about the election and Town Meeting wouldn't allow enough time for the applicants to come before the Board by June 30th, but that they should send in their application forms by then.  Ms. Awad said they would hear from the applicants during July and August. Mr. Weiss said he wanted to emphasize that all the boards and committees continue to have SME status, and that nothing has changed.

Ms. Awad said the new process would be simple, amounting to the submission of roughly a three sentence request to schedule a discussion with the Select Board.  She said it would be a “very collegial” meeting exploring the reasons why they need SME status, and said it would help everyone understand the pros and cons of the designation, and how it provides some protections and some exposure.

Mr. Kusner said he wanted to emphasize that the Select Board was committed to providing SME to those that need it, and that the process wouldn't be burdensome.  He called the process a “foundation of good government.”

The motion to accept Ms. Awad's March 5th clarifying memo was approved by a unanimous vote.

Mr. Hubley said that he thought this was the Board's third motion accomplishing the same thing, and called this “the most confirmed policy” ever by the Town.   Ms. Awad said that the small change required a re-vote, and said that the topic had been covered thoroughly at every meeting.  Mr. Kusner said that the policy wasn't changed, just the cover memo.

Consent Calendar

The consent calendar comprised approving the minutes of the February 26th meeting and granting a special liquor license to the Montessori School.  It was unanimously approved.

Tax Work-Off Guidelines Increases

Ms. Greeney said that the motion to pass the change in tax work-off guidelines had passed last week and wondered why it was back again this week.  Mr. Shaffer said that last week's motion suggested that the change required action by Town Meeting, but that it doesn't.  He said the Select Board has the authority to make the change, and that by doing so, the changes can be put in place and applications for the program can be given out immediately.

The re-vote on changing the income eligibility requirements of the senior tax work-off program to $36,531 for a single person and $54,797 for a married couple passed unanimously.

Committee Appointments

Mr. Weiss began his term in the rotating position of appointment clerk by recommending Carl Erikson be appointed to the Community Dialogue Task Force.  The appointment was unanimously approved.

Ms. Awad recommended a pitch for the committee and other potential members and made “a plea for gender equity,” as all three members so far are men.

Ms. Greeney said that now that the task force had three of five members, a quorum existed and they could start to meet.  She said she hoped more people would apply, and said the purpose of the group was to hold four community dialogue sessions – one each in North Amherst, South Amherst, East Amherst and at Town Hall – to engage renters and homeowners on their concerns about the Town's financial future.

Mr. Shaffer said that the Citizen Activity Form is available on the Town's web site and can also now be filled in and submitted on-line.

Ms. Greeney said that some of the boards and committees on the hard copy of the form were not active or no longer existed.  Ms. Awad said that dealing with that list might be a good summer project for two Select Board members.  Ms. Greeney volunteered, and Mr. Kusner said that he would be appointment clerk at that time and that that would also be part of his responsibility.

Traffic Calming for Lincoln Avenue Neighborhood

Ms. Greeney asked to hear a progress report from Mr. Shaffer and asked that Mr. Jackson's questions from earlier in the evening be addressed.

Mr. Shaffer said that much hard work was being done on the Lincoln Ave. issue, and that the Department of Public Works had conducted two traffic studies of the Lincoln, Sunset, North Hadley Road and Fearing area. He said they learned that traffic was greater on Fearing than Lincoln.  He said that they had communicated with the University about possibly cutting off access to there from Lincoln and Sunset, and that UMass doesn't support that option.  He said he had heard from others as well that that was not a preferable solution.  He said there were inquiries regarding the impact of changes on Lincoln to surrounding neighborhoods, and that there was new-found appreciation for the impacts and complexities of the issue.  He said it is not clear that there is a solution to the issue.  He said a proposal to create two traffic loops by diverting access at Fearing and Lincoln and at Fearing and Sunset was opposed by the Fire Chief because that is an area where rapid access for equipment is necessary.  Mr. Shaffer said the Fire Chief indicated that he might support the plan if the diverting structures were not permanently in place, but might have a bar that could be moved to allow access, and the cost of such equipment is being investigated.  There is a question of how this plan would affect McClellan Street.  He said there had been much communication with neighbors and that information suggests there is no “slam-dunk solution.”  He said that the Town would work more closely with the University to mitigate the problems created by pedestrian crossings on Massachusetts Avenue, which he said cause drivers to avoid that road and use the Lincoln Ave. route instead.  He said the issues are still being worked on and that he is happy to report back about it on a regular basis.

Mr. Weiss said he used to drive on Lincoln every day – at the speed limit – when he worked at the University.  He said he thought that speed was a greater concern than traffic, and said that traffic is a factor of where one chooses to live.  He said that addressing the speed problem might also affect the traffic issues, and suggested that people hate speed bumps and installing them might deter their use of the street.  He also suggested stop signs in one direction at Elm and the other direction at McClellan might slow traffic down.

Mr. Hubley said he had two suggestions he felt would have major impact and he said he hasn't heard addressed.  One was for overpasses or underpasses for pedestrians on Mass. Ave. and a chain link fence down the middle, which he said would encourage drivers to use 116 to Mass. Ave. to get to UMass parking.   The second was to put police on Lincoln to deter and ticket speeders.  He said that solution “seems so obvious” and said that the fines might pay for the police presence.  He said that with the Mutual Aid Agreement, the campus police could be asked to put patrols on that road.  He suggested that a random police presence would be a disincentive.

Mr. Shaffer said that there had been a stepped-up police presence there in the last couple of weeks, and that he and Police Chief Charles Scherpa would be asking for the University's help with this.  He said the pedestrian issue on Mass. Ave. was more complicated, and said there had been some discussion with UMass about it, but he didn't know the status.  Mr. Hubley requested that Mr. Shaffer find out for the Board.

Ms. Greeney said that she lives on McClellan and she said that there are four potential places for stop signs, which she listed as:  where Lincoln and McClellan meet, where Fearing and Allen meet, where Nutting and Fearing meet and where Fearing and Sunset meet.  She said that she thought stop signs might help, and asked about the process for determining the feasibility and legality of such signs.  Mr. Shaffer said that the requests typically go through public safety and public works, and he would be happy to put in such requests. 

Ms. Awad said she knew a similar street in Brattleboro, Vermont that people take to avoid the downtown, and she said that the installation of stop signs every 50 feet made a big difference for the neighborhood.

Mr. Kusner said the Public Works Committee had made extensive recommendations about stop signs and a “slalom” option, with which drivers didn't have to come to a complete stop.  He said that Guilford Mooring had called that idea a “text book solution,” and Mr. Kusner said it manages flow in a way that still allows police and fire to proceed at full speed in an emergency.  He said that Lincoln is also the major bikeway between campus and the center of town.  He said he hopes Public Works would focus on these simpler solutions including paint, one way signs and stop signs, in addition to things like diversion.

Ms. Greeney said that there are two potential places on McClellan for stop signs – where Beston meets McClellan and where Page meets McClellan. 

Mr. Shaffer said he would ask the Director of the DPW to look at all stop signs and how they work together.

Discussion of Town Budget and Override

Ms. Awad began the discussion by writing the dates of all the Mondays in March on the white board.  She said that by law, the Select Board had to determine the override amount and question by March 26th, and that they have been asked do so as soon as possible to assist with budget planning.  She said that she would like to aim for having the decision made by March 19th, and said she wanted to avoid March 26th because it is the night before the Town election, a night the Select Board traditionally does not meet.  She called that day “highly-charged” and said the Board could be more deliberative at the earlier meetings.

Mr. Weiss said he thought it was obvious that this is a flawed process that leaves the Town having to make budget decisions before the State has made its own.  He said the Board would like to wait as long as possible, but that every week's delay makes it harder for the schools, who he said have to send out pink slips the first week of May and plan for both a 1% budget and a budget with override funds.   He said that has to be weighed against the notion that waiting longer might lower the override number and increase its chance of passing.  He said he is inclined to push for earlier, and said he doesn't think there is anything else to learn between now and March 19th because the House will not vote in the meantime. He said if it was known that they would vote, he would want to wait, but as they are not, he said he wondered what they were waiting for.

Ms. Awad confirmed that there would not be new information from the State, and said the good thing about the extra time is that people know there is going to be an override election and that a community dialogue is occurring about the subject.

Mr. Weiss said the School Department wants to know earlier because they will create a budget based on the number the Select Board picks, and he asked again, given that request, what is gained by waiting?

Ms. Awad said she was concerned about the idea that budgets would be created based on override funds when the override might not pass.  Mr. Weiss said again that the schools and the town are both creating a 1% budget and another budget, so both are ready to go.

Mr. Kusner said that an override that collects a higher amount than needed in the beginning and banks the rest might not be acceptable to people, and said that passing a larger override and promising not to levy the full amount might be more attractive.  He said that different elements will come into focus in the coming weeks, such as the status of contract negotiations, not so much by March 19th, but by May 1st.  He said it is Town Meeting's prerogative to pass a budget, and if the Select Board is promising not to levy the full limit, many details need to be part of decision. He said he isn't advocating for that idea, but that some have requested it.

Ms. Greeney said she doesn't expect news of big increases from the State in the next month.  She said she thinks the part of the budget where the Select Board has input is on the municipal budget, and she said she thinks the Board should dive into that to see if there is room for efficiencies or enhancement.  She said the Board has not had the opportunity to do that together, and suggested that they do that at the meeting.

Ms. Awad asked if Ms. Greeney meant different spending priorities or different spending percentages.  Ms. Greeney said that as an example, the schools had cut 10% or more of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) in teachers and other staff, while she said the Town had cut 4% of its FTEs.  She said that was unbalanced, and she said she thinks that is because the Town is capable of generating funds, it uses them to preserve the Town structure and staff.  She said the Town needed to do its fair share of cutting and that the schools should be able to grow in a way that is not a cost to taxpayers.

Mr. Hubley said he was “somewhat in synch” with Ms. Greeney's sentiments and said he thought the 1% budget was not merely an exercise but a chance to give a flat starting point to all the budgets.  He said he thought they should evaluate the cut list to determine the necessity of different restorations.  He said he hasn't met anyone who didn't think the Fire Department cuts should be restored.  He said they should look at the schools' cut list and the town's cut list and determine what should be restored and then base the override on the amount required to do that.  He said that if there were a $7 million override over five years, that money would all get spent.  He said the Town has lost track of depleted funds and that restructuring needed to begin now, and that if Town Meeting has a lot of money at its disposal, it will spend it all.  He said we need to restore the reserves and the health care fund.  He said that what will happen in the future can't be predicted.

Mr. Weiss asked if there was agreement that they would look at the town budget in order to determine the override amount, considering the 3% recommendations and seeing if they could reduce that amount.  Ms. Awad asked if that could be done while staying on track to formulate an override recommendation.  Mr. Weiss said he thinks they have to do that, unless they just go with the Finance Committee's recommendation.

Mr. Kusner said that at a previous meeting, Mr. Weiss had suggested that he had recommendations for reductions in the Town budget to allow for a 3-year $2.35 million override rather than $2.5 million.  He said that was a 6% reduction, and that they could look at the proposals and memo from John Musante and see the differences in a plan that had 6% reductions.  He said that provides some idea of what to look at with an override question. He said it would be hard to go through the budget and decide what stays in and what should get cut, but that they could aim for a future goal of where to end up, such as having a leaner budget, and make some decisions toward that end.

 Ms. Awad said they could talk about the Town budget in terms of percentages but not departmental positions.  She said she had been considering a 1% budget with the override, and recognized that such a budget was not a happy situation but is reality, and would help rebuild reserves and make the town financially stable.

Ms. Greeney said she agreed with Ms. Awad's sentiments about a lean budget with an override.  She said that the Finance Committee's projections expect a $2.4 million shortfall in four years, and she cited the planned budget increases of the 5.5% in each of the next two years.  She said that the best-case-scenario for a meals tax would amount to $500,000 for the town, $300,000 by closing the telecom loophole, and $500,000 from the University, for a total of $1.3 million.  She said that still leaves a $1.1 million shortfall.  She said that gaining $1.1 million from economic development would require $70 million increase to the tax base, a number she attributed to Mr. Weiss.  She said that given that all those factors are “iffy,” she was reluctant to recommend an override because of the planned spending increases in the subsequent years.  She said that she wanted to know what size the increases would need to be in order to eliminate the year four shortfall.

Mr. Hubley said that Nancy Gordon had sent a survey to 300 town residents about the budget and the override, and that she had had 50% of them returned to her, which he said made it a meaningful statistical sample.  After some confusion on Mr. Hubley's part about whether the results he was citing involved percentages of responses or the number of responses, he said that in answer to a question about “how large an override would you support?” 55 people said $0, 35 people said $1 million, 33 people said $3 million, 8 people said $6 million and 3 people gave a different answer.  Mr. Hubley said this was evidence of strong public opposition to an override, particularly for a large override and said people were especially suspicious of an override that was supposed to last 3 to 5 years.  He said it would be wise to pass a one year override because of all the uncertainties for the state and the nation, and said they could result in large amounts of money for the Town. He said he had suggested to Mr. Musante a $1 million override over three years, which he said would result in $3 million rather than $2.5 million.  He said that Mr. Musante said a $1.5 million override would be the minimum needed in order to be useful.  Mr. Hubley suggested that there be an understanding up front that situation would be looked at again in a year.  He said if there is a budget basis for the override number, it is more likely to pass.

Mr. Weiss summarized the issues on the table as:  What are realistic figures for budget increases for the Town; and Mr. Hubley's question about wanting to know about a one-year versus a three-year override scenario.  Mr. Weiss said he wants to know the Finance Committee's rationale for the annual budget increase numbers.  He said that he ran the numbers with increases of 2% in year one, 4% in year two and 5% in year three and came up with $569,000 less than current budgeted amounts.  Mr. Kusner said that Mr. Weiss was wrong because his calculation didn't account for the cumulative affect over three years, which he said required that the amount be divided by six. 

Ms. Greeney said she was very interested in the rationale for the recommended spending increases.  She said her own quick estimate showed that the year four deficit could be eliminated if instead of the 14% increase over three years, which she said resulted from adding each year's percentage increase together, there were only a 9% total increase instead, which she said would be 3% per year.  She reiterated her questions about where the recommended increases come from and how to eliminate the shortfall with different percentage increases.

Finance Committee Chair Alice Carlozzi introduced fellow Finance Committee members Kay Moran and Andy Steinberg.  She said that the 3% increase in FY08 was an artificial number, meant to be restrictive and still requiring service cuts as part of the sacrifice to start the spending plan.  She said the increases in FY09 and FY10 are based on past experience with inflation.  She said that was approximately the amount necessary to keep up, and that it would still be very stringent.  She said that in regards to the timing issue, some years waiting for House budget information can be instructive, but with that not due until mid-April this year, there is nothing to learn by waiting now, and she said a decision was needed earlier.  She said the percentage increases are a very complex issue and that the schools are accepting those numbers, knowing that the school population is going down.  She said that the miles of streets in town are not decreasing, nor are the number of ambulance calls or the numbers of senior citizens being served at Bangs Center. She said that complicates the question of what sector of the budget “should get more.”

Mr. Musante reiterated the points about the recommended budget increases, saying that 3% was an artificial goal that entailed significant cuts in year one, regardless of an override.  He said that years two and three were planned with relative stability, and that 5.5% is historically the amount of growth needed to allow for level services.  He said the cuts in year one, followed by intended stability in years two and three, accounts for the different percentages.

Ms. Awad asked if it was correct that if the override passed, it would be collected in FY08, FY 09, and FY10 and that because of the planned spending limits, we were committing to not seek another override for three years.

Mr. Steinberg said that was correct and that a three year override addressed the question of stability of taxation and stability of planning.  He said that the Town has been dealing with the difficult situation of every year facing another round of cuts, and that each of the budgeting authorities goes through this wrenching process which requires tremendous energy.  He said that this plan would allow for planned stability and planned future growth.  He said that any override amount proposed to the voters includes the promise and commitment of restrained spending by all the budget writing authorities.  He said that commitment is implicit in the pledge to voters for the three year period.  He said that a long delay in determining the amount makes it difficult to get the other committees to commit in a way that enables all to make solid plans.

Mr. Shaffer said the 1% increase in the Town Manager's budget required about $1.1 million in cuts to meet this year's goal, due to the current financial situation and having taken $1 million from reserves last year.  He said those cuts make up the prioritized list of restorations and additions.  He said the 3% budget funds about 1/3 of that list, and would restore the public safety and firefighter cuts, and add an Economic Development Director to help the town's long term planning and revenue development.  He said the most important element of the multi-year proposal is that all the bodies have to commit to a three-year spending plan, which he said was very unusual in municipal government.  He said the plan takes care of all three years, rather than only dealing with the current year and throwing everything else out the magic window of future budget years.

Mr. Kusner said the discussion so far had focused on adhering to firm spending constraints.  He reiterated his earlier points about voters not liking the idea of collecting more taxes than are needed and banking the rest while enduring service cuts, versus a higher limit that the town promised not to fully collect.  He said he had been dissuaded from the feasibility of the stepped override he had suggested during a previous meeting's override discussion.

Ms. Carlozzi said she thought it would be extremely difficult to explain that the override would be a larger number, but that they would promise to only collect a smaller number.  She said she's afraid the original number that would require might be too daunting, and said that that was for the Select Board's judgment.

Ms. Greeney said she liked the plan for predictability and stability, and said the School Committee had to spend too much time on budget concerns when they should be focusing on education policy and curriculum.  She said she would be in favor of a multi-year plan, not a one-year plan.  She reiterated her concern for the projected shortfall in year four and her request for new spending percentage increases that would eliminate that.

Ms. Moran said that the further out the projections go, the more uncertainty they have, and that the Finance Committee's numbers represent their best estimates of what would be required for level services in FY 09 and FY10, along with spending limits.  She said that a five-year override had been considered, like the town of Arlington did, but the idea was rejected because the override amount was such a big number and there was too much uncertainty in years four and five.  She suggested that this not be looked at as a three-year override, but rather, an override with a three year spending plan.  She said that that plan includes spending limits, pursuing additional sources of revenue, and building up the reserves by not spending them, and by adding any extra money to them.  She said that at the end of three years, there is a deficit in the projections.  She said the last override was three years ago for $2 million dollars, and there was no plan attached to that.  This time, the proposal is for a $2.5 million dollar override with a plan for controlling spending and building the reserves, and trying to find additional revenues.  She said she isn't sure that additional fine-tuning would make it a better plan and that what the voters will do can't be predicted.  She said this represents the Finance Committee's most logical and prudent recommendation.

Mr. Weiss asked if the guidelines would be increased if there was a shortfall or surplus, saying that in FY09 for example, expenses might be higher, requiring digging deeper into the surplus.  He asked if expenses were $800,000 more than revenues, if the 5.5% would be lowered, even though that would mean dipping into the reserves.

Mr. Musante said that the spending cap is a cap and that individual pieces of the budget might go up or down but that the total spending is capped at a 5.5% increase.  He said there could be a question of dipping into the reserves if the revenues are lower than assumptions, but not if the expenses are higher.  As Mr. Musante explained this, Mr. Weiss realized he was mistaken and acknowledged that what he had asked didn't make any sense.

Mr. Hubley talked about his belief that humans don't have the capability to constrain their spending and cited examples such as the FY07 2.7% recommended increase last January and people's average credit card debt.  He talked about errors in projections not occurring in a linear fashion but in shapes that curve outward like a tuba.  He talked about inability to stick to spending rules and instability in the state and federal economies, and referenced the earlier-mentioned survey again about people's lack of willingness to accept an override beyond one or two years, and that the future can't be constrained. 

Ms. Greeney returned to her point about determining what annual percentage increases would eliminate the deficit in year four, calling it “simple arithmetic.”  She called the Finance Committee's recommendation of a plan for big cuts in year one and then level services in years two and three “a policy decision that I would like to make as a Select Board member.”  She said that if a half million in reserves had been saved rather than spent last year, the shortfall would be eliminated. She also spoke of people's personal debt and it being part of the national psyche.

Mr. Musante said he would be happy to run any scenarios she wanted, but not during the meeting.  He said that if the percentage increases are lowered in order to arrive at no projected deficit in year four, that would be an override that lasts four years instead of three.  He said that when thinking about the shortfall in year four, they should consider the other elements of the plan, and said that any one won't solve the problem but a combination of them would get us most of the way there.  He said that part depends on the Board's relative comfort level with those elements and how supportive they are of them, and how realistic they consider them to be.  He said they could contrast that with the existing projections, which assume no new revenue sources, for a sense of what it would take to overcome the gap.

Ms. Carlozzi said she wouldn't want to give up on the idea of an override or a multi-year plan, and that she doesn't want for the Town to keep doing the same thing with no plan beyond the current year.

Mr. Hubley said he agreed with planning but that he doubted the ability to guarantee where the money would go over a long period of time.  He said he believes the plan with a one-year override could pass, and then people could re-assess and see if we have gone further into debt, or if the Town fulfilled its promise to do what it said it would do with the money, and then they would know better what to expect the following year.  He called future projections “pure vapor.”

 Ms. Greeney said she disagreed with Mr. Hubley and that she thought Town Meeting and others would stick to a strong spending plan, because she said the alternative was bankruptcy, and that it was detrimental to all involved to go through the process of cutting the budget every year.  She said the schools need that energy to work on increasing staff diversity.

Mr. Kusner agreed with Ms. Greeney's and Ms. Carlozzi's points about planning.  He said that in the past, the Proposition 2 ½ caps didn't exist, and said that it could be conceivable to pass a giant override without taxing to its limit, and that the Town would then be in the position of the pre-Proposition 2 ½ days, but that voters probably wouldn't trust that model.  He said that the past is a good indicator of the future as far as inflation, and that there is a gap between real-world costs and the 2 ½ % increase allowed under Proposition 2 ½.

Vince O'Connor suggested that copies of all relevant documents such as a memo dealing with the implications of the Governor's budget and tax relief be made available on the table for members of the public attending the meeting.  He went on to talk about how the end of the month was too soon to know anything about the state budget, but that more will be known by the time of the override vote on May 1st, and that he thinks it will fail if there is too much uncertainty at that point, urging that the vote not occur at that time.  He reiterated his frequent point about pursuing special legislation to create a Fire Protection Services Enterprise Fund and how that would take $1.5 million off the Town budget, and much could be recovered from the University and other non-profits.  He said he sensed a reluctance by the Select Board to be “steamrolled into an early override,” and said that some officials should pledge to resign if the override fails.  He said it was “just foolhardy to pursue the course of action that has been essentially urged upon the Board from outside.”

Mr. Weiss said that the opening point of the discussion was the best way to craft the override given the Finance Committee's recommendation and the School Committee's request. He said that Mr. O'Connor weighs in one way, voters weigh in other ways, but that it is the Select Board's call and that is what they are working on.  He asked if it were known now that there were an extra $500,000 available to the Town, would that result in a different spreadsheet?  Mr. Shaffer said it would.  He said that projections are conservative by nature, and if you knew you had additional money, that would be different than projected money.

Mr. Weiss said that if the override were to be pursued and that new money shows up, he would want that portion of the levy to not be collected and to have the three-year plan recalculated accordingly.  He said that he pledged to voters not to collect the full $2.5 million if it wasn't needed.

Mr. Steinberg said that spending restraints were a key element.  He said that the pledge would be to adhere to the 3% increase even if there were to be additional revenues.  He said that would need to be a clear statement to voters from the different boards and committees.  Mr. Weiss said he agreed, but that didn't address his point.  Mr. Steinberg said that he personally would agree that returning significant extra revenue to the citizens should be part of the pledge, and suggested that the Select Board might consider communicating with other boards and committees to get their sense on that issue.

Ms. Greeney said she sees no potential for “wonderful surprises” in the near-term for potential new or unexpected revenue, and suggested that they move ahead and help to stabilize the planning process. 

Mr. Kusner said that if there were to be extra money in the bank, that would not be a reason to spend it.  He said he would like to see the Board pledge to individually and collectively pursue other sources of revenue, including economic development, which he said “may be real or fantastic,” in addition too agreeing to spending constraints.  He said that would prevent a false sense of being “flush,” and that maybe the full taxable amount would not be collected if it were not needed. 

Ms. Carlozzi said that if a $2.5 million override were to fail, we are no worse off than now and would have to then find a different process, including perhaps a one-year solution.  Regarding the question of what would happen if we got more revenue than expected, she said it would depend how much.  She said that if it were a relatively small amount it might not alter any plans, but if it were larger, perhaps the full levy amount wouldn't be collected.  She said that extra revenues are what can make the plan stretch into year four; and that the better the revenue, the longer the plan lasts.  Ms. Awad referenced the unexpected state aid that arrived after the last override, and Ms. Carlozzi called that “very unusual.” Ms. Awad said that such an occurrence would likely lead to a repeat of the discussions that took place then.  Ms. Carlozzi said that the difference is that now there's a plan, and they could look at how the plan might be adjusted.

Mr. Weiss said that the projected reserves for July are $4.2 million, and asked what they would be in FY11 under the Finance Committee's plan.  Mr. Musante said that with a $2.5 million override, they would be projected to be at $5.6 million at the end of FY10, which he said would put them over the Finance Committee target of 8% of operating revenue.  He said they are currently at just over 5%. 

Ms. Awad asked what other information the Board would need to help them in their decision.  Mr. Hubley said his idea about going through the current proposed 1% budget seemed to have been dropped as soon as he said it, and that he still thought it was a good idea.  Mr. Kusner said he thought a graph of the history of spending percentage increases might be helpful for the Board. 

Ms. Awad suggested that they come prepared to discuss and vote next week to set an amount.  Mr. Weiss said that they have voted on the date, and while some people feel they should wait longer, he said they should be prepared next week to stick to the May 1st date, or not, and determine the amount.  He asked if Mr. Musante could run more scenarios with different amounts.

Ms. Greeney said she wouldn't be at the meeting next week but trusted the Board to come up with the best solution.  She reiterated her concerns for the percentage increases leading to projected shortfalls in years four and five.  She also recommended consulting with the School Committee about the impact it would have on them if the Board were to schedule a later override vote, such as in June.  Mr. Weiss said that eliminating a $2.4 million shortfall couldn't just be done by the town and would need to involve the schools and libraries.

Mr. Hubley said he didn't think they should commit to determining an amount next week, but to commit by the 19th, which he said would allow them to do it sooner if they wanted to.  He said that would allow extra time for additional uncertainties.

Mr. Weiss said he wanted to make sure Ms. Greeney would have access to all the information, even though she would be away.  Ms. Awad said it was difficult for her to print legal sized paper and that she would prefer to get the information from the Finance Committee earlier than the afternoon of the meeting.  Ms. Carlozzi said the memo wasn't written any sooner.  Mr. Kusner said he agreed with Mr. Hubley about not committing to next week, but allowing that to happen if it does.  He said he respected Ms. Greeney's fiscal wisdom and would like her to be part of the decision making.

Mr. O'Connor suggested that the Board put their signatures on letters to legislators supporting tax relief and the other items in the Governor's proposal that they support, in order to make that support clear to voters.  He also suggested that they “put forth a bare-bones enterprise fund thing for fire protection services,” asking for a special act of the legislature, which he said the Select Board has the right to do.  He also said he disagreed with Ms. Carlozzi about not being worse off if the override fails.  He said that would sacrifice the credibility of the Town officials.  He said that an override vote set for June 12th would take their credibility into account, and that if that credibility is diminished it might never be recovered.

Mr. Kusner said he had spoken with our legislators on the fire protection enterprise find subject and that they thought it had promise, but he wasn't sure the conversation would go forward.  He said that their support would be necessary for it, and that support isn't there now.  He thought the idea about signing a letter regarding support for the tax relief measures was a good one.  He said the May date for the override was specifically chosen to have the information for Town Meeting before it works on the budget. 

Mr. Weiss said he would like to add to Mr. O'Connor's suggestion of support for the Governor's proposals.  He said the Governor's budget requires changes to the tax loopholes and won't advance without it.  He said they could sign on to five municipal finance initiatives sponsored and co-sponsored by Senator Rosenberg: local option meals tax, Group Insurance Commission, circuit breaker, regional school transportation, and local aid stabilization.  Mr. Kusner agreed, and said they should continue to pursue revenue aggressively.  Ms. Awad said she would draft the letter of support for next week. They voted unanimously to support sending a letter of support to the legislature. 

The meeting adjourned approximately 9:00 p.m.  The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 12th at 6:15 p.m.

-- Stephanie O'Keeffe