Here's a point that has been maligned, or ignored altogether:

Many other communities found themselves in this situation long before Amherst. Why? Because in good years, Amherst had the sense to rebuild reserves that had been depleted in bad years. In recent years, we had rebuilt them to $9,000,000. We now have about $4,000,000, or about 5% of our budgets, which is the lowest amount recommended to maintain our good credit rating. That -- and having money on hand in case of unforeseen catastrophic events -- is their main purpose.

Using reserves routinely to balance operating budgets is arguably not wise. And indeed, we could have cut our budgets by $5,000,000 four years ago and sustained an even greater shock than we will face if next Tuesday's override is defeated. Instead, we chose to use reserves according to a careful and responsible plan devised by the Finance Committee, to cushion the skyrocketing increases in fixed costs, while at the same time making cuts in all the budgets. It was the Finance Committee's announced plan, endorsed by the boards and accepted by Town Meeting, that FY 07 would be the final year in which reserves would be used in this way.

We are where we knew we would be, and we're here much later than many other towns, thanks to the careful building and budgeting of our reserves. As we struggle to get our finances in order with a really new and promising approach, that should not be forgotten.

So: Thanks to the Finance Committee for their sound planning and guidance in the past, and for their sound three-year plan proposal now.

Please vote Yes on May 1!
Eva Schiffer

There are people in Amherst who genuinely cannot afford to pay the increased taxes from this override. Those folks should definitely not vote "yes".

But I would hope that other residents would be as honest with themselves about their ability to pay as they expect their town government to be with them about the town's finances. For example, what if you didn't play your Daily Number? How much would that save you every year? Many of us nickel and dime ourselves to death with similar little expenses that eventually add up to real money.

And for those folks who say "no more overrides" who are sitting on the sidelines, I say come on down to Town Meeting and tell us where you think that you can make the spending cuts. Some precincts still go a-begging for citizens to fill their allotment of seats.

I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but I'm wary of some of the fantasies that plague our town right now.

I can tick them off:
1) "Shutting down Cherry Hill will make a significant difference in our budget situation." It may be the right thing to do, but it won't make much of a dent.
2) "The schools have too many administrators." Only if you can abolish the regulatory state in one fell swoop.
3) "We overpay our employees at all levels." Some of those supposedly overpaid employees have engineered some of the greatest efficiencies over the years.
4) "If we simply starve the beast of town government, savings in providing services will magically appear." That ignores the ingenuity that's already been applied to the problem. At some point you can't wring any more out of the system.

Unfortunately, this has been an era in which the predominant national political culture fosters a belief that when it comes to the common good, we can get something for nothing. (That's why Massachusetts is now severely addicted to the regressive, ill-gotten proceeds from its state lottery.) But sometimes you just get nothing. I hope we don't have to find that out the hard way.

We have a system of town government that currently pleads with residents to come and participate. Voters who think that Amherst is wasting money and is "addicted" to spending owe it to themselves and their neighbors to come into Town Meeting and take a closer look. If you're so sure that Amherst can do better, it's time to put your mouth (and your mind) where our money is.

So Stephanie, when this Override goes down in the biggest rout in Amherst political history and the Amherst Taxpayers For Responsible Change broker a deal to allow one million out of reserves (mostly for the schools) thereby reserving $3.2 million for any emergencies, are you going to make flippant remarks?

And Eva, Northampton has a perfectly fine bond rating and they only have $2 million in reserves.

For the "no" proponents, I wanted to get some feedback on the basics - please correct if wrong:

1. The town's expenses have gone up a lot - health insurance, etc.
2. The town's income has gone down a lot - state and federal contributions
3. The schools have been made very large cuts in the last years, and we're now impacting basics - # teachers/room, etc.

It seems like the only solution is to a) reduce expenses, or b) increase income, or some combination. Seems like most of the "low hanging fruit" of a) has been picked. Unless we want to cut schools (i.e., one of the things most precious to us - standard argument, I'm a Wildwood parent) seems like b) is the only answer. Long-term increases of business income ain't here, so increasing taxes is the only choice?

Finally, this increase is about $50/month, right? I understand that many seniors and others can't afford this, but it seems like putting away $10 a week isn't super hard for many of us?

Doesn't everyone consider themselves a "taxpayer for responsible change"? The question is, what kind of change, under Amherst's current circumstances, can be considered most responsible?

Can dipping into our reserve funds (yet again) be considered a change, let alone a responsible one? Not in my view.

Similarly, does continuing to subject our school, governing, and public service bodies to year after year of budgetary uncertainty, constitute a "change" that can be considered responsible? I don't think so. How, under the stressful and restricting nature of those circumstances, can we expect any kind of creative and forward thinking strategizing for change to take place?

Can denying our new town manager, who was universally lauded during the hiring process as an innovative problem solver with a "can do" attitude, the time and means to implement a meaningful change of course for our town be considered a responsible tact to take? In my opinion, no.

Can forgoing the opportunity for an economic development director to help steer the process of long term revenue enhancement be considered a vote for responsible change? Again, not in my view.

No one wants to increase their tax liability. But there is a greater liability at risk here. It is the long term financial viability of our town.

A "Yes" vote for the override is not just a vote to address this year's budgetary shortfall. It is vote to set a particular plan in motion to begin closing the gap between existing revenue and recurring expenses. It is a plan that combines predictability (for town officials, employees and taxpayers alike) with meaningful opportunity for change. I, for one, am not willing to forgo that opportunity.

My vote on May 1st will be "Yes". And I will be casting it as a taxpayer for responsible change.

In reference to Larry's comment about Northampton's bond rating, it may be "perfectly fine" but it's lower than Amherst's, partly because of Northampton's lower level of reserves. See comparisons on this web page from the state Department of Revenue.
http://www.mass.gov/Ador/docs/dls/mdmstuf/Debt_OtherFinancialIndicators/moodybond.xls

Well I’m sure investors feel better about a city with a Mayor/Council form of government and slightly less reserves than they do about a town with higher reserves but with an antiquated Select board/Town Meeting form of government that spends money like a drunk sailor.

Right... like Springfield?

Gee, now there's a statistically valid comparison: Amherst and Springfield.

Although I have had a few folks say (the "We had to destroy the village in order to save it" routine) that perhaps Amherst would be better off with a Finance Control Board; although now that we have a Democratic Governor who would do the appointing, the results would be not nearly as positive.

What I would like to see is that everyone who wants to vote on the override would have to take a test first. The test would measure whether people understand Proposition 2 1/2 and the profound implications it has on our town budget. If they fail, they have no right to vote. I am appalled by the number of "educated" and "long-time" Amherst residents that don't even know how prop 2 1/2 works.

Prop 2 1/2 lies at the heart of our problem since so much of our revenue is derived from property taxes.

Willful ignorance is no excuse. LEARN what is means before you vote on Tuesday!

Agreed!

I had a conversation with Alan Kellman yesterday and he amazingly thought our "reserves" were at "Zero" (correct answer: $4.28 million as of this coming June 30). And that Prop 2.5 means local governments can only get a 2.5% increase in funds every year.

This other amazing misconception fails to consider "new growth" which in Amherst has provided an additional 2.5% per year for the past 5 or 6 years.

Thus giving our local (drunken sailor) government 5% increases to squander.

Have you noticed the subtle alteration in the details as we get down to the 11th hour? The ever-evolving talking points of the anti-override movement now include advocating spending DOWN our existing reserves and then hoping for a brighter tomorrow. 21st century "fiscal conservatism" as practiced by the Bush administration comes to Amherst! We have to be as straight with ourselves and our expectations of government as we expect our government to be with us. The reality is: there's no free lunch.

Town Meeting should be fun - close a $3.5 million structural deficit.

Actually Mr. Morse, we do not advocate spending down our "existing" reserves.

They are currently "certified" by the state at $3 million. But we know for sure two large, one-time lumps will arrive by June 30'th thus bringing them UP to $4.3 million.

So if we spend, say, $900,000 on July 1'st then they will be at $3.4 million or a tad HIGHER than they are at the moment.

Isn't math (mixed with semantics) fun?

And there, my friends, is the "No More Overrides" fantasy stated succinctly by Mr. Kelley. Everything's going to be fine. Like the old Laffer curve, we'll spend down our existing reserves and have MORE money afterwards. There is no fiscal crisis, folks,so just lay back and enjoy the ride. Just who is acting the drunken sailor here?

With that kind of crazed logic, why should we worry about little old Cherry Hill?

Folks, the anti-override message changes by the minute. Because they have no plan.

The reason we should “worry” about Cherry Hill is that over the past three completed years of town operation it cost taxpayers $285,000. If the Niblick deal had been in effect over those three years (call it a Three Year Golf Plan) the town would have profited $105,000. So the difference then becomes $400,000 or more than a few teachers (not to mention cops and firefighters).