(4/12/07)  The Select Board met Monday, April 9th.  Gerry Weiss, Anne Awad, Alisa Brewer, Hwei-Ling Greeney and Rob Kusner were present, as was Town Manager Larry Shaffer.

Public Comment

Bill Elsasser spoke about a small tree on the northwest corner of North Pleasant and Amity Streets.  He said it has had a jagged limb for many months and he requested that the Town attend to it.

Mr. Kusner said he had received mail from someone referencing the Town's idling bylaw, and he encouraged drivers to consider the consequences of global climate change and to shut off their engines if they needed to idle for more than a minute.

Renew Seasonal Liquor License for Cherry Hill Golf Course

Mr. Shaffer requested the renewal of the seasonal license, which he said was an annual renewal and allowed the club to sell beer.  Ms. Awad asked if the Town would again be subcontracting that portion of the business to The Harp, or if the Town would manage it directly.  Mr. Shaffer said the Town would manage it directly, and not contract with The Harp or another vendor.

Ms. Greeney asked about the impact of the license in regard to bidding out the course's management.  Mr. Shaffer then provided the status update on the bidding contract that would otherwise have been included in his Manager's Report.  He recapped the situation about having received one bid for managing the course, how it had been rejected when it was understood to be a $5,000 offer but was reevaluated when the concept of an additional $25,000 payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) was identified.  Mr. Shaffer said that in subsequent conversations with the bidder – Tim Gordon, of the Niblick Corporation – it was determined that Niblick wanted to lease the Town's equipment for maintaining the course, and wanted a three-year contract. Mr. Shaffer said that due to the age and quality of the Town's equipment, he felt the lease proposal would be a point of future conflict.  He also said he preferred to structure the contract as one-year terms with the Town having the option to renew.  He said the course is an asset worth more than a million dollars and he wasn't comfortable giving up control of that asset for three years without the ability to revaluate the status at the end of the year.  He said that he was confident in the Town's management of the course by Barbara Bilz, and that the numbers look promising for this year.  He said that the rejection of the bid for this year doesn't mean he wouldn't seek new proposals next year.

Ms. Greeney compared the situation to leasing a site for a business such as a restaurant, and said it would require a large up-front investment.  She said the situation would be more conducive to a multi-year commitment to improve the opportunity to recoup the up-front investment.  She said that in the last fifteen years or more, the course had not had “a good year” or turned a profit, and cited a total deficit to the town of $900,000.  She said the large investment that would be required to promote the course and boost membership made the single year commitment impractical and asked if the Town Manager might consider a longer term.

Mr. Shaffer said the course could be evaluated on many levels, and one is by financial performance.  He said the Town's original purpose in acquiring the property was to preserve the land and to control the fate of that parcel, and said that its benefits as a golf course are secondary.  He said he understands that the Town and Select Board want better financial performance from the course, and that he feels the new management structure will help with that.  He said the course would never be a “blazing success,” but that it could be expected to have revenues exceed expenses. 

Ms. Awad said she took exception to Ms. Greeney's figures which she called “inaccurate.”  She said there are many different versions of Cherry Hill numbers, and suggested that those that involve its purchase price should also include the off-set of selling a portion of the land to the Pulpit Hill co-housing project.  She said it had ultimately been a modest outlay of funds to secure the land for the Town.  She said that it had been frustrating to sit on the Select Board and observe that the management of the course was contributing to its poor performance.  She said she appreciated Mr. Shaffer's swift action and focus on the course's administrative structure, and said it will make a tremendous difference.

The motion was made to approve the seasonal liquor license for Cherry Hill, and the vote to approve that was unanimous.

Special Municipal Employee Status – Regional School Committee

There was some discussion about how the committees whose status was to be considered at this meeting were inadvertently not notified in a sufficiently timely manner to be able to have their committee chairs be present, for which Mr. Shaffer apologized.  Elaine Brighty, Chair of the Regional School Committee was present and Ted Rising of the Zoning Board of Appeals was expected to arrive.

Mr. Weiss read the application statement from the Regional School Committee, which requested the SME status in order to allow anyone on the committee to stand for re-election without concern about whether they might need to represent a client before another town board, and to allow anyone to be able to serve on the Regional School Committee. 

Mr. Kusner noted that because the Regional School Committee includes members from other towns in the region, that meant making non-Amherst board members special municipal employees of Amherst, and said he wanted to make sure that was in order.  He also asked if the intention was to also grant SME to Amherst's elementary School Committee at the same time.

Ms. Brighty said that the whole committee does indeed receive the designation, and that she would be pursuing the status with the other towns in the region as well.  She said that the School Committee was separate from the Regional School Committee, but that the Board could grant that committee's SME status at this meeting if it so desired. 

Mr. Weiss referenced the discussion from the last meeting about the opinion from Town Counsel Gary Brackett that because School Committee members were not paid, they could have the SME designation, and Mr. Kusner said the Select Board was not eligible because they receive pay. 

The motion was made to grant SME to the Regional School Committee and it was approved by unanimous vote. 

It was decided that the School Committee should apply separately, and noted that the chair was not required to attend the meeting when the application is considered.  Ms. Brighty noted that that application would include the same language that the Regional School Committee's had used.

Special Liquor License – R&P Liquors

The Board voted unanimously to approve a special liquor license for R&P Liquors for the purpose of a fundraiser at Hampshire College.

Consent Calendar

There were no items on the consent calendar.

Secondhand Sales License – Switcheroo

The Board voted unanimously to approve a secondhand sales license for the business Switcheroo, operating at 23 North Pleasant Street, numbers 7 and 8.

Ms. Greeney asked if the new hospice thrift store also required a secondhand sales license, and Mr. Shaffer said he would find out.

Discussion of Open Burning Law

Mr. Weiss said that the recent Town Meeting warrant article about allowing the Town to impose penalties for open burning violations had been approved by the Attorney General's office, after that office fixed two problems with the law that Town Meeting had approved.  He said the original article incorrectly referenced MGL Chapter 148 and that it should have been Chapter 48, and said that the original law included provisions to jail those who broke the law, which is outside of the power of Town Meeting. 

Ms. Awad said she wasn't sure she appreciated the Attorney General's office fixing the problems, and would have preferred it come back to Town Meeting with explanation as to why that was necessary.  She said this outcome might lead to confusion. 

Mr. Shaffer said he would explain to Town Meeting that how the problem occurred, and that the article had been hastily written and not carefully checked, and that this was sloppiness to be avoided in the future.

Mr. Weiss said the law essentially extends the State law to weekends, enabling the Fire Chief to impose the law during that time when the State's Fire Warden isn't on duty.   Ms. Greeney said that she didn't remember the original article referencing jail as a penalty, and she said she thought she had been the Select Board member who presented the article at Town Meeting.  Mr. Shaffer said he thought the language was in the article, but that the focus had been on the fines.  Ms. Awad suggested writing up a description of what had happened, so that people understand the explanation even if they aren't happy about it.  Mr. Shaffer said that some Town Meeting members had suggested that the Chapter 148 reference should have been 48, and that there was “self-righteous insistence” that 148 was correct, and so he could understand Town Meeting members' frustration.  Mr. Weiss and Mr. Kusner noted that Town and State fines for violations were low.

Warrant Article 5 – Approval of Land Lease for Cell Phone Tower

Guilford Mooring, DPW Superintendent, explained that the reason the lease of land for a cell phone tower must come before Town Meeting is because the Town Manager cannot enter into a contract of longer than three years without that body's approval, and this proposed lease is for 20 years.

Ms. Awad asked if this was the beginning of the cell tower process, and noted that the tower at Ruxton had taken about two years to complete.  Mr. Mooring said this is the beginning and that the ZBA's permitting process would follow and there would be many hearings for gathering public comment.  Ms. Awad said that the rent seemed low compared to the Ruxton tower, but Mr. Mooring said it was the same and that both towers would yield approximately $60,000 per year if the full capacity for antennas on each is met. 

It was explained that the proposed site for the tower is at the transfer station, on the right hand side before the recycling shed, which raised some concerns about its visibility from Belchertown Road.

There was some question as to whether the Select Board was voting to put the article on the warrant or voting their support for it, and it was determined to be the latter.  There was discussion about the logistics of the process and how those compared to the Ruxton tower.  Mr. Mooring emphasized that the process was just beginning and that both the public involvement and permitting would come next. 

Ms. Greeney asked if the five-year contract with three five-year renewal options for a 20 year total was standard, and compared it to the earlier discussion of the golf course bidder seeking a three-year contract.  Mr. Mooring said that three years would not be enough to pay back the investment of putting up the tower. 

Mr. Shaffer said there are different levels to a process like this and that all have to be satisfied, and that the process is prescribed in the Town Government Act and is outside the Select Board's control.  He said that the ZBA is responsible for the regulatory aspect, the Select Board is responsible for the policy aspect, which he defined as “Does it make sense to have such devices in town?” and he said Town Meeting is responsible for the contractual aspect.  

Mr. Kusner noted that the Ruxton tower is not visually obtrusive, and Mr. Mooring said that it isn't tall enough to require lights.

Ms. Greeney asked for and received confirmation about the Select Board not approving the regulatory or contract issues of the tower.  The vote to support Article 5's proposed land lease for a cell phone tower was unanimous.

Warrant Article 6 –Atkins Corner Easement

It was explained that this article had been re-ordered and had previously been Article 6 but was now Article 7.

Mr. Mooring explained that this article allows the Town Manager to begin negotiations for and takings associated with the Atkins Corner project.  He said the design phase of the project was at its 25% completion level and that Mass Highway is reviewing the plan and would hold an official hearing on the subject in two months.  He said the plan involved temporary and permanent right-of-way takings, and said the project would begin in 2008 or 2009, and that it depended on money issues with the Federal Government.

There was discussion of the affected properties and owners around Country Corners Road, Mountain View Circle, and Atkins.  Ms. Greeney asked for some explanation of the process and the design that is being pursued.  Mr. Mooring said that two design charettes had been held several years ago, involving the public and the neighbors in the Atkins area.  He said three options were ultimately proposed: T intersections; a large kidney-bean shaped common with traffic around it; and two roundabouts, described as creating a dumbbell shape, and that the last one was the one selected.  He said they had done preliminary design work dealing with right-of-ways, and determining how to put in the roundabouts and the multi-purpose trail.  He said the design was submitted to Mass Highway, who will review it with a “fine-tooth comb” and make any necessary corrections.  Once the plan is at 75% completion, it will be submitted to them again, and there will be another public hearing.  He said the recent hearing on the matter was an informal one because it was held by the Town, not Mass Highway.  The process of checking the progress and the plans at the 25% and 75% intervals was compared to building a house, and assessing its progress, and adjusting accordingly to make sure everyone's expectations are being met.

There was discussion about how the takings would work and what the cost would be to the Town.  Mr. Mooring explained that preliminary agreement with property owners involve much swapping of land in the current configuration for equivalent pieces in the new configuration, and said that some pieces were being donated to the Town outright.  Mr. Kusner and Mr. Mooring explained that the phrase “take in fee” means to acquire all the rights to the land, but does not necessarily mean having to pay money to do so. 

Mr. Shaffer explained that as the curves of Route 116 get straightened, that process will require trading pieces of land back and forth between property owners and the Town until the project is completed.  In answer to a question from Ms. Greeney about a fuller accounting of what land was donated, traded or purchased, Mr. Mooring said that would be available at the 75% stage.  Mr. Kusner compared the process to the board game Monopoly. 

The vote to recommend the article was unanimous.

Special Municipal Employee Status – ZBA

Mr. Rising had arrived, so the Select Board took up the matter of the ZBA's SME application.  Mr. Weiss said he wouldn't read it aloud, as it was long, and Ms. Awad praised it as deserving the Pulitzer Prize.  She said that that had been some concern that the application didn't directly address the possibility that members of that board might need to testify or represent clients before other Town boards, and said she wanted to be sure they understood that part.  Mr. Rising said they did, and that that was a specific concern for two current ZBA members. 

Mr. Kusner talked about conflict of interest and conflict of influence and said that while SME doesn't address the latter, it one of the reasons the new process was created.  He said it would help to formalize the thinking on what needs to be considered before joining a board, and said that the best interests of the Town need to come before those of the individual.  He said personal associations might cause a hesitancy to regulate as strictly as a board might be required to do, and that the process will remind people that they must keep to those strictures.

Mr. Rising said that the ZBA takes great care in such issues and said that the Select Board and the Town could feel confident in that.  Mr. Kusner said that he wasn't suggesting that such strictures weren't being followed and said that the new process was meant to periodically remind people about them.  Mr. Kusner said “That's how we came down this road.  We may have come down the road unnecessarily, but here we are.”

The vote to approve SME status for the ZBA was unanimous.

Disposition of Olympia Drive Parcels

It was explained that this had been Article 7, but was now Article 38.

Nancy Gregg, Chair of the Housing Partnership – Fair Housing Committee, explained that this article had already been approved by Town Meeting, and was coming back to Town Meeting again because it had not reached the legislature in time for them to vote last fall.  She explained that the article involves two parcels of land:  parcel A will be released from its Chapter 97 conservation status and transferred to municipal use for the purpose of constructing affordable housing, while parcel B will be put into Chapter 97 status for conservation. 

The Board discussed the options for trying to get this article dealt with at Town Meeting as quickly as possible, so as to not be in danger of it missing the legislature's vote again.  It was decided that they would schedule it for a Special Town Meeting to be held during the Annual Town Meeting, so that it need not wait for adjournment of the Annual in order to take effect and move forward.  This article would be left on the Annual warrant, and dismissed when necessary because of its inclusion on a Special warrant.  Ms. Gregg agreed that anything that could hasten the process would be good.

The vote to support the article and to include it on a Special Town Meeting warrant was unanimous.

Discussion of Override/Budget

Mr. Weiss referenced a handout about the residential and commercial property tax ratio that he had created but forgot to put his name on it. 

Mr. Shaffer said that he had consulted with Finance Director John Musante and Community Services Director Roy Rosenblatt, and came up with some adjustments to the restoration list he had presented at the last meeting.  He said that the original budget numbers had relied on the use of $87,300 in ambulance fund fees to offset decreases in the SAFER (firefighter) grant, and the Finance Committee pointed out that that usage was not consistent with the 3% guidelines that had been prescribed. He said it was important for the Town to be in strict compliance with the themes and philosophies put forth by the Finance Committee, and said that to deviate from those, and to use techniques to increase the budget that are inconsistent with those philosophies does not set the proper tone for how the Town should behave in order for the three-year plan to be effective.  He said the new list includes the $87,300 in its projections and does not use it to increase the budget by that amount.

Mr. Shaffer said the Community Development Committee had requested $45,000 in funding, down from last year's appropriation of $116,000, but higher than his original recommendation of $25,000.  He said his new restoration list funds the full $45,000 request.  He also said that his new list included funding for the Cambodian outreach worker to expand that position's weekly hours to 17.5, and that additional funding from other sources would be sought to expand the hours further. 

Mr. Shaffer said that these changes from his previous restoration list would be funded through a reduction in the Employee Health Insurance account and other benefit adjustments.

Mr. Weiss asked Police Chief Charles Scherpa to come forward to answer budget restoration questions.  The Chief mentioned first that he had heard the earlier question about whether all shops that sell secondhand goods need a secondhand sales license, and he said that the answer is yes, and they also need to have records of where they purchased the used items.

Mr. Weiss asked Chief Scherpa to compare his restoration priority of $1100 for training for Communications Center personnel.  The Chief said emergency medical phone training is mandatory for those individuals.  He said that department has previously been short-staffed, and that the necessary overtime resulted in the department overdrawing its overtime budget by $20,000 - $30,000 per year.  He said that with more staff this year, the overtime problem wasn't expected to be as bad.  He said this wasn't his choice for where to make a cut, but that the department has no programs to shut down and nothing proactive from which to cut, because those things are already gone, and the department is down to basic response.  He said that he has managed his budget without exceeding it for the last seven years, and he'll try to do that again.  He praised the Town Manager for getting to know and understand the needs of the Police Department, and Chief Scherpa said he would go along with Mr. Shaffer's recommendations.  The Chief said that training is a priority in policing, because officers have the legal ability to take a person's life, and to make sure that doesn't happen erroneously, they need to undergo every type of training possible.  He said he couldn't make the judgment of whether it was more important to train an officer or to train the person answering the phone to be able to respond to a caller's emergency medical questions.

Mr. Weiss noted that turnover is common and that having the police force at full staff was difficult.  He wondered if given that they were accustomed to being down one or two people per year anyway, if it would make a big difference to budget for one fewer position.  Chief Scherpa said that the force always carries 51 officers, but that they are now at 50 and one is on medical leave and another is still in the police academy, so the effective force is 48.  He said that each one removed from the budget puts them further below the normal level.   

Mr. Kusner and Mr. Weiss talked about disparities between different lists of what the top priority was for the Communications Center.  Chief Scherpa said that it is not an option to not replace a Communications Center person who is out, and that requires overtime.  He said there is one person in training for that department and expected to be at full ability in September or October, and the Chief hopes that will cut down on their overtime spending.  He said that money can be cut from the budget now and he would try to manage it, but the nature of policing was such that you couldn't stop doing the work when the budget limits were hit and then wait until the next fiscal year starts.  He said Amherst has been fortunate to not have any huge case that expends lots of resources, and mentioned the Laci Peterson case in California, which he was told had cost that department $1.4 million to investigate.  He said he tries to be reasonable with his budget and that some years he has unspent money to return to the Town.

Mr. Kusner asked about the possibility of regionalizing the 911 call centers.  Chief Scherpa said that it could work very well and is the way of the future, but that too many complications stand in the way currently to make it feasible in the near term.

Ms. Greeney asked for explanation of a budget line called “Extra Help (civilians/matrons: more officers on the road.)” Chief Scherpa explained that part-time, non-benefited civilians monitor prisoners and handle insurance and accident reports, and he said that is less expensive than using officers for those purposes.  He said it helps by keeping the officers on the road, and cuts down on their overtime. He said additional assistance is sometimes sought from the parking personnel and the dog officer, because it is a requirement to monitor prisoners who are unstable, female or minors.  He reiterated to the Board that he is very frugal with the budget.  Ms. Greeney asked if that funding was the same as last year, and the Chief said he thought it had been reduced from previous totals of $19,000 - $20,000.

Ms. Greeney asked about an administrative assistant being changed from part-time to full-time, and said she objected to such an increase in times of significant personnel cuts.  Chief Scherpa said that actually that the position is currently full-time and would be cut to part-time under a 1% budget, and that this recommendation would restore it to full-time again, but would not be an addition. 

Mr. Weiss asked about some changes to the numbering of the prioritized restorations, and Chief Scherpa said some of it was a misunderstanding, others were seeking other funding such as through grants, and still others would simply have to be purchased if they were needed.  He reiterated his faith in Mr. Shaffer understanding the department's needs.

Ms. Greeney wanted to know about the shift in funding sources for the changes on the Town Manager's restoration list, and asked if taking $95,000 from the Health Insurance budget was considered new revenue.  Mr. Musante said that the revised list represents a budget reduction that was not in the January list, and called reducing the amount in the benefits portion of the budget “a bit of a crapshoot.”  He said that unlike many groups, the Town's health insurance program has had a decline in enrollment and lower claims.  He said that was partially because of the pricing increases, which cause fewer people to choose to participate, and the encouraged migration to HMOs and more cost-effective plans.  He said such efforts should continue to save money, and said that this proposed reduction is in the context of nearly $2.8 million for this portion of the budget.

Ms. Greeney asked if the reduction was able to be made because more was known about the health insurance situation now than had been known in January.  Mr. Musante said they can now see the effects from the January 1st open enrollment period, and were more comfortable that the reduction was appropriate.  Ms. Greeney asked if this money should be considered one-time revenue and not be used for the operating budget, and Mr. Musante said that it is not revenue – it is an expenditure reduction.

Mr. Kusner asked about the recommendation to bring the Cambodian outreach worker's hours up to 17.5 from 10.  Mr. Musante said the position had been full-time until FY07, when the Town reduced its funding to pay for 27.5 hours, which was a reduction of 10 hours.  He said that Health Department Director Epi Bodhi had pursued grant money to fund the other 10 hours and keep the position at full-time.  He said that Mr. Shaffer's January budget had reduced the Town funding to 10 hours, and that this list seeks to restore 7.5 hours, which, if approved, would amount to a cut of 10 hours from current funding levels.

Mr. Kusner asked Ms. Bodhi about her success with the grant funding.  She said she is still working on funds to pay for this year, and hopes she will be successful next year.  Ms. Awad said the position has existed for ten years and asked if an updated needs assessment had been done.  Ms. Bodhi said it had not, but could be done.  Ms. Awad noted that it would be a large undertaking, and Ms. Bodhi said the situation is difficult when a commitment has been made to the worker and the community being served.  Ms. Awad agreed, but compared the situation to TB nurses, and said that one becomes bound by staffing.  She said that it is easy to witness the good things that staff do, but if the situation were to be triaged, would it be found that this is where the need is?

Ms. Bodhi said she is working to have the position focus on the needs of the larger newcomer population, rather than just the Cambodian community.  Ms. Greeney supported the notion of a needs assessment, noting that the population shifts over time, and that her work has shown her that Amherst now has a large Hispanic population.  She said that a needs assessment would help determine what other populations need assistance.  Ms. Bodhi said there is a large Spanish population and an emerging Portuguese population from Cape Verde.  She said one difference is that no one else is serving the Cambodian population locally, while others are addressing the needs of the Spanish population.  She said there is little service focused on the Portuguese population, and that she has pursued grant opportunities to fund Latino and Portuguese programs, but has not been successful.

Ms. Greeney asked if the $87,000 in ambulance fund money no longer being used for Mr. Shaffer's restorations would now be new revenue, and if so, if it would be considered one-time revenues or could be used for operating expenses.  Mr. Musante said it is not new revenue.  He said the ambulance funds had been identified at the time the grant was applied for to fund a portion of the Town's share of the firefighter costs, and said that it had been determined that using those funds put them over the 3% budget cap.  He said that a 3% budget had been established, and then the ambulance funds were added on top of that, making for a 3.5% increase.  He said the new recommendation is revised downward by $87,000 to keep the Town budget from exceeding 3%.

Mr. Weiss asked if the override were to pass, would more money be able to be put aside because this $87,000 in ambulance fund money was not spent?  Mr. Musante said no, the assumption is for the Town budget to be capped at 3%, not 3% plus $87,000.  Mr. Kusner said that without that $87,000, it is a 3% budget, and with the $87,000 it is a 3.5% budget.

Finance Committee Chair Alice Carlozzi said that situation was similar to that of the library budget, and the consideration to use overdue fines as a funding source.  She said that would put spending at higher than the guideline.  She said that once they realized the ambulance fund fees represented the same situation, they started to wonder about it. Ms. Greeney asked if that counted as new revenue, because the money would be coming in and the budget would be growing.  Ms. Carlozzi said she didn't think it was correct to consider that available money because it has to go into the general fund to be appropriated.

Mr. Shaffer said it amounted to a small issue considering the size of the total budget, but that it was critical to adhere to the strictest interpretations of the budget principles, and that people know that if they pass the $2.5 million override, the Town will be adhering to those rules.

Ms. Brewer said that she understood the explanation to be that the spending must be capped at 3% no matter where the money comes from, as opposed to 3% from taxation plus ambulance fund money.  Mr. Shaffer confirmed that and said if additional money were washed through the general fund and then spent, the entire arrangement would collapse.

Mr. Weiss asked Mr. Rosenblatt about the Community Development Committee's $45,000 request, saying that the amount was based on a 1% budget, and that they had not requested a higher restoration amount from a 3% budget.   Mr. Rosenblatt said the committee wasn't counting on the override, and that they made their recommendation based on baseline need.  He said that they couldn't “in good conscience” recommend less.  He said that money for social services isn't on the Town Manager's restoration list, so they knew not to expect anything additional without the support of the Select Board or Finance Committee.

Mr. Weiss wanted to know if it was true that the recommendation involves withdrawing funding from seven previously-funded agencies, and halving the support for the remaining five, and if that was done based on expectations of available funding from the Town or the needs of the agencies.  Mr. Rosenblatt confirmed the first part of the question, and said that he would prefer full funding.

Mr. Weiss talked about the recent negative publicity surrounding the Amherst Survival Center, and said that he knows some fixes have been made there, but improvements are not yet completed.  He asked about anticipating a funding request from the floor at Town Meeting.  Mr. Rosenblatt said the current plan is to reduce their funding by 50%, and said that they have a new Director, new Board President, and have made many of the changes requested by the Town in its funding contract.  He said there has been a lot of positive change there and that reducing their funding doesn't help that cause.

Mr. Weiss spoke of the Survival Center's reserves, and said the committee had discussed that in a tight budget year, it would be difficult to ask Town Meeting to give money to agencies with significant reserves.  He said that the Survival Center was “not held to the same yard stick.” Mr. Rosenblatt said the committee had discussed that, and that there were different opinions about it, and that this was the committee's decision.  Mr. Shaffer said that he had met with the Survival Center's new Director and Board President and had been kept apprised of the changes the organization had made.  He said he was pleased with their efforts and said that the community will see dramatic improvements there.  He said he isn't sure that all the rough days are behind them, but that they are doing good work and have improved their policy and board.

Ms. Brewer asked about the Community Development Committee's process of communicating with the agencies about the possibilities of reduced or eliminated funding, noting that this was a concern at last spring's Town Meeting.  She asked if they had been advised about Mr. Shaffer's January recommendations for a 1% budget, and what those funding implications were.  Mr. Rosenblatt said the committee hadn't made its intentions public yet, because they didn't want to set the agencies up for a “rollercoaster” of expectations regarding the funding recommendations of different entities.  He said that now that it had been discussed at the Select Board meeting, he would begin to make those calls.

Mr. Shaffer said that he had met with all the agencies at a Human Services council meeting and spent a couple of hours talking to them about the funding cuts and the reasons for them.  He said he has also met with the Community Development Committee.  Mr. Rosenblatt said the agencies are aware of the situation and know to anticipate less funding than they had received in the past. 

Mr. Kusner called the human services funding cuts “Draconian.”  He then asked the Police and Fire Chiefs if their departments had trouble with the roads at night where the painted lines had worn away.  Chief Scherpa said that was a concern and that the roads need more re-painting but he understands how the Town's budget situation prevents that.

Ms. Brewer asked about the reimbursement situation for the SAFER grant.  Mr. Shaffer said it is the Town's position that reimbursement would not be necessary, but that the contracting agency may disagree.  Mr. Weiss asked if it is an all-or-nothing situation, or if we might be able to accept funding for fewer than the five firefighter positions included in the grant.  Mr. Shaffer said there was no specific reference in the grant to partial implementation.  Fire Chief Keith Hoyle said that he thought it funded either zero firefighters or five.

Ms. Greeney asked about how the Town plans to pay the salaries of the five firefighters once the SAFER grant funding is phased out.  Mr. Musante explained that grant support goes from 100% to 0% over five years, and that corresponding Town funding of the positions goes from 0% to 100%.  He said that full funding of those positions will be achieved from ambulance fund revenues, ambulance rate increases, and other Fire Department fee increases, with the balance coming from taxation. He said that FY08 overlaps the second and third year of the grant, which he said began in January 2006.

Mr. Shaffer said that Fire Department revenues have been increasing steadily, and that 41% of the Department's total budget comes from outside revenues, such as ambulance fees and contracts with other towns, rather than taxpayer dollars, and the hope is that that will continue to increase.  He said the ambulances give the Fire Department a unique capability to generate revenue, and that the Town intends to be strategic in taking advantage of that opportunity.

Ms. Greeney expressed concern about the plan to use ambulance fees for this purpose, noting that those fees are already being tapped to pay for other items as well.  She wanted to know if there were financial projections to support this. Mr. Musante said that the projections do map out how the positions get funded as the grant declines.  He said the cost of the five firefighter positions is $300,000 and that by year five, the ambulance fund contributions are projected at $125,000, which he said was a realistic allocation.  He said the balance would come from taxation and other fees, and that this had all been considered when the grant was first pursued.

Ms. Carlozzi emphasized that last point, saying that when the grant was first accepted, it was explained to Town Meeting that this was an obligation being incurred, and that the Town might need to re-order its priorities when the time came to provide 100% funding.  She said that point has been repeated, and she said she hoped it would not come as too big of a surprise to anyone.

Mr. Weiss asked Mr. Shaffer to talk about the proposed addition of an Economic Development Director in the midst of so many positions being cut.

Mr. Shaffer said the multi-year plan is intended to take the Town forward.  He said it has a number of components:  advocating for additional funds from the State, such as the meals tax; pursuing new financial partnerships with UMass and the colleges, and increasing the tax base.  He said that for Amherst, economic development means tax base preservation and enhancement.  He said the Town needs to make a concerted effort to secure the tax base and move forward to secure tax base enhancements consistent with the Master Plan.  He said an Economic Development Director is needed to facilitate advocacy within the organization and to identify projects that make sense for the community and promote them internally; to be a source of grants and other resources; and to identify entities to partner with in order to ensure the Town's economic development message is shared across a group of organizations with similar objectives.  He said Amherst hasn't had a formal economic development profile, and that it needs to have one in order to promote economic development in an appropriate fashion to meet the needs of the community.

Mr. Kusner referred to a recent legislative breakfast in Northampton, and said that there are major efforts in the State to encourage economic development.  He wondered if the State might provide direct funding to municipalities or to nearby State agencies to support such efforts and reduce the Town's obligation.

Mr. Shaffer said the Town will seek partners both for assistance in achieving goals and funding that effort.  He cited the local educational institutions as partners with shared interests in the Town's success.  He said they have not been directly approached for funding yet, and said the Town needs to get its house in order first and then ask educational institutions to join us.  He said he is already talking with the University about potential economic development opportunities.

Mr. Kusner said that if that position were to be created, it probably wouldn't be until the fall, and asked if it would be realistic to lower the budgeted amount accordingly.  Mr. Weiss noted that funding the position might require less support from taxation next year, due to new partnerships.  Mr. Shaffer agreed, saying that the expectation would be for that position to show productivity quickly.

Ms. Awad reiterated her concern from the last meeting about an entrenched staff position lacking the dynamism to respond to a changing landscape, and again suggested that consultants with specific skills be sought for specific projects.  She suggested funding the position as half time in order to pursue grants, and suggested using the other half of the funds for projects that were relevant and doable in the next 18 months.

David Bryne (last name may not be correct) said he is new to town and lacks emotional investment in Amherst, and suggested that gave him perspective.  He talked about reading in the newspaper about people wanting to increase commercial development to lower taxes.

Mr. Weiss said the goal was not directly to have lower taxes, but to add to the tax base and have less need for overrides.  Mr. Kusner said the focus is on creative and intellectual development, not just commercial development.

Mr. Bryne went on to cite the tax base percentages of residential property for local towns, along with their tax rates, and said that higher commercial property percentages don't correspond to lower tax rates, and said that Towns with less commercial development have lower tax rates.  He said that the workers at the kinds of large-scale commercial retail that's in Hadley don't tend to live in that Town, and said that the more entrepreneurial small businesses that Amherst might attract would be more likely to have their owners and workers live in town, which he said would cost money because they would add kids to the schools. 

Mr. Kusner said that a couple of decades ago, most people living in town worked at UMass, but said that has changed and Amherst has become more of a bedroom community.  He said a desire to recapture the sense of people living and working here might be part of the push for development.

Mr. Bryne said he used to live in Vermont and that a study there had shown that the more industrial and commercial development a town had, the higher its taxes.   He said that people don't want to believe that because it doesn't seem to make mathematical sense.

Mr. Weiss referenced his handout and said that state-wide, commercial tax levies were up 20% over the last six years, while in Amherst they were down by 3%.  He said that the State residential levy was up 52% while Amherst's was up 45%.  He said the numbers show that commercial development has helped, and that he had been prepared to find that it isn't helpful, and said that it depends how you look at the numbers.  He said that in the last six years, the commercial assessment in Amherst has gone up 28% and in Northampton it had gone up 32%, and their commercial tax levies were unchanged.  He said they started at a higher level, and hence their residential taxes are lower than Amherst's, even though they are increasing at the same rate.

Mr. Bryne said that in college towns, the colleges take up a lot of land and require a lot of services.  He reiterated his point about it not making sense to pay $60,000 for an Economic Development Director since that person's work would serve to raise taxes.

Ms. Brewer said that the purpose was not to achieve a lower tax rate, because tax rates are tied to assessments which she said vary from town to town.  She said those promoting an Economic Development Director aren't doing so to have lower tax rates, but because the community wants to have a high level of services and wants to be able to pay for them without having repeated overrides.

Mr. Bryne continued to reiterate his previous points, and Mr. Kusner thanked him for his comments.

Mr. Weiss asked Mr. Musante about the importance of the proposed restoration of a staff person to work in the Finance Department and at the Central Services desk.  Mr. Musante said the department has had two staff positions cut in the recent years, and said that despite efficiencies in technology and other processes, there is still a basic number of people required to bill out and collect Town taxes.  He said the department's non-personnel costs are very small, so people are the only things to cut.  He said the department is experiencing what it would be like to have one fewer member already, due to a recent promotion of a person to another department, and he said that loss is straining the remaining staff. 

There were questions for Mr. Musante about how and where employee benefit cost were accounted for in the document they had, and Mr. Musante noted that the $60,000 proposed for the Economic Development Director would include both salary and benefits for that position.

Ms. Greeney asked about the possibility of combining the information technology, human resource and finance functions of the Town with those of the schools.  Mr. Shaffer said that some communities have been successful in doing that, and that it works best in situations where the offices are combined, the same software is shared by both bodies, and they share personnel policies and procedures.  He said the different bodies often have different systems and work cultures, and that complicates such a merger.  He said it can be done, but couldn't be undertaken frivolously, and said that such mergers are not always successful.  Mr. Musante said he has seen some such mergers succeed and others fail, and also emphasized the complexity of such a change and how much thought would be required beforehand.  He said that being part of a Regional school district would further complicate the situation.

Mr. Weiss proposed a short break.

When they returned, it was decided that the members would present their proposed restoration lists one at a time. 

Ms. Awad began and her proposal was to not restore the two police officers, which she said were recent additions, and said the force has two current vacancies, so she would leave them vacant rather than laying people off.  She suggested a general unspecified reduction to the public safety budget and said that the 11 Police Department restorations on the list didn't balance with the needs of other Town department.  She supported the additional $20,000 for human service agency funding on the new list, and proposed restoring 2 DPW laborers/truck drivers, whom she said were cut two years ago.  She said she would add one of the vacant building inspector positions, and negotiate with UMass to pay for it, which she later explained would be outside of the budget process and shouldn't have been included in this discussion.  She said she questioned the addition of the Economic Development Director position, and would not restore the Cambodian outreach worker's hours.  She said she wouldn't increase any Bangs Center positions until some consolidation is considered.  She said she had concerns about restoring the War Memorial pool, but would do so with the proposed infrastructure investments there, and she said she supported restoring the Finance Department/Central Services position.

Ms. Greeney said she did not have a list and preferred to concentrate on the big picture and putting any new revenues in reserves. 

Mr. Kusner said he deferred to Ms. Awad's expertise regarding the Cambodian outreach worker, and that he thinks the Mutual Aid Agreement with UMass might reduce the need for police overtime or restoring the two officer positions, for which he too preferred attrition over layoffs.  He said he would add line painting of roads to the list, but suggested that perhaps surpluses form this year's snow plowing budget might pay for that instead.  He said he would also restore trail maintenance, which he said was the Conservation Department's top priority.  He said those additions totaled $21,000, and suggested reducing the Police Department's budget by that amount to cover those additions, or using some of the savings from a fall start for the Economic Development Director's position requiring less than the full year's funding. 

Mr. Weiss proposed restoring half of a Senior Center position cut last year and eliminating the newly-proposed restoration to the Cambodian outreach worker to pay for that.  He said he would restore the Outdoor Challenge and special needs programs to LSSE, and add another $10,000 to the Human Services funding.  He said that totaled more than $18,000 in additional money, and that he would reduce the Police budget by that amount to fund those additions.  He was also interested in doing line painting with leftover money in the FY07 budget, and Mr. Shaffer said he would look into that.

Ms. Brewer said she was in agreement with the Town Manager's list up through the pool restoration.  She said she would not restore the Finance Department/Central Services position or the additional hours for the Cambodian outreach worker.  She said she would add money to the human services funding, restore the Outdoor Challenge and special needs programs at LSSE, and the wading pools, and would have added the line painting if that hadn't already been discussed.

Mr. Kusner said that he didn't mention some of the community services restorations, because he thought that Ms. Weiss or Ms. Brewer would do so, and he supported those also. 

There was discussion of the Cambodian outreach worker and the benefits of having that position serve a wider community, and Ms. Awad reiterated the point about the Health Department needing to do a needs assessment in that area. 

Discussion then turned to identifying the areas where the Select Board members were in agreement regarding restorations.  Ms. Greeney asked Mr. Shaffer if she should recuse herself as she had for past discussions of human services funding, and he said he thought she should.

Ms. Awad then withdrew from the meeting, saying she felt ill.

There was discussion on how best to identify and summarize the Board's recommendations in order for the Finance Committee to consider them and include them in the report to Town Meeting members, considering the deadlines and logistics of that process. 

Ms. Greeney came back and expressed frustration for having to miss out on so much of the discussion, and requested that the Board determine its human services recommendation separately so she could participate in the other areas.  Her request was accepted, and once she left the room again, the remaining members quickly determined that they could all support a total recommendation of $65,000 for the human services funding. 

Discussion continued on parsing out the areas of agreement and disagreement.  Ms. Brewer noted that they were just dealing with the restoration list now, and that that wasn't the same as voting to recommend the different elements of the 1% budget, which the Select Board would have to do at some point.  She said that if that process involves a similar amount of change, the restoration priorities could look different later on.  Mr. Weiss said “that would be a nightmare” if they had to discuss the details of the 1% budget, and Mr. Kusner responded that “it will be a nightmare.”

Discussion returned to the Economic Development Director position, whether it would require full-funding if the person wasn't in the position for the full year, and how the position will be expected to generate revenue off-setting its own costs in future years. 

Ms. Greeney said she thought it undercut next year's budget situation to not fully fund that position this year.  She said that revenue generated by that position should be put toward eliminating the projected budget shortfall in four years.  She said that to expect the position to be self-supporting amounted to “double counting,” and defeated the purpose of creating that role, stressing that its goal is revenue enhancement. 

As they continued to tally their areas of restoration agreement, Andrew Steinberg of the Finance Committee noted that the proposed restorations represent a statement to voters of what they are being asked to support by passing the override.  Mr. Weiss agreed, and said that the discussion emphasizes what the stakes are, and that all of these restorations being discussed will be eliminated if the override doesn't pass.  Mr. Kusner agreed, and said that his willingness to have this discussion was to put these details in front of the public, suggesting they were “crafting the bill of lading” for the override.  Mr. Weiss noted that this was their first opportunity for a public discussion of these issues, and said that the discussion had been long but worthwhile. 

Mr. Shaffer summarized the Select Board's points of agreement as adding $20,000 to the human services funding, $12,000 for Puffer's Pond trail maintenance, $6,000 for the LSSE special needs program and $4,900 for LSSE's Outdoor Challenge program, for a total of about $43,000.  He said their points of agreement on cuts to enable that funding were: $9,000 from additional hours for the Cambodian outreach worker, $10,000 from the police budget, $10,000 from the Economic Development Director funding and $14,000 from the Finance Department/Central Services position, totaling $43,000.

Mr. Weiss proposed noting the areas where they didn't have agreement, such as his Senior Center restoration, and the items from Ms. Awad's list, as footnotes in their recommendation.

The motion to approve the Town Manager's April 9th restoration list, with the Select Board's amendments, and to include other items as footnotes was approved 4-0, with one absent.

Mr. Steinberg said that the School Committee has been very clear that they want to make voters understand what the implications of not passing the override will be for the schools, and he said that the Select Board's discussion was in that same spirit. 

Signing the Annual Town Meeting Warrant

There was discussion of Article 15, which pertains to matching Town law to State law regarding how a regulatory board member's absence from a hearing affects that person's ability to vote on the matter if they were able to watch a tape of the hearing.  Mr. Kusner said that if this change is to be pursued it should come from the Select Board, rather than the Conservation Commission, which is the body that put this on the warrant.  There was much discussion about the options for dealing with Mr. Kusner's concerns, including removing the article from the warrant, moving it to the end of the warrant, adding it to a Special Town Meeting warrant instead, or leaving it where it is and discussing it accordingly at Town Meeting.  It was decided to move it to the end of the warrant.

After some discussion of typographical errors, the motion to sign the warrant with the articles ordered as indicated was approved with a vote of 4-0, one absent.

Recommendations of Warrant Articles 1 through 4

Without discussion, the Select Board voted 4-0, one absent, to recommend Article 1 – for Town meeting to hear reports that are not in written form.

Without discussion, the Select Board voted 4-0, one absent, to recommend Article 2 – to transfer funds to pay unpaid bills. 

There was brief discussion about Article 3 – to authorize a maximum additional exemption of up to 100% for qualifying tax payers. Mr. Musante explained that this allows for increasing the tax exemptions for senior citizens, blind people and veterans up to 100%, hence doubling the original exemption amount.  He said that around 125 - 130 individuals benefit from the exemptions in Amherst, and that for FY06, those exemptions totaled $115,000, of which $27,000 was reimbursed by the State.  The Select Board voted to recommend this article 4-0, one absent.

There was brief discussion on Article 4 – to allow the Treasurer to enter into banking relationships requiring the Town to maintain minimum account balances in return for certain banking services.  Mr. Musante said there are no such relationships currently and that the Town's banking had just been renewed through a competitive bid process.  He said that approval of this article provides flexibility to allow him to pursue the best banking deals for the Town.  The Select Board voted to recommend this article 4-0, one absent.

Committee Appointments

Mr. Kusner said he had no appointments for this meeting, but expected to have “quite a few” at the next one.  He said there are a large number of vacancies on the Agricultural Commission and encouraged people to apply.  He also encouraged people to apply for the Planning Board, noting that that Board is appointed by the Town Manager.  He encouraged people to fill out a Citizen Activity Form on-line, or to do so at the dedicated computer terminal on the third floor of Town Hall.  He said there are a numerous vacancies to fill and many terms will soon be expiring.

Mr. Kusner said he would try to go through the list of Select Board liaison positions for each committee, so that Ms. Brewer can become involved.  Ms. Brewer said she would like to talk about what the Select Board's policy is regarding the liaison role.

Support PHENOM

Ms. Brewer said she wanted to disclose that her husband works for UMass, and then described a lobbying organization called Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts (PHENOM.)  She said it was formed to try and unify the efforts of students, faculty, staff, alumni and community members lobbying the legislature.  She said that UMass and Holyoke Community College were active participants.  She held up a post card which she said is available all over town, and has a section to sign and send to the Governor.  She said she brought it to the meeting because she thought it was a good way for the community to show support.

Mr. Kusner noted that he also works at the University, and said that the State Ethics Commission has determined that as faculty and faculty spouses of such institutions, they are not conflicted to be part of such broad-based support efforts.  Ms. Greeney noted that her husband works for Holyoke Community College, and Mr. Weiss noted that his stepson does as well.

The Select Board voted to sign the card and send it to the Governor in support of PHENOM's principles.  The vote was 4-0, one absent.

The meeting adjourned at 10:53 p.m.  The next Select Board meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 23rd at 6:15 p.m.

-- Stephanie O'Keeffe